Glass :E^z:^ 
 
 Book l2)_A2^— 
 
PRICE SIX CENTS. 
 
 I 
 
 SPEECHES 
 
 OF 
 
 HON. WILLIAM H. SEWARD, I 
 
 HON. LEWIS CASS, 
 
 SUBJECT OF SLAVERY. 
 
 DELIVERED IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES. MARCH, 1850. 
 
 NEW YORK: 
 STRINGER & TOWNSEND, 222 BROADWAY. 
 
 1850. 
 
Z:fS3 
 
 ■Ssz 
 
 T H E 
 
 LlVIItl AUTHORS OF AMERK 
 
 F^IRST SERIES. 
 
 BY THOMAS POWELL, 
 
 At'THOK OF •' LlVINO Al TIIOKS OK EnGLANS," &C. 
 
 1 VOL. MUSLIN. PRICE $1 00. 
 
 Ill this iHtevesting ami liiglily niuusing production, the distinctive li 
 cliaracteristics of tlie follou'inn- Aiiiericaii writers arc portrayed, viz : 
 
 COOPER. j IIALLECK. DANA. 
 
 EMERSON. ^''J'^YANT. | MRS. EIRKLAI 
 
 WILLIS. [oNmSoAV. ; " OSGOOD. 
 
 FOE. I SPARlvS. I MISS FULLER. 
 
 NOTICES OF THE PRESS, 
 
 " To deal, thus, under liis ovrir name in Avholesale criticism of liviug author: 
 act of a bold and independent spirit ; there be those, who invariably attril 
 personal criticism, whether pro or con, to personal prejudice or favoritism. 
 not we ; for -we think that Mr. Powell has playetl his difficult part boldly ; 
 depcndently, and we believe that his real opinions are here set down in all Ik 
 and we further think tliat the b&ok itself t3stifies to that honesty of pnrpo; 
 a critic, Mr. Powell is evidently a man of very delicate and refined taste, 
 exceptions and drawing close definitions ; not, however, to the exclusion ol 
 views at times, llis defect, we think, as a judge, lies in his ssizing at once, 
 strongly, on his author's Aveak point, whatever it be, and suffering his kC' 
 ception of that deficiency to blind him to the presence of other and counterba 
 merits." — Era. 
 
 " Mr. Powell's criticism is best characterized as a free and flowing styb 
 illustrated by anecdotes of the literati, and plentifully mingled with piqu 
 tracts from the writings of the authors in question. To the public generally 
 prove an attractive volume, for the author has been well seconded by ptiblis 
 the admirable style in which they have brought out the volume, the paper 
 and binding, being unexceptionable." — jyeal's Gazette. 
 
 " In these days of literary toadyism, it is really refreshing to find an aiith^ 
 ciently independent and bold to express his unbiased opinion of the incntal 
 of contemporary writers. Mr. Powell, is evidently of this class of inde; 
 thinkers. And a most capital work he has presented to the American peo 
 is a production that stamps him at once a scholar able to discern the fau 
 peculiarities of authors, without indulging in abuse and spleen toward the 
 wlio have in the present volume came under his searching analysis and cr 
 The style of Mr. Powell, is exceedingly piquant and readable, and from a < 
 examination of the book, we are inclined to think his views of our litera 
 honest and mainly correct." — Picayune. 
 
 STRINGER cSi TOWNSEND, Publisht 
 222 Broadway, Nev 
 
SPEECH 
 
 HON. ¥1. H. SE¥ARD 
 
 IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES, 
 ON THE ADMISSION OF CALIFORNIA. 
 
 [DELIVERED MARCH 8, 1850.] 
 
 ^Mr. Seward arose and said — Mr. President : Four years ago, California, scarcely in- 
 habited and quite unexplored, was unknown even to our usually immoderate desires 
 except by a harbor, capacious and tranquil, which only Statesmen then foresaw would be 
 useful in the Oriental Commerce, o( a far distant, if not merely chimerical future. 
 
 A j-ear ago, California was a mere military dependency of our own, and we were cele- 
 brating, with enthusiasm and unanimity, its acquisition, with its newly discovered, but 
 yet untold and untouched mineral wealth, as the most auspicious of many and unparal- 
 leled achievements. 
 
 To-day, California is a State, more populous than the least, and richer than several of 
 the greatest of our thirty States. This same California, thus rich and populous, is here 
 asking admission into the Union end finds us debating the dissolution of the Union itself. 
 
 No wonder if we were perplexed in the changing embarrassment, no wonder if we are 
 appalled by ever increasing responsibilities ! No wonder if we are bewildered by the 
 ever augmenting magnitude and rapidity of national vicissitudes ! 
 
 Shall California be Received? Far myself, upon tny individual judgment and con- 
 science, I answer Yes ! For myself, as an instructed Representative of one of the States 
 oi that one even, of the States, which is soonest and longest to be pressed in commercial 
 and political rivalry by the new Commonwealth, I answer. Yes ! Let California come 
 in. Every new State, whether she come from the East or from the West, cominw from 
 whatever part of the Continent she may, she is welcome. But California, that comes 
 from the clime ^vhere the West dies away into the rising East — California which bounds 
 at once the Empire and the Continent, — California the youthful Queen of the Pacific ia 
 her robes of Freedom, gorgeously inlaid with gold, is doubly welcome. 
 
 And now I enquire, First, why should Cnlifornia be rejected? All the objections are 
 founded only in the circumstances of her coming, and in the organic law which she presents 
 for our confirmation. 
 
 First. California comes unceremoniously, without a preliminary consent of Con o-ress 
 and therefore by u.surpation. This allegation, I think, is not quite true, — at lea'st not 
 quite true in spirit. California is not here of her own pure volition. We tore California 
 violently from her place in the confederation of Mexican States, and stipulated by the 
 treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, that the territory should be admitted, by States into the 
 American Union as speedily as possible. 
 
 But the letter of the objection still holds. California did come without a preliminary 
 consent by Congress to itorm a Constitution. But Michigan and other States presented 
 themselves in the same unauthorized way, and Congress \r,iived the irregularitv and 
 sanctioned the usurpation. California pleads these precedents. Is not the plea sufficient? 
 But it has been said by the Hon Senator from South Carolina, (Mr. Calhoun) that the 
 ordinance of 1787, secured to ^Michigan the right to become a State, when she should 
 have sixty thousand inhabitants. Owing to some neglect, Congress delayed to take the 
 census ; and this is said, in palliation of the irregularity in the cdse of Michifran. But 
 California, as has been seen, had a treaty, and Congress, instead of givinfj previous con- 
 sent, and instead of giving her the customary territorial government, as they did to Michi- 
 gan, failed to do either, and thus practically refused both, and so abandoned the new 
 community, under most unpropitious circumstances, to anarchy. California then made a 
 constitution for herself, but not unnecessarily and presumptuouslj'^, as Michigan did. She 
 made a constitution for herself, and came here under the law — the paramount law of self- 
 preservation. I think she stands justified. 
 Indeed, California is more than justified. She was a Colony — a military Colony. AJI 
 
Colonies, especially military Colonics, are inconjrruons with our political system, and they 
 are equally open to coriiipiion and exposed to oppression. They are, therefore, not more 
 nnfortunate in tlieir own proper condition than fruitful in dantjers to the present Demo- 
 cracy. California then acted wisely and well in establishing self-government. She de- 
 serves not rcliukc, but praise and admiration. 
 
 Nor does this ol)jcction come with a good grace from those who offer it. If Calii'ornia 
 were now content to receive only a territorial charter, we could not agree to grant it 
 without an inhibition of slavery which in that case being a federal act. would render the 
 attitude of California as a territory even more offensive to those who now repel her, than 
 she is as a State, with the same inhibition in the Constitution of her own voluntar}' choice. 
 
 The second objection is. that California has assigned her own boundaries,without the pre- 
 vious authority of Congress. But she was left to organize herself, without any loandaries 
 fixed by previous law, or by prescription. She was obliged, therefore, to assume boun- 
 daries, since without bcundries she must have remained unorganized. 
 
 A third objection is, thai California is too large. I answer; first, there is no comraoa 
 standard of States. California, though greater than many, is less than one of the States. 
 Second, California if too large, may be divided with her own consent, which is all the 
 security we have for reducing the magnitude and averting the preponderance of Texas. 
 Thirdly, ihe^boundariesof Californiaseem not at all unnatural. The territory circumscribed 
 is altogether contiguous and compact. Fourth, the boundaries are convenient. They 
 embrace only inhabited portions of the country, commercially connected with the port of 
 San Francisco. No one has pretended to oHer boundaries more in harmony with the 
 physical outlines of the region concerned, or more convenient for civil administration. 
 
 But to draw closer to the question, what shall be the boundaries of a new State, con- 
 cerns, first, the State herself, (and California, of course, is content ;) secondly, adjacent 
 communities — Oregon does not complain of encroachment, and there is no other adjacent 
 community to complain ; — thirdly, the other States of the Union. The larger the Pacific 
 States, the smaller will be their relative power in the Senate. All the States now here 
 are Atlantic States and inland States, and surely they may well indulge California in the 
 largest liberty ef boundaries. 
 
 The fourth objection to the admission of California is, that no previous census had been 
 taken and no laws prescribing the qualifications of suffrage and apportionment of Repre- 
 sentatives in Convention existed. 
 
 I answer, California was left to act ab initio. She must begin somewhere without a 
 census arid without such laws. The Pilgrim Fathers began in the same way on board the 
 Mayflower ; and since it is objected that some of the electors in California may have been 
 aliens, I add that the Pilgrim Fathers were aliens and strangers to the Commonwealth of 
 Plymouth. 
 
 Again, the objection may well be waived if the Constitution of California is satisfactory, 
 first, to herself, and, secondly, to the United States. As regards the first of these, not a 
 murmur of discontent has followed California to this place ; and, as to ourselves, we con- 
 fine our inquiries about the Constitution of a new State to four things : First, the boun- 
 daries assumed, and I have considered that point in this case already. Second, that the 
 domain in the State has accrued to us — and it is admitted that this has been properly done. 
 Third, That the Government shall be rej>ublican, and not aristocratic or monarchical. 
 In this case the only objection is that the constitution, inasmuch as it inhibits slavery, is 
 altogether too republican. Fourth, That the representation claimed shall be just and equal. 
 No one denies that the population of California is sufficient to demand two representatives 
 on the Federal basis ; and. Secondly, a new census is at hand, and the error, if there be 
 one, will be immediately corrected. 
 
 The fifth objection is, that California comes under Executive influence, first in her com- 
 ing a-s ixfrec State, and second in ber coming at all. The first charge rests on suspicion 
 only, and is peremptorily denied, and the denial is not controverted by proofs. I discard 
 it altdgeiber. The second is true to the extent that both the late President and the pre- 
 sent President advised the people of California, that having been left without niiy civil 
 government, under the military supervision of the Executive, witliout any autliority of 
 law whatever, the adoption (if a con.'stitution, subject to the approval of Congress, would 
 be regarded lavorably l)y the Piesideiit. 
 
 Only a year ago it wus complained that the exercise of the military power to maintain 
 law and order in C.ilil'oniia was a fearlul innovation Eut now the wind has changed, and 
 blows even stronger from the opposite quarter. May this Republic never have a President 
 commit a more -erious or more dangerous usurpation of power than the act of the present 
 eminent Cnief Magistrate in endeavorin<' to induce the Legislative authorities to relievo 
 him from the exercise of militiiry power, by establishing civil institutions regulated by 
 law, in distant provinces. Rome would have been standing this day, if she had had .such 
 Generals and such Magistrates. 
 
But the objection, whether true in part, or even in the whole, is innmaterial. 
 
 The question is not what moved California to impress any particular feature on her 
 constitution, nor even what induced her to adopt a Constitution at all ; but it is whether, 
 since she has adopted a Consritution she shall be admitted into the Union ? 
 
 I have now reviewed all the objections raisod a^aia>t the admission of Califnrnia. It is 
 seen that they have no foundation in the law of nature and of nations. Nor are they found in 
 the Constitution ; for the Constitution prescribes no form or manuf^r of proceedin? in the 
 admission of new States, but leaves the whole to the discretion of Conjjress. " Congress 
 may admit new States." The objections are all merely formal and technical. They rest 
 on precedents which have not always, nor even generally, been observed. 
 
 But it is said that we ought n >w to establish a safe precedent for the future. I answer 
 it is too late to seize this occasion for that purpose, the irregularity complained of being 
 unavoidable. The caution should have been exercised, 1st, when Texas was annexed ; 
 2d, when we waged war airainsl Mexico; or, 3d, when we ratified the Treaty of Gauda- 
 lupe Hidalgo. Again : we may establish precedents at pleasure. Our successors will 
 exercise their pleasure about following them, just as we have done in such cases. Third, 
 States, Nations and Empires are apt to be peculiarly capricious, not only as to the time, 
 but even as to the manner of their being born, and as to their subsequent political changes. 
 They are not accustomed to conform to precedents. California sprung from the head of 
 the nation, not only complete in proportions and fully armed, but ripe for affiliation with 
 its members. 
 
 I proceed to state my reasons for the opinion that California ought to be admitted. The 
 population of the United States consists of natives of Caucassian origin, and exotics of the 
 same derivation. The native mass rapidly assimilates to itself and absorbs the exotic : 
 and these, therciore, constitute one homogenous people. The African race, bond and 
 free, and the aborigines, savage and civilized, being incapable of such assimilation and 
 absorption, remain distinct, and owing to their peculiar condition constitute inferior masses, 
 and may be regarded as accidental if not disturbing political forces. 
 
 The ruling homogenous family planted at first on the Atlantic shore, and, following an 
 obvious law, is seen continually and rapidly spreading itself Westward, year by year, sub- 
 duing the wilderness and the prairie, and thus extending this great politicial community, 
 ■which as fast as it advances breaks into distinct States for municipal purposes only, while 
 the whole constitutes one entire contiguous and compact nation. 
 
 Well established rules of political arithmetic enable us to say, that the aggregate popu- 
 lation of the nation now is 22 millions; that ten years hence it will be 30 millions — 20 
 years hence, 38 millions — 30 ,'ears hence, 50 millions — 10 years hence, G4 millions — 50 
 years hence, SO millions — and 100 years hence, 200 milhons. But in the ads-ance of 
 population, the Pacific will far exceed what occurred on the Atlantic coast, while emi- 
 gration is outstripping the estimates on which these calculations are based. There are 
 silver and gold in the mountains and ravines of California. The granite of New England- 
 is barren. 
 
 Allowing due consideration to the increasing density of our population, we are safe ir» 
 assuming that long before this mass shall have attained the maximum of numbers indi- 
 cated, the entire width of our possessions from the Atlantic to the Pacific ocean, will be 
 covered by it, and be brought into social maturity and complete political organization. 
 
 The question now arises, shall this great Feople, having a common origin, a common 
 language, a common religion, common sentiments, interests, sympathies, and hopes, re- 
 main one political State, one Nation, one Republic, or it shall be broken into two conflict- 
 ing and probably hostile Nations or Republics ? There cannot ultimately be more than 
 two, for the habit of association already formed, as the interests of mutual intercourse are 
 forming, and the central portions if they cannot all command access to both oceans, will 
 not be obstructed in their approaches to that one which offers the greatest facilities to 
 their commerce. 
 
 Shall the American people, then, be divided ? Before deciding on this question, let 
 US consider our position, our power, and capabilities. The world contains no seat of Em- 
 pire so magnificent as this, which, while it embraces all the varyinir climates of the Tem- 
 perate Zone, and is traversed by wide expanding lakes and long branching rivers, offers 
 supplies on the Atlantic shores to the overcrowded nations of Europe ; while on the Pa- 
 cific coast, it intercepts the commerce of the Indies. The nation thus situated, and en- 
 joying forest, mineral and agricultural resources unequalled, if they are endowed also 
 with moral energies adequate to the achievement of great enterprises, and favored with a 
 government adequate to their character and condition, must command the Empire of the' 
 Seas, which alone is real Empire. We think that we may claim to have inherited physi- 
 cal and intellectual vigor, courage, invention and enterprise, and the systems of Educa- 
 tion prevailing among us open to all the stores of human science and art. 
 
 The Old World and the Past w^ere allotted by Providence to the pupilage of mankiad 
 
under the hard discipline of arbilravy power, quelling the violence oi" human passions. 
 The New World and the Future seem to have been appointed lor the maturity of man- 
 kind, with the development of self-government operating in obedience to reason and udg- 
 ment. We have thoroughly tried our novel syftem of Democratic Fe ieial Government 
 ■with its complex yet harmonious and effective combination of distinct local elective agen- 
 cies for the conduct of domestic affairs, and its common, central elective agencies for the 
 regulation of internal interests and intercourse with foreign nations, and we know that it 
 is a system eqnallj' cohesive in its parts and capable of all desirable expansion : and that it 
 is a system, moreover, perfectly adapted to secure domestic tranquility, while it brings into 
 activity all the elements ol national aggrandizement. 
 " The Atlantic States, through their commercial, social and political affuiities and sympa- 
 thies, are steadily renovating the governments and the social constitutions of Europe and 
 Africa. The Pacific States must necessarily perform the same sublime and beneficent 
 functions in Asia. If, then, the American people shall remain one individual nation, the 
 ripening civilization of the West, after a separation growing wider and wider for four 
 thousand years, will in its circuit of the world meet again and mingle with the declining 
 civilizatii.n of the East, on our own free soil, and a new and more perfect civilization will 
 arise to bless the earth, under the sway of our own cherished and beneficent Democratic 
 institutions. We may then reasonably hope for Greatness, Felicity and Renown excel- 
 ling any hitherto attained by any nation, if standing firmly on the continent, we loose not 
 our grasp on the shore of either ocean. Whether a destilv so magnificent would be only 
 partially defeated, or whether it would be altogether lost" by a relaxation of that grasp 
 surpasses our wiscom to determine, and happily is not important to be determined. It is 
 enough if we agree that expectations so grand' yet so reasonable and so just, ought not 
 to be in any degree disappointed. 
 
 And now it seems to me that the perpetual unity of our empire hangs on the decision 
 of this day, and of this hour. California is already a State — a complete and fully appointed 
 State. She never again can be less than that. She can never again be a Province or a 
 colony. Nor can she be made to shrink and shrivel into the proportions of a federal de- 
 pendent Territory. California then henceforth and forever must be what she is now — a 
 State. The question whether she shall be one of the United States of America has de- 
 pended on her and on us. Her election has been made. Our consent alone remains sus- 
 pended, and that consent must be pronounced now or never. I say now or never ! 
 Nothing prevents it now but want of agreement among ourselves. Our harmony cannot 
 increase while this question remains open. We shall never agree to admit California 
 unless we agree now. 
 
 Nor will California abide delay. I do not say that she contemplates independence ; 
 but if she does not it is because she does not anticipate rejection. Do you say that she can 
 have no motive ? Consider then her attitude if rejected. She needs a Capital, a Legisla- 
 ture and Magistrates, she needs titles to that golden domain of ours within her borders — 
 good titles too, and you must give them on your own terms, or she must take them with- 
 out your leave. She needs a Mint, a Custom House, Wharves,, Hospitals and Institutions 
 of learning. She needs fortifications and roads and railroads. She needs the protection of 
 an army and a navy. Either your Stars and Stripes must wave over her ports and her 
 fleets, or she must raise aloft a'standard for herself. She needs at least to know whether 
 you are friends or enemies. And finally, she needs what no American community can live 
 without, Sovereignty and Independence. — either a just and equal share of yours, or Sov- 
 ereignty and Iniiependence of her own. 
 
 Will you say that California could not aggrandize hersell by separation? Would 
 it then be a mean ambition to set up within fifty years on the Pacific coast monuments 
 like those which we think two hundred years have been well spent in establishing on the 
 Atlantic coast •? Will you say that California has no ability to become independent ? 
 She has the same mora! ability" for enterprize that inheres in us, and that ability implies 
 command u all physical means. She has advantages of position. She is practically fur- 
 ther removed from you than England. You cannot reach her by railroad, or by unbroken 
 steam navigation. You can send no armies over the Prairie, the Mountain and the Desert : 
 nor across the remote and narrow Isthmus within a foreign jurisdiction, nor arouud the 
 Cape of Storms. You may send a Navy there, but she haTonly to open her mines and she 
 can seduce your mariners and appropriate your Floating Bulwarks to her own defence. 
 Let her only seize your domain within her borders, and your commerce in her port 
 and she will have at once revenue and credit adequate to all her necessities. Be- 
 sides, are we so moderate, and has the world become so just, that we have no rivals and 
 no enemies to lend their sympathies and aid to compass the dismemberment of our Em- 
 pire? Try not the temper or the fidelity of California,— at least, not now, not yet. 
 Cherish her and indulge her until you have extended your settlements to her borJers, and 
 bound her fast by railroads and canals, and telegraphs to your interests, — until her afiini- 
 
ties of intercourse are established, and habits of loyalty are fixed ; and then she can never 
 
 be disensraged. • , • i i i ^ ^ 
 
 California would not go alone. Oregon, so intimately allied with her, and as yet so 
 loosely attached to us, will go also; and then, at least, the entire Pacific coast, with tue 
 western declivity of the Sierra Nevada would be lost. It would not depend at all on us, 
 nor even on the mere forbearance of California, how far eastward the long line ac-i-oss ine 
 Temperate zone should be drawn which should separate the Republic ol the Atlantic, 
 Terminas has passed away with all the Deities of the Ancient Pantheon, but his sceptre 
 remains. Commerce is the God of Boundaries, and no man now living can Icretell ins 
 ultimate decree. , , , , r^ „f 
 
 But it is insisted that the admission of California shall be attended by a Compromise ot 
 questions which l.a.e arisen out of SLAVERY. I am opposed to any such Compromise, 
 in any and all the forms in which it has been proposed. First : because while admitting 
 the purity and the patrioiisra of all from whom it is my misfortune to d.fier^ 1 think an 
 Leo-islative Compromise essentially and radically wrong and indefensible, ihey involve 
 the" surrender of the exercise of judgment and conscience on distinct and separate ques- 
 tions at distinct and separate times, with the indispensable advantages it affords lor ascer- 
 taining truth. They involve the rebnqushment of the right to reconsider in luture the 
 decision of the present, in questions prematurely anticipated, and they are an usurpation, 
 as to future questions, of the province of future Legislators. i v, vi i 
 
 Sir, it seems to me as if slavery had laid its paralysing hand upon myscU, and th bloocl 
 were coursing less freely than its wont through ray veins, when I endeavor to suppose that 
 such a Compromise has been effected and my utterance forever is arrested upon all the 
 great questions, social, moral and political, arising out of a subject so important, and, as 
 yet, so incomprehensible. What am I to receive in this compromise ? Freedom in Cali- 
 fornia. It is well. It is a noble acquisition. But what am I to give up as au equivalent .'' 
 A recoo-nition of the claims to perpetuate Slavery in the District of Columbia ! forbear- 
 ance towards more stringent laws concerning the arrest of persons suspected ot being 
 slaves, found in Free States! Forbearance from the Proviso of Freedom in the charters 
 of new territories. None of the plans of Compromise offered, demand less than two, and 
 most of them insist on all these conditions. The equivalent, then, is, some portion ol Lib- 
 erty, some portion of Human Rights in one region for Liberty in another region. But 
 California brings gold and Commerce as well as freedom. I am then to surrender some 
 portion of Human Freedom in the District of Columbia, and in East California and New 
 Mexico, for the mixed consideration of Liberty. Gold, and Power on the Pacific coast. 
 
 This view of legislative compromise is not new. It has widely prevailed, and many ot 
 the State Constitutions interdict the introduction of more than one subject into one bill sub- 
 mitted for legislative action. 
 
 Sir, it was of such Compromises that Burke said, in one of the greatest bursts ol even 
 his majestic parliamentary eloquence, '-Far, far from the Commons ol Great Britain be all 
 manner of real vice, but ten thousand times farther from them— as iar as irom Pole to 
 Pole— be the entire vice of spurious, affected, counterfeit and hypocritical virtues. 1 hese 
 are the things which are ten thousand times more at war with real virtue, these are the 
 things which are ten thousand times more at war with real duty, than any vice known by 
 its name, and distinguished by its proper character. 
 
 crime, 
 
 01 a. \^L.»..|j.w..ww .-w...^«.. ... — J — — , — 1 J rf (* ^ T>'' 
 
 thing. There is no middle point, my Lords, in which the Commons of Great Britain can 
 meet tyranny and oppression." , t i 1 1 i • 
 
 But sir, if I could overcome my repugnance to Compromise in general, l should object 
 to this one, on the ground of the inequiUity and incongruity of the interests to be com- 
 promised. Why, sir, according to the views I have submitted, California ought to come 
 in, and must come in, whether slaverv stands or falls in the District of Columbia,— whether 
 it stands or falls in New Mexico and Eastern California,— and even whether slavery stands 
 or falls in the slave States. California ought to come in, and must come in at all events. 
 It is an independent question. What then are these questions arising out of slavery thus 
 interposed but collateral questions? They are unnecessary and incongruous, and there- 
 fore false issues, if not introduced designedly indeed to defeat that great policy, yet una- 
 voidably tending to that end. 
 
 - But consent on my part to the compromise would be disingenuous and fraudulent. It is 
 now avowed by the honorable Senator from South Carolina, (Mr. Calhoun,) that nothing 
 will satisfy the slave States but a compromise that will convince them that they can remain 
 in the Union consistently with their honor and their safety. And what are the conces- 
 sions that will have that effect ? Here they are in the words of that Senator : 
 
 " The North must do justice by conceding to the South an equal right in the acquired 
 
6 
 
 territon-, and do her duty by causing the stipulations relative to fugritive slaves to be 
 faitiilully fulfilled ; cease the agitation ot the slave question, and provide lor the insertion 
 of a provision in the Constitution, by an amendment, that will restore to the South, in sub- 
 stance, the power she possessed of protecting herself before the equilibrium between the 
 sections was destroyed by the action of the Government."' 
 
 Thet^e terms amount to this — that the Free States, having already, or although they may 
 have majorities of population and majorities in both Houses of Congress, shall concede to 
 the Slave Stales, being in a minorit}'- in both, the unequal advantage of an equality — that 
 is, that we shall alter the Constitution so as to convert the Government from a National 
 DemocrAcy, controlled by a constitutional majority of voices, into a Federal Alliance in 
 which the minority shall have a vole against the majority ! and, thus to return to the orig- 
 inal articles of confederation ! 
 
 I will not stop to protest against the injustice and inexpediency of an innovation which 
 if it were practicable would be so entirely subversive of the principle of Democratic insti- 
 tutions. It is enough to say that it is totally impracticable. The free states. Northern and 
 Western, have acquiesced in the long and nearly unbroken ascendancy of the slave states, 
 because the result happened under the constitution. But they have honcr and interests to 
 preserve; and there is nothing in the nature or in the character of the people to induce an 
 expectation that they, loyal as they are, are insensible to the duty of defending them. 
 
 But the scheme would still be impracticable, if even this difficulty were overcome. 
 What is proposed is a piiitical equilibrium. f2very political equilibrium requires a phys- 
 ical equilibrium to rest upon it, and is valueless without it. To constitute a physical 
 equilibrium betw en the slave States and the free Stales — an equilibrium between the free 
 States and the slave States requires first an equality of territory, or some near approxima- 
 tion, and this is already lost. But it requires much more than this ; it requires an equality 
 or a proximate equality in the number oi slaves and freemen, and this must be perpetual. 
 
 But the census of 1840 gives a slave basis of only two millions and a half; and a free 
 basis of fourteen millions and a half. The population c«i the slave basis increases in the 
 ratio of 25 cent, for ten years ; while that on the free basis advances at the rate of 38 
 per cent. This accelerating movement of the free population now complained of, will 
 occupy the new territories with pioneers, and every day increase the difficulty of forcing 
 or insinuating slavery into regions which freemen have pre-occupied. And if this 
 ■were possible, the African slave trade is prohibited, and the domestic increase is not suffi- 
 cient to supply the new slave States which are expected to maintain the equilibrium. 
 
 The theory of a new political equilibrium claims that it once existed and has been lost. 
 When lost, and how '? It began to be lost in 1787, when preliminary arrangements were 
 made to admit five new States in the Northwest Territory, two years before the constitu- 
 tion was finally adopted — that is, it began to be lost two years before it began to exist ! 
 
 Sir, the equilibrium if restored would be lost more rapidly than it was before. The 
 progress of the free population is to be accelerated by emigration from Europe and 
 Asia, while that of the slaves is to be checked and retarded by inevitable partial 
 emancipation. Nothing, says Montesque, reduces a man so low as always to see free- 
 men and yet not be free. Persons in that condition are natural enemies of the State, and 
 their numbers would be dangerous if increased too high. Sir, the fugitive slave colonies, 
 and en.ancipated slave colonies in the free States, in Canada and in Liberia, are the best 
 guarai.tees South Carolina can have for the perpetuit}' of slavery. 
 
 Nor would success attend any of the details of the compromise. And first. I advert 
 to the amendment of the law concerning fugitives from service or labor. The constitu- 
 tion contains only a compact, which rests for its execution on the States. Not content 
 with this, the slave States induced legislation by Congress, and the Supreme Court of the 
 United States have virtually decided that the whole subject is within the province ot Con- 
 gress ;md exclusive of State authority. Nay, they have decided that slaves are to be 
 regarded not merely as persons to be claimed, but as property and chattels, to be seized 
 without any legal authority or claim whatever. 
 
 The compact is thus subverted by the procurement of the slave States ; with what 
 reason then can they expect the States ex gratia to re-assume the obligations from which 
 they caused those States to be discharged ? I say, then, to the slave States, you are en- 
 titled to no more stringent law, and such an one would be useless. The cause of the 
 insufficiency of the present statute is not at all the leniency of its provisions. It is a law 
 that deprives the alleged refugee from a legal obligation not assumed by him, but imposed 
 upon him by laws enacted belbre he was born — of the writ of Iiabcas corpus, and of any 
 certain judicial process of examination of the claim set up by his pursuer, and finally de- 
 grades liini into a chattel, which may be seized and carried away peaceably, wherever 
 found, even although exercising the rights and resposibilities of a free citizen of the com- 
 monwealth in which he resides, and of the U. S. — a law which denies to the citizen 
 all the safeguards of personal liberty, to render less possible the escape of the bond- 
 man. 
 
We deem its principle, therefore, unjust, unconstitutional and immoral ; and thus while 
 patriotism withholds its approbation, and the conscience of our people condemns it, you 
 will say that these convictions o( ours are disloyal. Grant it, for argument sake — thej 
 are nevertheless honest. And the law is to be executed amontr us, not amon<T you ; not 
 6yus, but tiy the Federal authority. Has uny Government ever succeeded in changing 
 the moral convictions of its subjects by force ? But these convictions imply no disloyalty. 
 We revere the Constitution, although we perceive this defect, just as we acknowledge the 
 splendor, and the power of the sun, although its surface is tarnished with, here and, 
 there, an opaque spot. 
 
 Your constitution and law converts hospitality to the refugee from the most degrading 
 oppression on earth into a crime. But all mankind, except you, esteem that hospitality a 
 virtue. The right of extradition of even fugitives from justice, is not admitted by the 
 Law of Nature and of Nations, but rests on voluntary compact. 
 
 Only two compacts found in diplomatic history, admitted extradition of slaves. Here is 
 one of them. It is found in a Treaty made between Alexander Commenus, the Greek 
 Emperor of Constantinople, and Oley, 2d King of Russia, in the year 903, and in these 
 words : 
 
 "If a Russian slave take to flight from his master, or if he shall be held under pre- 
 tence of having been bought, his master may pursue him and take him wherever he may 
 be found ; and whosoever shall prevent his master from taking him shall be guilty of of- 
 fending against this treaty, and shall be punished accordingly." 
 
 This was in the Year of Grace 902, in what is called the Dark Ages, and the contract- 
 ing powers were despotisms. 
 
 And here is the other. 
 
 "No person held to service or labor in one State under the laws thereof, escaping into 
 another, shall in consequence of any laws or regulations therein, be discharged froni such 
 service or labor, but shall be delivered up on claim of the party to whom such service or 
 labor is due." 
 
 This is from the constitution of the United States, in 1787, and the parties were the re- 
 publican States of this Union. 
 
 The Law of Nations disavows such compacts ; — the Law of Nature, written on the 
 hearts and consciences of freemen, repudiates them. Armed power could not enforce 
 them, because there is no public conscience to sustain them. I know that there are laws 
 of various sorts that regulate the conduct of men. There are Constitutions and Statutes, 
 codes mercantile and codes civil ; but when we are legislating for States, all these laws 
 must be brought to the standard of the Laws of God, and must be tried by that standard, 
 and stand or fall by it. It is of this principle, that an eminent political Philosopher of 
 England, Burke, said : 
 
 " There is but one law for all — namely, that Law which governs all laws — the law of 
 our Creator, — the law of humanity, justice, equity, — the law of Nature and of Nations. 
 So far as any laws fortify this Primeval Law, and give it more precision, more energy, 
 more effect by their declarations, such laws enter into the sanctuary and participate in 
 the sacredness of its character. But the man who quotes as precedents, the abuses of 
 tyrants and robbers, pollutes the very fountains of justice, destroys the foundations of all 
 law, and therefore removes the only safeguard against evil men, whether Governors or 
 governed, the guard which prevent Governors from becoming Tyrants, and the governed 
 from becoming Rebels." 
 
 There was deep philosophy in the confession of an eminent English judge. When he 
 had condemned a young woman to death under the late sanguinary code of his country, 
 for her first petty theft, she fell dead at his feet. " I seem to myself," said he, " to h^ve 
 been pronouncing sentence not against the prisoner, but against the law itself." 
 
 To conclude this point, we are not slave holders ; we cannot in our judgement be 
 either true Christians or real freemen, if we impose on another a chain that we deny all 
 human power to fasten on ourselves. You believe and think otherwise, and doubtless 
 with equal sincerity. We judge you not, — and He alone who ordained the conscience of 
 man and its laws of action can judge us. Do we then in this conflict demand of you an 
 unreasonable thing in asking that, since you will have property that can and will exercise 
 human power to effect its escape, you shall be your own Police, and in action among us, 
 as such, you shall conform to principles, indispensable to the security of admitted Rights 
 of Freemen '? 
 
 Another feature in most of the Plans of Compromise, is a Bill of Peace for Sla -ery ia 
 the District of Columbia, and this Bill of Peace we cannot grant. We of the free States 
 are equally with you of the slave States, responsible for the existence of slavery in this 
 District, the field exclusively of our common legislation. I rcirret that as yet I see little 
 reason to hope that a majority in favor of emancipation exists here. The Legislature of 
 New York, from whom with great deference I dissent, seems willing to accept now tha 
 
But we shall assume the whole responsibility if we stipulate not to exercise the power 
 hereafter, when a majority shall be obtained. NoV will the plea with which you would 
 furnish us be of any avail. If I coul.l understand myself, I should never be able to ex- 
 plain to ihe direct understanding of the people whom I represent, how it was that an ab- 
 solute and express power to legislate in all cases over the District of Columbia, was 
 embarrassed and defeated by an implied condition not to legislate for the abolition of 
 slavery in that District. Sir, I should vote for that measure, and am willing to appro- 
 . priate any means to carry it into execution. And if I shall be asked what I did to em- 
 bellish the capital of my country, I will point to the freed-raen, and say — these are the 
 monuments of my munificence ! 
 
 If I was willing to advance a cause that I deem sacred, by disingenuous means, I would 
 advise you to adopt these measures of compromise which I have thus examined. The 
 echo is not cpucker in its response than would be that loud and unanimous cry of Repeal, 
 that would die away until the Habeas Corpus was secured to the alleged fugitive from 
 bondage and the symmetry of the Free Institutions of the Capital was perfected. 
 
 I applv the same observations to the proposition for a waiver of the proviso of freedom 
 in territo'rial characters. Thus far you have only direct popular action in favor of that 
 ordinance, and there seems even to be a partial disposition to await the action of the 
 people of the new territories, as we have compulsorily waited for it in California. But I 
 must tell you, nevertheless, in candor and in plainness, that the spirit of the people in the 
 free States is set upon a spring and rises with the pressure put upon it. That spring if 
 pressed too hard, will give a recoil that will not leave here one servant who knew his 
 master's will and did it not. You will say that this implies violence. Not at all ; — it im- 
 plies only peaceful, lawful constitutional, customary action. I cannot too strongly ex- 
 press my surprise that those who insist that the people of slave States cannot be held 
 back from reuiedies outside of the Constitution, should so far misunderstand us of the free 
 States as to suppose we would not exercise our constitutional rights to sustain the policy 
 which we deem just and beneficent. 
 
 I object in the next place to the compromise of the Boundary between Texas and New 
 Mexico. That is a judical question in its nature, or at least a question of legal right and 
 title. If it is to be compromised at all, it is due to the two parties, to national dignity 
 as well as to justice that it be kept separate from compromise proceeding on the ground 
 of expediency, and be settled by itself alone. 
 
 I take this occasion to say that 1 do not intend to discuss the question which has been 
 raised by the honorable and distingushed Senator from Massachusetts, (Mr. Webster) but 
 I am compelled to say that I have not the good fortune to concur with him in the opinions 
 which he has expressed in regard to the admission of new States to be formed out ol the 
 State of Texas. There are various questions involved in that subject, which I think this 
 is not the time to decide, and which I wish to reserve for further consideration. One is, 
 whether the article of annexation does really deprive Congress of the right to express its 
 opinion and exercise its voice in regard to the sub-division of the State of Texas. I only 
 say that to me it seems by no means so plain a question as the Senator assumes, and there- 
 fore with rae it must remain a question for future consideration — an open question, whether 
 Congress is not a party, whose future consent is necessary to any division oi Texas. 
 
 Mr. Webster — Will the Senator allow me to ask him one question? 
 
 Mr. Seward — Certainly, sir. 
 
 Mr. Webster— Supposing Congress to have the authority to fix the number of States 
 and the time of the election, the appointment of representatives, &c., the question is 
 whether if new States are formed out of Texas to come into this Union, there is not a 
 sokmn pledge by law that they have a right to come in as Slave States ? 
 
 Mr. Seward — The article is in eifect in these words : — 
 
 " New States not exceeding four in number may be framed out of the territory of 
 Texas with the consent of Texas, and shall be admitted into the Union, with or without 
 slavery, as they shall choose." 
 
 Mr. Webster — If they " choose " they may come in as slave States. 
 
 Mr. Seward— I beg pardon of the Hon. senator, but it is with or without slavery. 
 But I pass the question, as the volume is not at hand, and 1 fear 1 shall trespass on the 
 time of the Senate by waiting for it. I am moreover not unconstitutional. I find no 
 authority in the Constitution of the United States for the annexation of foreign States, 
 by resolution. What I mean now especially to insist upon is, that I must have time to 
 deliberate until the occasion actually arrives, before 1 consent to any division of the 
 State of Texas, so as to bring in any new State with a Constitution maintaining slavery. 
 I must have the point settled that the article of annexation is compulsory upon me, and 
 also that it is constitutional. 
 
 Mr. FooTE— Did I not rightly understand the senator to say that he would have 
 voted to admit California as a slave State, if she had voluntarily inserted such a pro- 
 vision in her Constitution ? 
 
Mr. Seward— Yes, sir ; under these extraordinary circumstances of conquest, of a com- 
 pact of abandonment, of impossibility to give a territorial government, of a Constitution 
 adopted by tlie people, and of dismemberment of the empire if she was rejected— under 
 these circumstances I would have received California, though she had come, to my pro- 
 found regret, as a slave State. I am happy now, Mr. President, to understand that I agree 
 with the° honorable member from Massachusetts, that it is not compulsory upon Con- 
 gress hereafter to admit four new slave States in Texas ; that they have reserved the 
 right to decide whether any new State shall be formed there. I shall vote for admitting 
 no more slave States, unless under circumstances absolutely controlling and compul- 
 sory, and which cannot now be foreseen. 
 
 Mr. Webster— The senator does not understand me. My proposition was that States 
 hereafter made out of Texas, with her consent, if they choose to come in as slave States 
 have a right to do so. 
 
 Mr. Seward— My position is that they have not a right to come in, if Congress shall 
 refuse its consent. It is optional with both parties. Congress and Texas. 
 
 Mr. Webster— Does the senator hold that we may hereafter decide whether they 
 shall be slave States or free States .' 
 
 Mr. Seward— No, sir ; but that Congress may decide that there shall be no States 
 at all framed out of Texas. 
 
 Another objection arises out of the principle on which the compromise rests. That 
 principle is a classification of the', States as Northern and Southern States, as it is 
 expressed by the Hon. senator from South Carolina (Mr. Calhoun), but into Slave 
 States and Free States, as more directly expressed by the Hon. senator from Georgia, 
 (Mr. Berrien). The argument is that the States are severally equal, and that these two 
 classes were equal at the first, and that the Constitution was formed on that equilibri- 
 um ; that the States being equal, and the classes of the States being equal in rights, 
 they -are to be regarded as constituting an association, in which each State and each of 
 these classes of States respectively contribute in due proportion ;— that the new terri- 
 tories are a common acquisition, and the people of these several States and classes of 
 States have an equal right to participate in them respectively ;— that the right of the 
 people of the slave States to emigrate to the territories with their slaves as property, 
 is such a participation on their part, inasmuch as the people of the free States emigrate 
 into the same territories with their property. And the argument deduces from this 
 right the principle that if Congress exclude slavery from any part of this new domain, 
 it would be only just to set off a portion of the domain (some say south of 36 deg. 30 
 min., others south of 34 deg.), which should be regarded at least as open to slavery, 
 and to be organized into slave States. 
 
 Argument ingenious and subtle, declaration earnest, and bold, and persuasive, gentle 
 and winning as the turtle-dove when it is heard in the land, all alike and all together 
 have failed to convince me of the soundness of this principle of the proposed compro- 
 mise, or of any one of the propositions on which it is attempted to be established. How- 
 is the original equality of the States found .' It rests on a syllogism of Vattel as follows : 
 " All men are equal by the law of Nature and of Nations. But States are only lawful 
 aggregations of individual men, who individually are equal, therefore States are eqMal 
 in natural rights." 
 
 All this is just and sound. But assuming the same premises, to wit, that all men are 
 equal by the law of nature and of nations, the right of property in slaves falls to the 
 ground, for one who is equal to another cannot be the owner or property of that other. 
 But you answer that the Constitution recognizes property in slaves. It would be sufiS- 
 cient then to reply, that this constitutional recognition must be void, because it is re- 
 pugnant to the law of nature and of nations. But I deny that the Constitution recog- 
 nizes property in man. I submit, on the other hand, most respectfully, that the Con- 
 stitution not merely does not affirm that principle, but on the contrary, altogether 
 excludes it. The Constitution does not expressly affirm anything on the subject. _ All 
 that it contains is two incidental allusions to slaves. These are, first, in the provision 
 establishing a ratio of representation and taxation; second, in the provision relating to 
 fugitives from labor. In both cases the Constitution designedly mentions slaves, not as 
 slaves, much less as chattels, but as persons. That this recognition of them as persons 
 was designed, is historically known, and I think never denied. I give only two of the 
 manifold proofs. 
 
 John Jay, in the Federalist, says : 
 
 "Let the case of the slaves be considered as it is in truth, a peculiar one. Let the 
 compromising expedient of the Constitution be mutually adopted which regards them 
 as inhabitants, but as debased below the equal level of free inhabitants, which regards 
 the slave as divested of two-fifths of the man.'? 
 
 Yes, sir, of two-fifths, but of on/y two-fifths, leaving him still an inhabitant, a living, 
 breathing, moving, reasoning, immortal man. 
 
10 
 
 The other proof is from the debates in the Convention. It is brief, and, I think, in 
 etructive : 
 
 " August 28, 1787. 
 
 " Mr. BuTi.ER and Mr. Pinckney moved to require fugitive slaves and servants to be 
 delivered up like convicts. 
 
 " Mr. Wilson. This would oblige the Executive of the State to do it at public 
 expense. 
 
 " Mr. Sherman saw no more "propriety in the public seizing and surrendering a 
 slave or a servant than a horse. 
 
 " Mr. Butler withdrew his proposition, in order that some particular provision 
 might be made apart from this article. 
 
 " August 29. 
 
 "Mr. Butler moved to insert after article 15 — ' If any person bound to service or 
 labor in any of the United States, shall escape into another State, he or she shall net be 
 discharged from such service or labor in consequence of any regulations subsisting in 
 the State to which they may escape, but shall be delivered up to the person justly claim- 
 ing their service or labor.' 
 
 After the engrossment, Sept. 15. 
 
 "Article IV. Sec. 2. — In the 3d paragraph, the term 'legally' was struck out, and 
 the words ' under the laws thereof inserted after the word ' State,' in compliance with 
 the wishes of some who thought the term ' legal' equivocal, and favoring the idea that 
 slavery was legal in a moral view." 
 
 I deem it established then, that the Constitution does not recognize property in men, 
 but leaves that question as between the States, to the law of nature and of nations. 
 That law, as expounded by Vattel, is founded in the reason of things. When God had 
 created the earth, with its wonderful adaptations, he gave dominion over it to man — 
 absolute human dominion. The title thus bestowed would have been incomplete, if the 
 lord of all terrestrial things could himself have been the proj^erty of his fellow-man. 
 The right to have a slave implies the right in some one to make the slave. That right 
 must be equal and mutual, and that would resolve society into a state of perpetual war. 
 But if we grant the original equality of the States, and grant also the constitutional 
 recognition of slaves as property, still the argument we are considering fails, because 
 the States were not parties to the Constitution as States. It is the Constitution of the 
 people of the United States. But even if the States continued as States, they surren- 
 dered their equality as States, and submitted themselves to the sway of the numerical 
 majority, with qualifications or checks ; first, of the representation of three-fifths of 
 slaves in the ratio of representation and taxation, and secondly, of the equal represen- 
 tation of States in the Senate. 
 
 The proposition of an established classification of States as Slave States and Free 
 States, as asserted by some, and into Northern and Southern as asserted by others, 
 seems to me purely imaginary, and of course the supposed equilibrium of those classes 
 a mere conceit. This must be so, because when the Constitution was adopted, twelve 
 of the thirteen States were slave States, and so there was no equilibrium. And so as 
 to the classification of States as Northern States and Southern States. It is the main- 
 tenance of slavery by law in a State, not parallels of latitude that makes it a southern 
 State, and the absence of this that makes it a northern State. And so, all the States, 
 save one, were southern States, and there was no equilibrium. But the Constitution 
 was made not only for southern and northern States, but for States neither one nor the 
 other — but western States. Their coming in was foreseen and provided for. 
 
 It needs little argument to show that the idea of a joint-stock association, or a copart- 
 nership as applicable — even by its analogies to the United States — is erroneous, with 
 all the consequences fancifully deduced from it. The United States arc a political 
 State, or organized society, whose end is government for the security, welfare and hap- 
 piness of all who live under its protection. The theory I am combating reduces the 
 objects of government to the mere spoils of Conquest. On the contrary of a theory so 
 debasing, the preamble of the Constitution not only asserts the sovereignty to be not in 
 the States but in the people, but also promulgates the objects of the Constitution. 
 
 " We, tlie people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish 
 justice, ensure domestic tranquillity, provide for the common defense, promote the gen- 
 eral welfare and secure the blessings of liberty, do ordain and establish this Consti- 
 tution." 
 
 Objects sublime and benevolent ! They exclude the very idea of conquests to be either 
 dividcil among States or even enjoyed by them for the purpose of securing, not the 
 blessings of liberty, but the evils of slavery. 
 
 There is a novelty in the principle of this compromise, which condemns it. Simulta- 
 neously with the establishment of the Constitution, Virginia ceded her domain, which 
 then extended to the Mississippi, and was even claimed to extend to the Pacific. Con- 
 gress accepted and unanimously devoted the domain to freedom, in the language from 
 
11 
 
 •ffhioh this ordinance, now so seyerely condemned, was borrowed. Five States have 
 already been organized on this domain, from all of which, in pursuance of that ordi- 
 nance, slavery is excluded. How did it happen that this theory of the equality of the 
 States, of the classification of the States, of the equilibrium of the States, of the title of 
 the States to the common enjoyment of the domain, or to an equitable and just parti- 
 tion between them, was never promulgated, nor even dreamed of by the slas-e '■States, 
 who unanimously consented to this ordinance .' 
 
 There is another aspect of the principle of compromise which deserves our considera- 
 tion. It assumes that slavery, if not the only institution in a slave State, is at least a 
 luling institution, and that this characteristic was recognized by the Constitution. But 
 slavery is only one of many institutions there. Freedom is equally an institution there. 
 Slavery is only a temporary, accidental, partial and incongruous one. Freedom, on the 
 contrary, is a perpetual, organic, universal one, in harmony with the Constitution of 
 the United States. The slaveholder himself stands under the protection of the latter, 
 in common with all the free citizens of the State. 
 
 But the principle of this compromise gives complete ascendancy in the slave States 
 and in the Constitution of the United States, to the subordinate, accidental and incon- 
 gruous institution over its antagonist. To reduce this claim for slavery to an absurdi- 
 ty, it is only necessary to add, thatthere are only two States in which slaves are a ma- 
 jority, and not one in which the slaveholders are not a very disproportionate minority. 
 
 But there is yet another aspect in which this principle must be examined. It regards 
 the dsmain only as a possession to be enjoyed either in common, or by partition, by the 
 citizens of the old States. It is true, indeed, that the national domain is ours ; true, 
 that it was acquired by the prowess and wealth of the whole nation ; but we hold, 
 nevertheless, no arbitrary power over it. We hold no arbitrary authority over any ibing, 
 whether acquired lawfully, or by usurpation. The Constitution regulates our steward- 
 ship. The Constitution devotes the domain to union, to justice, to defense, to welfare 
 and liberty. But there is a higher law than the Constitution which regulates our 
 authority over the domain, and devotes it to the same noble purposes. The territory is 
 a part — no inconsiderable part — of the common heritage of mankind, bestowed upon 
 them by the Creator of the Universe. We are his stewards, and must so discharge our 
 trust as to secure, in the highest attainable degree, their happiness. How momentous 
 that trust is, we may learn from the instructions of the founder of modern philosophy. 
 
 "No man can, by care-taking," as the Scriptures saith, " add a cubit to his stature, 
 in this little model of man's body ; but, in the great frame of kingdoms and common- 
 wealths, it is in the power of princes or estates to add amplitude and greatness to 
 their kingdoms ; for by introducing such ordinances, constitutions and customs as are 
 wise, they may sow greatness to their posterity and successors. But these things are 
 commonly not observed, but left to take their chance." 
 
 We are an estate, and are deliberating for the commonwealth, just as our fathers 
 deliberated in establishing the institutions we enjoy. Whatever superiority there is 
 in our condition and hopes over those of any other kingdom, our " estate" is due to the 
 fortunate circumstance, that our ancestors did not leave things to take their chance, 
 but that they added amplitude and greatness to our commonwealth, by introducing 
 such ordinances, constitutions and customs as were wise. 
 
 i' We, in our time, have succeeded to the same responsibilities, and we cannot approach 
 the duty before us, wisely or justly, except we raise ourselves to the great considera- 
 tion of how we can most certainly sow greatness to our posterity and successors. And 
 now the simple, bold, and awful question which presents itself to us is this : shall we, 
 who are founding institutions, social and political, for countless millions — shall we, who 
 know by experience the wise and the just, and are free to choose them, and reject the 
 erroneous and the unjust — shall we establish human bondage, or permit it by our 
 sufferance to be established ? Sir, our fathers would not have hesitated an hour. They 
 found slavery existing here, and they left it only because they could not remove it. 
 There is not only no free State which would now establish it, but there is no slave 
 State which, if it had the free alternative, as we now have, would have founded 
 slavery. 
 
 Indeed, our revolutionarj' predecessors had precisely the same question before them 
 in establishing an organic law under which the States of Ohio, Michigan, Illinois, Wis- 
 consin and Iowa, have since come into the Union. And they solemnly repudiated and 
 excluded slavery from those States forever. I confess that the most alarming evidence 
 of our degeneracy, which has yet been given, is found in the fact that we even debate 
 such a question. 
 
 Sir, there is no Christian nation that, free to choose as we are, would establish slav- 
 ery. I speak on due consideration, because Great Britain, France and Mexico have 
 abolished slavery, and all other European States are preparing to abolish it as rapidly 
 as they can. 
 
 We cannot establish slavery, because there are certain elements of the security, 
 
12 
 
 welfare and greatness of nations, which we all admit, or ought to admit, and recognize 
 as essential; and these are: The security of natural rights, the diffusion of knowledge, 
 and the freedom of industry. Slaverj- is incompatible with all of these, and just in 
 proportion to the extent that it prevails and controls in any republican State, just- 
 to __that extent it subverts the principles of democracy, and converts the State into 
 an ajystocracy or a despotism. I will not offend sensibilities by drawing my proof from 
 the slave States existing among ourselves ; but I will draw them from the greatest of 
 the Eurdpean slave States. The population of Russia in Europe, in 1844, was 
 54, 251, ()()(). Of these were serfs 53,500,000. The residue, nobles, clergy, merchants, 
 &c., 751,000. The Imperial Government abandons the control over the fifty-three and 
 a half millions to their owners, and the residue, included in the 751.000, are thus a 
 privileged class or aristocracy. If ever the government interferes at all with the serfs, 
 who are the only laboring population, it is by edicts, designed to abridge their oppor- 
 tunities of education, and thus continue their debasement. What was the origin of 
 this system ? Conquest — in which the captivity of the conquered was made perpetual 
 and hereditary. 
 
 This, it seems to me, is identical with American slavery, only at one and the same 
 time exaggerated by the greater disproportion between the privileged slaves and the 
 slaves in their respective numbers, and yet relieved of the uuhappiest feature of Amer- 
 ican slavery — the distinction of castes. AVhat but this renders Russia at once the most 
 arbitrary despotism, and the most barbarous State in Europe .' And what is its effect but 
 industry comparatively profitless, and sedition, not occasional and partial, but chronic 
 and pervading the empire. With Massachusetts and Ohio among us, shall we pass by 
 their free and beneficent examples, and select our institutions from the dominions of 
 the Czar .' 
 
 I cannot stop to dilate long with those who maintain that slavery is in itself practi- 
 cally economical and humane. I might be content with saying that there are some 
 axioms in political science that a statesman, or a founder of States, may adopt, especially 
 in the Congress of the United States, and that among the axioms are these : 
 
 " That all men are created equal, and have inalienable rights of life, liberty, and the 
 choice of pursuits of hapj^iness ; — 
 
 "That knowledge promotes virtue, and righteousness exalteth a nation; — 
 
 " That freedom is preferjxble to slavery, and that democratic governments, when they 
 can be maintained by acquiescence without force, are preferable to institutions exer- 
 cising arbitrary and irresponsible jDOwer." 
 
 It remains only to say on this part of the subject, that slavery being incongruous 
 and repugnant, is dangerous to the State. The conservative principle of the State, is 
 the security of the voluntary acquiescence of the people. That acquiescence is 
 obtained by universal suffrage, which demands, of course, equality of knowledge and 
 property, as far as that is practically attainable without injustice or oppression. This 
 argument is sustained by our own experience. There is no danger pieuacing the Union, 
 there never has been any that would have menaced it had slavery had no shelter beneath 
 its protection. If slavery, confined as it now is, threatens the subversion of the Con- 
 stitution, how can we enlarge its boundaries andiucrease its influence, without increas- 
 ing the danger already existing .' 
 
 Whether then I regard merely the welfare of the future inhabitants of the new 
 territories, or the security and welfare of the whole people of the United States, or the 
 welfare of the whole fiimily of mankind, I cannot consent to introduce slavery into any 
 part of this continent which is now exempt from what seems to me to be so great 
 an evil. 
 
 These are my reasons for declining to compromise the questions relating to slavery 
 as a condition of the admission of California. 
 
 In acting upon an occasion so grave, a respectful consideration is due to the arguments 
 founded on extraneous considerations, of senators who counsel a course different 
 from tluit which I have preferred. 
 
 The first of these arguments is, that Congress has no power to legislate on the sub- 
 ject of slavery within the territories. Sir, Congress has power to admit new States; 
 and since Congress may admit, it follows that Congress may reject new States. The 
 discretion of Congress in admitting is absolute, except that wheu admitted, the State 
 must be a republican State, and must be a 67«/t— that is, it shall have the constitu- 
 tional powers of a State. But the greater includes the less ; we may impose conditions 
 not inconsistent with tliose fundamental powers. Boundaries are such ; the reserva- 
 tion of the public domain is such ; the right to divide is such ; the ordinance excluding 
 slavery is such a condition. The organization of a territory is auxiliary or prelimi- 
 nary. It is the inchoate, initiative act of admission, and is performed under the clause 
 granting the power necessary ta execute the express powers of the Constitution. This 
 power comes from tlie treaty-making power also; and I think it is well traced to the 
 po«ver to make needful rules and regulations concerning the public domain. But th» 
 
13 
 
 ^ower is here to be exercised, liowever derived ; and tlie right to regulate property, to 
 administer justice in regard to property, is assumed in every territorial charter. If 
 •we have power to legislate concerning property, we have concerning personal rights. 
 Freedom is a personal right. The Constitution does not sanction property in man, and 
 Congress being the Supreme Legislature, has the same right in regard to property and 
 rights in territories that the States would have if organized. 
 
 It is insisted further, that the inhibition is unnecessary. And here I have to reo-ret 
 the loss of able and distinguished senators who go with us for the admission of Cali- 
 fornia. Especially do I regret the separation from us of the able and distinguished 
 senator from Missouri [Mr. Benton]. When that senator announced that he should 
 not sustain the Proviso of Freedom, I was induced to exclaim — 
 
 Cur in theatrum, Cato severe venisti, 
 Jin idea tantum veneras ut exires 7 
 
 But that distinguished senator is crowning a life of eminent public service, by brin-^- 
 ing the first State of the Pacific into the Union ; and grateful to him for that, I frcefy 
 leave to him to determine for himself what weight he will give to the cause of human 
 freedom in his action on so grave an occasion. 
 
 The argument is, that the Proviso is unnecessary. I answer, then there can be no 
 error m insisting upon it. But why is it unnecessary .' It is said, first, by reason of 
 the climate. If this be so, why do not the representatives of the slave States yield the 
 Proviso .' They deny that climate prevents the introduction of slavery. Now I will 
 leave nothing to a contingency. But in truth I think the argument is against the pro- 
 position. Is there any climate where slavery has not existed .' It has prevailed all 
 over Europe, from sunny Italy to bleak England, and is existing now, stronger than in 
 any other land, in ice-bound Russia. 
 
 But it will be replied that this is not African slavery. I rejoin, that only makes the 
 case the stronger. If this vigorous Saxon race of ours was reduced to slavery while it 
 retained the courage of semi-barbarism, in its own high northern latitude, what secu- 
 rity does climate afford against the transplantation of the more gentle, more docile, and 
 already enslaved and debased African, ^to the genial clime of New Mexico and Eastern 
 California .' Sir, there is no climate uncongenial to slavery. It is true it is less pro- 
 ductive than free labor in many northern countries ; but so it is less productive than 
 free white labor in even tropical climates. Labor is in quick demand in all new coun- 
 tries — slave labor is cheaper than free labor, and will go first into new regions ; and 
 •wherever it goes it brings labor into dishonor, and therefore free white labor avoids 
 competition -with it. Sir, I might rely on climate, if I had not been born in a land 
 •where slavery existed ; and that land was all north of the fortieth parallel of latitude 
 — and if I did not know the struggle that it has cost, and which is yet goinc on to o-et 
 complete relief from the institution and its baneful consequences. 
 
 But, sir, it is said that slavery is prevented by the laws of God from enterino- into 
 the territory from which we propose to inhibit it. I will look into that matter a°little 
 more closely. I wish then, with the utmost respect, to ask senators whether the ordi- 
 nance of 1787 was necessary or not .' That ordina^nce has been the sul^ject of too many 
 eulogiums to be now pronounced a vague and idle thing. That ordinance carried the 
 prohibition of slavery quite up to the 49th degree of north latitude, and yet we are 
 now told that we can trust the laws of God without any ordinance to exclude slavery 
 as far down as 36 deg. and 30 min. Unfortunately, too, the ordinance of 1787 beo-an 
 on the 37th parallel of north latitude, so that there is no part of the territory which 
 it covered, in which slavery, according to the present theory, was not excluded by the 
 law of God. I know no better authority as to the laws of God on this subject than one 
 from whom I have already had occasion to quote with some freedom; and it is the 
 opinion of Montesquieu that it is only the indolence of mankind, and not the climate, 
 which causes the introduction of slavery anywhere. There is no climate where slavery 
 is necessary ; there is none where it cannot be established, if the customs and' laws 
 permit. 
 
 I shall dwell only very briefly on the argument derived from the Mexican laws. 
 The proposition that those laws must remain in force until altered by laws of our 
 own is satisfactory ; and so is the proposition that those Mexican laws abolished and 
 continue to prohibit slavery ; and still I deem an enactment by ourselves wise and 
 even necessary. 
 
 Both of the propositions I have stated are denied with as much confidence by South- 
 ern statesmen and jurists as they are afiBrmed by tliose of the free States. The popu- 
 lation of the new territories is rapidly becoming an American one, to whom the Mexican 
 code will seem a foreign one, entitled to little deference or obedience Slavery has 
 never obtained anywhere by express legislative authority, but always by tramplino- 
 down laws higher than any mere municipal laws— the 1j.\y of nature and of nations" 
 
14 
 
 There can be no oppression in superadding the sanction of Congress, to the authority 
 which is so weiik and so vehemently questioned. And there is some possibility, if not a 
 probability, that the institution might obtain afoothold surreptitiously, if it should not 
 be iibsolutely forbidden by our own authority. 
 
 What is insisted upon, tlierefore, is not a mere abstraction or a mere sentiment, as is 
 contended by those who concur with us as to admitting California, but would waive the 
 proviso. And what is conclusive on the subject, is that it is conceded on all hands that 
 the etfect of insisting on it prevents the extension of Slavery into the region to which it 
 is proposed to apply it. 
 
 Again, it is insisted tliat the diffusion of Slavery does not increase its evils. The ar- 
 gument seems to me merely specious and quite unsound. 
 
 An<l this brings me to the great and all-absorbing argument that the Union is in 
 danger of being dissolved, and that it can only be saved by compromise. 
 
 I do not overlook the fact that the entire Delegation from the Slave States, although 
 they differ in the details of compromise proposed, and perhaps also upon the exact cir- 
 cumstances of the crisis, seem to concur in this momentous warning. Nor do I doubt 
 at all the patriotic devotion to the Union which is expressed by those from whom this 
 warning proceeds. And yet, sir, although these warnings have been uttered with im- 
 passioned solemnity in my hearing, every day, for near three months, my confidence in 
 the Union remains unshaken. I think they are to be received witli no inconsiderable 
 distrust, because they are uttered under the influence of a controlling interest to be 
 secured, a paramount object to be gained — and that is an equilibrium of power in the 
 republic. I think they are to be received with even more distrust, because with the 
 most profound respect they are uttered under an obviouslj' high excitement; nor is that 
 excitement an unnatural one. It is a law of our nature that the passions disturb the 
 reason and judgment, just in proportion to the importance of the occasion, and the con- 
 seqr.ent necessity for calmness and candor. I think they are to be distrusted, because 
 there is a diversity of opinion in regard to the nature and operation of this excitement. 
 The senators from some States say that it has brought all parties in that region into 
 unanimity. The senator from Kentucky says that the danger lies in the violence of 
 party spirit, and refers us to the difficulties which attended the organization of the 
 House of Representatives. 
 
 Sir, in my humble judgment, it is not the fierce conflict of parties that we are seeing 
 and hearing, but, on the contrary, it is the agony of distracted parties — a conclusion 
 resulting from the too narrow foundations of both and of all parties, foundations laid 
 in compromises of natural justice and of human liberty. A question — a moral ques- 
 tion — transcending the too narrow creeds of parties, has arisen. The public conscience 
 expands with it, and the green withes of party associations give way, and break and 
 fall off from it. No, sir, it is not the State that is dying of the fever of party spirit. It 
 18 merely a paralysis of parties, premonitory of their restoration with the new ele- 
 ments of health and vigor imbibed from that spirit of the age which is so justly called 
 Progress. 
 
 Nor is the evil that of unlicensed, irregular and turbulent faction. We are told that 
 twenty legislatures are in session, burning like furnaces, heating and inflaming the 
 popular passions. But these twenty legislatures are constitutional furnaces. They are 
 pei forming their customary functions, imparting healthful heat and vitality while within 
 their constitutional jurisdiction. If they rage beyond its limits, the popular passions 
 of this country are not at all, I think, in danger of being inflamed to excess. No, sir, 
 let none of those fires be extinguished. Forever let them burn and blaze. They are 
 neitlier ominous meteors nor baleful comets, but planets ; and bright and intense as their 
 heat may be, it is their native temperature, and they must still obey the law which by 
 attraction towards the center holds them in their spheres. 
 
 I see notliing of that conflict between the Southern and Northern States, or between 
 their representative bodies, whicli seems to be on all sides of me assumed. Not a word 
 of menace, not a word of anger, not an intemperate word has been uttered in any North- 
 ern legislatui-e. They firmly but calmly assert their convictions, but at the same time 
 they assert tlieir unqualified purpose to submit to their common arbiter, and for weal or 
 Woe abide tlie fortunes of the Union. 
 
 AVliat if tliere be less of moderation in the legislatures of the South ? It only indi- 
 cates on which side the balance is inclining, and that the decision of the question is 
 near at hand. I agree with those wiio say that there can be no peaceful dissolution — 
 no di solution of the Union by the sec.'ssion of States ; but that disunion, dissolution, 
 happen when it may, will and must be llevolution ! I discover no omens of revolution. 
 The predictions of the political astrologers do not agree as to the time or manner in which 
 it is to occur. The honorable senator from Alabama (Mr. Clemens), says tlie event has 
 already happened, and the Union is now in ruins. According to the horoscope of the 
 honorable senator from Mississippi (Mr. Foote), it was to take place on a day already 
 past. According to the honorable and distinguished senator from South Carolina (Mr. 
 Calhoun), it is not to be immediate, but to be developed by time. 
 
15 : 
 
 [Mr. FooTE here interposed and disavowed the construction which had been put upon 
 his remarks, and made further explanations.] 
 
 Mr. Seward. — I am very happy to have given the senator an opportunity to correct 
 the erroneous impressioa, which the remark I have referred to has made. Now the 
 honorable senator will do me the justice to allow that I am at liberty to subtract one 
 prediction from the political almanac, and so the predictions lose so much of im- 
 portance. 
 
 I see no omens of revolution. What are the omens to which our attention is di- 
 rected .' I see nothing but a broad difference of opinion here, and the excitement conse- 
 quent upon it. 
 
 I have observed that revolutions which begin in the palace seldom go beyond the pal- 
 ace walls, and they afifect only the dynasty which reigns there. This revolution, if I 
 understand it, began here in the Senate a year ago, when the representatives from the 
 Southern States assembled here and addressed their constituents on what was called the 
 aggressions of the Northern States. No revolution was designed at that time,_ and all 
 that has happened since is the return to Congress of legislative resolutions, which seem 
 to me to be conventional responses to the address which emanated from the Capital. 
 
 Sir, in any condition of society, there can be no revolution without a cause — an ade- 
 quate cause. What cause exists here .' We are admitting a new State ; but there is 
 nothing new in that — we have already admitted seventeen before. But it is said that 
 the slave States are in danger of losing political power by the admission of the new 
 State. Well, sir, is there anything new in that .' The slave States have always been 
 losing political power, and they always will be while they have any to lose. At first 
 twelve of the thirteen States were slave States. Now, only fifteen out of the thirty are 
 slave States. Moreover, the change is constitutionally made, and the Government was 
 constructed so as to permit changes of the balance of power, in obedience to the changes 
 of the forces of the body politic. JDanton used to say, " It is all well while the people 
 cry Danton and Robespierre, but woe for me if ever the people learn to say Robes- 
 pierre and Danton !'' That is all of it, sir. The people have been accustomed to say 
 — the South and the North. They are only beginning now to say — the North and the 
 South. Sir, those who would alarm us with the terrors of revolution, have not well 
 considered the structure of this Government and the organization of its forces. It is a 
 democracy of property and persons, with a fair approximation toward universal educa- 
 tion, and operating by means of universal sufi'rage. The constituent members of this 
 democracy are the only persons who could subvert it ; and they are not the citizens of 
 a metropolis like Paris, or of a region subjected to the influences of a metropolis, like 
 France, but they are husbandmen, dispersed over this broad land, on the mountain and 
 on the plain, and on the prairie, from the ocean to the Rocky Mountains, and from the 
 Great Lakes to the Gulf. And this people are now, while we are discussing their imagi- 
 nary danger, at peace in their happy homes, and as unconcerned and even as uninformed 
 of their peril as they are of events occurring in the moon. Nor have the alarmists made 
 due allowance in their calculations for the influence of conservative reaction, strong in 
 any government and irresistible in a rural republic, operating by universal suflTrage. 
 That principle of reaction is due to the force of the habits of acquiescence and loyalty 
 among the people. No man better understands this principle than Machiavelli, who 
 has told us in regard to factions, that — 
 
 " No safe reliance can be placed in the force of nature and the bravery of words, ex- 
 cept it be corroborated by custom." 
 
 Do the alarmists remember that this government has stood sixty years already with- 
 out exacting one drop of blood — that this government has stood sixty years, and treason 
 is an obsolete crime .' That day, I trust, is far off when the fountains of popular con- 
 tentment shall be broken up ; but whenever it shall come, it will bring forth a higher 
 illustration than has ever yet been given of the excellency of the democratic system. 
 For then it will be seen how calmly, how foirly, how nobly a great people can act in 
 preserving their Constitution, whom "love of country moveth, example teacheth, com- 
 pany comforteth, emulation quickeneth, and glory exalteth." 
 
 When the founders of the new republic of the South, come to draw over the face of 
 this empire, along or between its parallels of latitude or longitude, their ominous lines 
 of dismemberment, soon to be broadly and deeply shaded with fraternal blood, they may 
 come to the discovery then, if not before, that the national and even the political con- 
 nections of the region embraced forbids such a partition — that its possible divisions are 
 not Northern and Southern at all, but Eastern and Western, Atlantic and Pacific, and 
 that nature and commerce have allied indissolubly for weal and woe the seceders and 
 those from whom they are to be separated ; that while they would rush into a civil war 
 to restore an imaginary equilibrium between the Northern States and the Southern 
 States, that a new equilibrium had taken its place, in which all these States are on the 
 one side and the boundless West was on the other. 
 
 Sir, when the founders of the new republic of the South come to trace these fearful 
 
/' 
 
 16 
 
 lines, they will indicate what portions of. the continent are to be broken off from their 
 connection with the Atlantic through the St. Lawrence, the Hudson, the Delaware, the 
 Potomac, and the Mississippi; what portion of this people are to be denied the use of 
 the lakes, the railroads an(l the canals, now constituting common and customary avenues 
 of travel, trade and social intercourse; what families and kindred are to be separated 
 and converted into enemies, and what States are to be the scenes of perpetual border 
 warfare, aggravated by interminable horrors of interminable insurrection. When 
 these portentous lines shall be drawn, they will disclose what portion of this people 
 is to retain the army and the navy, and the flag of so many victories ; and on the other 
 hand, what portion of the people is to be subjected to new and ominous imposts, direct 
 taxes and forced loans and conscriptions, to maintain an opposing army and navy, and the 
 new and hateful banner of sedition. Then the projectors of the new republic of the^outh 
 will meet the question — and they may well prepare now to answer it — " What is all this 
 for .' What intolerable wrong, what unfraternal injustice, have rendered these calami- 
 ties unavoidable .' What gain will this unnatural revolution bring to us .■"' The answer 
 ■pill ]je — " all this is done to secure the institution of African slavery." 
 
 And then, if not before, the question will be discussed — " What is this institution of 
 slavery, that it should cause these unparalleled sacrifices, and these disastrous afflic- 
 tions ?" And this will be the answer — When the Spaniards, few in number, discovered 
 the Western Indies and the adjacent continental America, they needed labor, to draw 
 forth from its virgin stores some speedy return to the cupidity of the court and the bankers 
 of Madrid. They enslaved the indolent, inoffensive and confiding natives, who perished 
 by thousands, and even by millions, under that new and unnatural bondage. A hu- 
 mane ecclesiastic advised the substitution of Africans reduced to captivity in their na- 
 tive wars, and a pious*princess adopted the suggestion, with a dispensation from the 
 Head of the Church, granted on the ground of the prescriptive right of the Christian to 
 enslave the heathen, to effect his conversion. The colonists of North America, innocent 
 in their unconsciousness of wrong, encouraged the slave traffic, and thus the labor of 
 subduing their territory devolved chiefly upon the African race. A happy conjunction 
 brought on an awakening of the conscience of mankind to the injustice of slavery sim- 
 ultaneously with the independence of the colonies. Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode 
 Island, New Hampshire, Vermont, New York, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania, welcomed 
 and embraced the spirit of universal emancipation ; renouncing luxury they secured 
 influence and empire. But the States of the South, misled by a new and profitable cul- 
 tivation, elected to maintain and perpetuate slavery, and thus choosing luxury, they 
 lost power and empire. 
 
 When this answer shall be given, it will appear that the question of dissolving the 
 Union is a complex question — that it embraces the fearful issue whether the Union shall 
 stand, and slavery, under the steady, peaceful action of moral, social, and political 
 causes, be removed by gradual voluntary effort, without compensation, or whether the 
 Union shall be dissolved and civil wars ensue, bringing on violent but complete and 
 immediate emancipation. We are now arrived at that stage of our national progress 
 when that crisis can be foreseen, when we must foresee it. It is directly before iis. Its 
 shadow is upon us. It darkens the legislative halls, the temples of worship, and the 
 home and the hearth. Every question, political, civil, or ecclesiastical, however foreign 
 to the subject of slavery, brings up slavery as an incident, and the incident supplants 
 the principal question. We hear of nothing but slavery, and can talk of nothing but 
 slavery. And now it seems to me that all our difficulties, embarrassments, and dangers 
 arise not out of unlawful perversions of the question of slavery, as some suppose, but 
 out of the want of moral courage to meet this question of emancipation as we ought. 
 Consequently, we hear on one side demands — absurd, indeed, but yet increasing — for 
 an immediate and unconditional abolition of slavery; as if any power except the people 
 of the slave States could abolish it, and if they could be moved to abolish it by merely 
 sounding the trumpet violently and proclaiming emancipation, while the institution 
 was interwoven with all their social and political interests, constitutions and customs. 
 
 On the other hand, our statesmen say that slavery has always existed, and, for aught 
 they know or can do, it always must exist. God permitted it, and He only can indicate 
 the way to remove it, as if the Supreme Creator, after giving us the instructions of His 
 Providence and Revelation for the illumination of our minds and consciences, did not 
 leave us in all human transactions with due invocations of His Holy Spirit to seek out 
 his will and execute it for ourselves. 
 
 ■ Hero, then, is the point of my separation from both of these parties. I feel assured 
 that slavery will give way, and must give way, to the salutary instructions of economy 
 and to the ripening influence of humanity — that emancipation is inevitable and is near — 
 that it may be hastened or hindered, and that, whether it be peaceful or violent, depends 
 upon the (lucstion whether it be hastened or hindered — that all measures which fortify 
 slavery or extend it tend to the consummation of violence, — all that check its extension 
 and abate its strength, tend to its peaceful extirpation. But I will adopt none but 
 
17 
 
 lawful, constitutional and peaceful means to secure eren'that end, and none such can I 
 or will I forego. xi xv 
 
 Nor do I know any important or responsible body that proposes to do more than this. 
 No free State claims to extend its legislation into a slave State. None claims that 
 Congress shall usurp power to abolish slavery in the slave States. None claims that 
 any violent, unconstitutional or unlawful measures shall be resorted to. And, on the 
 other hand, if we offer no scheme or plan for the adoption of the slave States, with the 
 assent and cooperation of Congress, it is only because the slave States are unwilling as 
 yet to receive suggestions, or even to entertain the question of emancipation in any 
 
 State. . , ^ , 
 
 But, sir, I will take this occasion to say, that while I cannot agree with the honor** 
 ble senator from Massachusetts, in proposing to devote eighty millions to remove the 
 free colored population from the slaves, and thus, as it appears to me, fortify slavery, 
 there is no reasonable limit to which I am not willing to go in applying the national 
 treasures to effect the peaceful, voluntary removal of slavery itself 
 
 I have thus endeavored to show that there is not now, and is not likely to occur, any 
 adequate cause for revolution in regard to slavery. But you reply that. Nevertheless 
 you must have guarantees. And the first one is for the surrender of fugitives from 
 labor. That guarantee you cannot have, as I have already shown, because you cannot 
 roll back the tide of social progress. You must be content with what you have. If 
 you wage war against us, you can at most only conquer us, and then all you can get 
 will be a treaty, and that you have already. But you insist on a guarantee against the 
 abolition of slavery in the District of Columbia, or war. Well, when you shall have 
 declared war against us, what shall hinder us from immediately decreeing that slavery 
 shall cease within the national capital .' 
 
 You say that you will not submit to the exclusion of slaves from the new territories. 
 What will you gain by resistance .' Liberty follows the sword, although her sway is 
 one of peace and beneficence. Can you propagate slavery then by the sword ? 
 
 You insist that you cannot submit to the freedom with which slavery is discussed in 
 the free States. Will war— a war for slavery— arrest or even moderate that discussion ? 
 No, sir, that discussion will not cease. War would only inflame it to a greater hight. 
 It is a part of the eternal conflict between truth and error, between mind and physical 
 force, the conflict of man against the obstacles which oppose his way to an ultimate and 
 glorious destiny. It will go on until you shall terminate it, in the only way in which any 
 State or nation has ever terminated it, by yielding to it — yielding in your own time 
 and in your own manner indeed, but nevertheless yielding, to the progress of emanci- 
 pation. 
 
 You will do this sooner or later, whatever may be your opinions now ; because 
 nations not more prudent and humane and wise than you are have done so already. 
 
 Sir, the slave States have no reason to fear that this inevitable change will go too far 
 or too fast for their safety or welfare. It cannot well go too fast or too far if the only 
 alternative of it is a war of races. 
 
 But it cannot go too fast. Slavery has a reliable and accommodating ally m a party 
 in the free States, which, though it claims to be, and doubtless is in many respects, a 
 party of progress, finds its sole security for its political power in the support and aid 
 of slavery in°the slave States. Of course I do not include in that party those who are 
 now cooperating in maintaining the cause of freedom against slavery. I am not of that 
 party of progress in the North which thus lends its support to slavery. But it is only 
 just and candid that I should bear witness to their fidelity to the interests of slavery. 
 Slavery has moreover a more natural alliance with the aristocracy of the North and 
 with the aristocracy of Europe, so long as slavery shall possess the cotton fields, the 
 sugar fields, and the rice fields of the world, so long will commerce and capital yield 
 their toleration and sympathy. Emancipation is a Democratic revolution. It is capital 
 that arrests all Democratic revolution. It was capital that in a single year rolled back 
 the tide of revolution on the base of the Carpathian mountains, across the Danube and 
 the Rhine into the streets of Paris. It is capital that is rapidly rolling back the throne 
 of Napoleon into the chambers of the Tuilleries. 
 
 Slavery has a guarantee still stronger than these in the prejudices of caste and coloF, 
 which induces even large majorities in all the free States to regard sympathy with the 
 slave as an act of unmanly humiliation and self-abasement. Although Philosophy meekly 
 expresses her distrust of the asserted natural superiority of the white race, and confi- 
 dently denies that such a superiority, if justly claimed, can give a title to oppression, 
 there remains one more guarantee— one that has seldom failed you, and will seldom 
 fail you hereafter. New States cling in closer reliance than the older ones to the federal 
 power. The concentration of the slave power enables you for long periods to control 
 the federal government with the aid of the new States. I do not know the sentiments 
 of the representatives of California, but my word for it, if they should be admitted on 
 this floor to-day against your most obstinate opposition, they would on all questions 
 really affecting your interests be found at your side. With these allies and aids to 
 break the force of emancipation, there will be no disunion and no scaession I o not 
 2 
 
m 
 
 Miy that there may not be disturbance, though I do not apprehend even that. Absolute 
 regularity and order in administration have not yet been established in any govern- 
 ment, and unbroken popular tranquillity has not yet been attained in even the most 
 advanced condition of human society. The machinery of our system is necessarily 
 oomplex. A pivot may fall out here — a lever be displaced there — but the machinery 
 •will soon recover its regularity and move on just as before, with even better adaptation 
 emd adjustment to overcome new obstructions. 
 
 There are many well disposed persons who are alai-med at the occurrence of any 
 8uch disturbance. 
 
 The failure of a legislative body to organize is to their apprehension a fearful omen, 
 jttid an extra constitutional assemblage to consult upon public affairs, is with them 
 cause for desperation. Even senators speak of the Union as if it existed only by con- 
 sent, and, as it seems to be implied, by the assent of the legislatures of the States. On 
 the contrary, the Union was not founded in voluntary choice, nor does it exist by vol- 
 untary consent. 
 
 A union was proposed to the Colonies by Franklin and others in 1754 ; but such waa 
 their aversion to an abridgement of their own importance respectively, that it was 
 rejected even under the pressure of a disastrous invasion by France. 
 
 A uni(>n of choice was proposed to the Colonies in 1775 ; but so strong was their 
 opposition, that they went through the war of Independence without having established 
 more than a mere Council of Confederation. 
 
 But with independence came enlarged interests of agriculture, absolutely new inter- 
 ests of manufactures — interests of commerce, of fisheries, of navigation, of common 
 domain, common debts, of common revenues and taxation, of the administration of 
 justice, of public defense, of public honor — in short, interests of common nationality 
 and common sovereignty — interests which at last compelled the adoption of a more 
 perfect union, a national government. 
 
 The genius, talent and learning of Hamilton, of Jay and of Madison, surpassing 
 perhaps all the intellectual power ever excited before for the establishment of a 
 Government, combined with the severe but mighty influence of Washington, were only 
 sufiBcient to secure the reluctant adoption of the Constitution that is now the object of 
 all our affections and the hopes of mankind. No wonder that the conflicts in which that 
 Constitution was born, and the almost desponding solemnity of W.ashington in his Fare- 
 well Address, impressed his countrymen and mankind with a profound distrust of its 
 perpetuity ! No wonder that, while the murmurs of that day are yet ringing in our 
 ears, we have cherished that distrust with pious reverence, as a national and patriotic 
 sentiment. 
 
 < But it is time to prevent abuses of that sentiment. It is time to shake off that fear-— 
 for fear is always weakness. It is time to remember that Government, even when it 
 arises by chance or accident, and is administered capriciously and oppressively, is ever 
 the strongest of all human institutions, surviving many social and ecclesiastical changes 
 and convulsions, and that this Government of ours has all the inherent strength com- 
 mon to Governments in general, and added to them, all the solidity and firmness derived 
 from broader and deeper foundations in natural justice, forming a better civil adap- 
 tation to promote the welfare and happiiiess of mankind. 
 
 The Union, the creation of necessities, physical, moral, social and political, endures 
 by virtue of the same necessities, and these necessities are stronger than when it was 
 produced, and by the greater amplitude of territory now covered by it — stronger by 
 the sixfold increase of the society living under its beneficent protection — stronger by the 
 augmentation ten thousand times of the fields, the workshops, the mines and the ships of 
 that society, of its productions of the sea, of the plow, of the loom, and of the anvil, in 
 their constant circle of internal and international exchanges — stronger in the long rivers 
 penetrating regions before unknown — stronger in all the artificial roads, canals and 
 other channels and avenues essential not only to trade, but to defense — stronger in 
 steam navigation, in steam locomotion on the land, and in telegraph communications 
 unknown when the Constitution was adopted — stronger in the freedom and in the 
 growing empire of the seas — stronger in the element of national honor in all lands — 
 and stronger than all in the now settled habits of veneration and affection for institu- 
 tions so stupendous and useful. 
 
 The Union then IS, — not because merely that men choose that it shall be, but because 
 gome government must exist here, and no other government than this can. If it could 
 be dashed to atoms by the whirlwind, the lightning and the e.irthquake to-day, it would 
 rise again, in all its just and magnificent proportions, to-morrow. 
 
 I have heard somewhat here, almost for the first time in my life, of divided allegiance 
 —of allegiance to the South and to the Union— of allegiance to the States severally 
 and to the Union. Sir, if .sympathies with State emulation and pride of achievement 
 could be allowed to raise up another sovereign to divide the allegiance of a citizen of 
 the United States, I might recognize the claims of the State to which by birth and 
 gratitude I belong— to the State of Hamilton and Jay, of Schuyler, of the Clintons, 
 and of Fulton— the State which, with less than 200 miles of natural navigation con- 
 
19 
 
 nected with the ocean, has by her own enterprize secured to herself the commerce of 
 the Continent, and is steadily advancing to the command of the commerce of the world. 
 But, for all this, I know only one country and one sovereign — the United States of 
 America and the American people. 
 
 And such as my allegiance is, is the loyalty of every other citizen of the United States. 
 As I speak he will speak, when his time arrives ; he knows no other country and no. 
 other sovereign ; he has life, liberty, property, and precious affections and hopes for 
 himself and his posterity treasured up in the ark of the Union. He knows as well, 
 and feels as strongly as I do, that this government is his own government, that he is a. 
 part of it, that it was established for him, and that it is maintained by him ; that it ia 
 the only truly wise, just, free and equal government that has ever existed ; that no 
 other government could be so wise, just, free and equal ; that it is safer and more benefi- 
 cent than any which time or change could bring into its place. 
 
 You may tell me, sir, that although all this may be true, yet that the trial of faction 
 has not yet been made. Sir, if the trial of faction has not been made, it has not been 
 because that faction has not always existed, and has not always menaced a trial, but 
 because fiiction could find no fulcrum on which to place the lever to subvert the Union, 
 as ifcan find no fulcrum now, and in this is my confidence. I would not rashly pro- 
 voke the trial, but I will not suffer a fear which I have not to make me compromise one 
 eentiment, one principle of truth or justice, to avert a danger that all experience 
 teaches me is purely chimerical. Let, then, those who distrust the Union make com- 
 promises to save it; I shall not impeach their wisdom, as 1 certainly cannot their 
 patriotism, but indulging no such apprehensions myself. 
 
 I shall vote for the admission of California directly, without conditions, without 
 qualification, and without compromise ; for the vindication of that vote I look not_ to 
 the verdict of the passing hour, disturbed as the public mind now is by conflicting 
 interests and passions, but to that period, happily not far distant, when the vast regions 
 over which we are now legislating, shall have received their destined inhabitants. _ 
 
 While looking forward to that day, its countless generations seem to me to be rising 
 np and passing in dim and shadowy review before us. And the voice comes forth from 
 their serried ranks, saying, " Waste your treasures and your armies, if you will, raze 
 your fortifications to the ground, sink your navies into the sea, transmit to us even a dis- 
 honored name, if you must, but the soil that you hold in trust for us, give it to us 
 free. You found it free, and conquered it to extend a better and a surer freedom 
 over it. Whatever choice you have made for yourselves, let us have no partial free- 
 dom. Let us all be free. Let the reversion of our broad domain descend to us unen- 
 sumbered, and free from the calamities and sorrows of human bondage." 
 
 SPEECH OF HON. LEWIS CASS 
 
 On the motion of Mr. Foote to refer the motion of Mr. Bell to a Select Committee of 
 thirteen Senators, with instructions to prepare a Compromise. Delivered, March 13 
 and 14. 
 
 Mr. C.4SS— On this subject, sir, I agree precisely with what was said by the distin- 
 guished Senator from Kentucky (Jlr. Clay). I shall vote for the reference. I should 
 vote for almost any proposition that had the appearance of bringing this country into 
 harmony upon this perplexing question — almost any proposition that may be sub- 
 mitted, which has even the appearance of such a result. I do not see any possible ob- 
 jection to this course. It commits no one. It is simply an instruction to a committee 
 to inquire into what can be done. 
 
 It does not suspend the operation of the Senate at all. Its discussion, its debates, its 
 votes, will go on as though this question had not been submitted to a committee. It is 
 one chance more for terminating this fearful controversy. I agree, too, with the senator 
 from Kentucky, that my hopes are not strong as to any favorable result to grow out of 
 this committee. The chances have been much diminished by the vote taken on yester- 
 day. If that vote contained any indication of the feelings in this chamber with regar^ 
 to the committee itself, and the benefit to result from it, I am sorry to say that I can 
 anticipate very little good from the proposition of the senator from Mississippi (Mr. 
 FooTE), relative to the resolutions prepared with great care and submitted with great 
 good sense and excellent good feeling, such as have always distinguished the senator 
 from Tennessee (.Mr. Bell). For myself, I am not prepared to say what my views will 
 be upon this whole matter. They are not yet formed. I say merely that this course 
 holds out one hope the more, and is therefore well worthy of adoption. So far as re- 
 
20 
 
 epccts the proposition connected with Texas, I am myself prepared to consider it in » 
 spirit of fairness and liberality. The honorable senator from Tennessee (Mr. Bell) 
 eaid that a doubt has been suggested with respect to the disposition of the Senate, and 
 perhaps of the country, to carry into effect the Texas guaranties. I believed tliat the 
 gentleman was wholly in error. I am sorry to find, from various indications here, that 
 he was not. For myself, without going into the general question at all, I am prepared 
 to say, that as long as I have a vote to give, I will faithfully carry out the spirit of the 
 articles'of annexation, and I will not look behind their guaranties. I will abide by 
 them, and I am prepared at all times to say so. 
 
 But, however this proposition may terminate, I think the* country is under lasting 
 obligation to the senator from Mississippi for his efforts to settle the existing diiEculties'. 
 While he has proved himself true to his own section of the country, he has provetl him- 
 eelf true to the whole country. Ha has stood up manfully for the rights of the South, 
 but he has stood up also for the obligations of the constitution. And I must say, also, 
 that I have seldom seen an instance of greater moral courage than has been displayed 
 by him. The distinguished senator fi'Om South Carolina occupies, we all know, a high 
 position in the country ; and from the zeal, and energy, and ability with which he has 
 long advocated the cause of the South, he has almost rendered himself the representa- 
 tive of Southern opinions. When, in the name of that section of country, he advanced 
 claims which, if persisted in, would have presented insurmountable obstacles to the 
 amicable adjustment of these difficulties, the senator from Mississippi came forward to 
 disavow the sentiments thus advanced. He came as a messenger of peace, to pour oil 
 upon the troubled waters. He deserves the gratitude of the country for this noble ef- 
 fort. I must confess my own impressions agreed with the impressions of the honorable 
 senator from Mississippi. I thought the speech of the senator from South Carolina 
 was calculated to produce the most unfavorable results. 
 
 I listened, Mr. President, with great regret to the speech of that distinguished sena- 
 tor (Mr. Calhoun). I am not going to criticise it. 'Sly great respect for that gentle- 
 man will prevent me from doing it. I will merely say that there was a strange collec- 
 tion of facts, as well as a strange collocation of them, and that these were followed by 
 strange conclusions. I think, Mr. President, I may say, and I imagine this feeling is 
 general in the Senate, that a sombre hue pervaded this whole speech, in consequence 
 of its being prepared in the recesses of a sick chamber. Had he been able to walk 
 abroad in the light of heaven, and had he felt the breezes blowing upon him, I am sure 
 his remarks would not have been as gloomy, nor the results as desponding. We have 
 all felt this, sir, and I know how to sympathize with it. 
 
 I repeat that I am not going to criticise the speech of the honorable senator ; b»t 
 there was one expression, I remember, which grated harshly upon my ear. He deno- 
 minated Washington the illustrious southerner ! Not the renowned warrior — not the 
 eminent statesman — not the distinguished citizen — not the great American — not the 
 beloved Virginian — but the illustrious southerner. Our Washington — the Washington 
 of our whole country — receives in this Senate the epithet of " southerner," as if the 
 glory of his name and fame could be divided or assigned to a single section of his be- 
 loved country ; as if that great man, whose distinguished characteristic was his attach- 
 ment to his country, and his whole country, which was so well known, and who, more 
 than any one, deprecated all sectional feeling and all sectional action, loved Georgia 
 better than he loved New Hampshire, because he happened to be born on the southern 
 bank of the Potomac. I repeat, sir, that I heard with great pain that expression from 
 the distinguished senator from South Carolina. 
 
 I heard the disavowal of the honorable senator from Mississippi (Mr. Foote) with 
 the more gratification, because it was followed by an explanation from the senator from 
 South Carolina (Mr. Calhoun), which, though it did not relieve my apprehensions, 
 certainly diminished them. If the impression which I, as well as many others, re- 
 ceived respecting the nature of these propositions was correct, the handwriting was 
 already upon the wall. " God hath numbered thy kingdom and finished it," announced 
 with no more certainty to the wondering king of Babylon the destruction of his em- 
 pire and the termination of his life, than would those propositions, if the continuance 
 of our Union depended upon their adoption, have announced that " God hath num- 
 bered our republic and finished it." To what new Medes and Persians we should have 
 been delivered, is known only to Him who holds in his hands the fate of nations. 
 
 We have been three months here, and what have we done .' Nothing We have not 
 passed a single law of the least national importance. AVe have occupied the whole 
 fiime in the discussion of this question, and no practical result has been attained ; and 
 
 5 resent appearances do not indicate that such a result is near- But, though we have 
 one nothing, we Imve ascertained that some things cannot be done. We have ascer- 
 tained — I think I may say with certainty — that no Wilmot proviso can be passed through 
 this Congress. That measure is dead. It is the latest, and I hope it is the last, attempt 
 that will be made to interfere with the right of self-government within the limits of 
 this republic. I think we may also say that no Missouri compromise line can pass, apdj 
 that no one expects or desires that it should pass. 
 
21; 
 
 Mr. President, wkat was^the compromise line ? Allow me to read the law which es- 
 tablished it : 
 
 " Sec. 8. ^nd be it further enacted, That in all that territory ceded by France to th« 
 United States, under the name of Louisiana, which lies north of thirty-six degrees and 
 thirty minutes north latitude, not included within the limits of the state contemplated 
 by this act, slavery and involuntary servitude, otherwise than in the punishment of 
 erimes, whereof the parties shall have been duly convicted, shall be and is hereby for- 
 ever prohibited." 
 
 Now, sir, what is this provision .' It is intervention north of the line of 36 deg. 30 
 min., and non-intervention south of that line. Sir, there is not one southern senator 
 on this floor, nor one southern member of the other House, nor, indeed, a southern man 
 who understands the subject, who would accept that line as a proper settlement of thij 
 question. 
 
 Mr. FooTE, (in his seat.) I would not. 
 
 Mr. Cass — The whole doctrine of equal rights and of non-intervention is taken awaj 
 by it at once. Why, sir, putting out of view the constitutional objections to such an 
 arrangement, it gives the South nothing, while it prohibits the people north of 86 deg. 
 SO min. from exercising their own will upon the subject. The true doctrine of non- 
 intervention leaves the whole question to the people and does not divide their right of 
 decision by a parallel of latitude. If they choose to have slavery north of that line, 
 they can have it. 
 
 Mr. Galhoujv, (in his seat.) We are very competent to judge of that matter our- 
 Wlves. 
 
 Mr. Cass. Is there a Senator on this floor who would accept of a proposition to apply 
 the principle of non-intervention to a part of the territory, leaving to the people of the 
 other portion to do as they please .' No, sir ; there is not a Southern Senator here who 
 would vote for it. I will tell you what woul 1 be supported, for it has already been an- 
 nounced — a law declaratory, mandatory, or permissory, for the establishment of slave- 
 ry south of the line of 36 30. The distinguished Senator from South Carolina might 
 be willing to accept a declaration that slavery does now exist, or that it shall exist, or 
 may exist south of a certain line ; but I take it for granted that no Senator from the 
 South would be willing to abandon the ground of non-intervention, without some pro- 
 vision like that. 
 
 Mr. FooTE. Permit me freely to say that I would no sooner vote for a Southera 
 Wilmot proviso than I would for a Northern one. I rely, and am content to rely, upon 
 the constitution. I was not convinced by the ai'gument of the Senator from South Ca- 
 rolina of the necessity or expediency of going further than that. I rely with entire con- 
 fidence upon our rights under the constitution, and the treaty by w^iieh the Territories 
 were acquired. I ask for no legislation upon the subject, but simply that the wholei 
 matter be let alone. I ask nothing else but the doctrine of non-intervention. 
 
 Mr. Cass. Mr. President, I will not argue this point. I was about to say that what 
 the law is, is a question for the decision of the judiciary. But what the law shall be, 
 it belongs to the legislative department to declare. If we have power to pass a law de- 
 claring the existence of slavery, which is to be attended with any practical result, we 
 necessarily possess jurisdiction over the whole subject matter. We have the same power 
 to pass a mandatory law, commanding the existence of slavery, as a declaratory one re- 
 cognising its existence. And I will appeal to every Senator, Northern or Southern, 
 Eastern or Western, if there is any probability — I may say possibility — of such a law 
 
 fiassing this Congress .' No one asks it ; no one expects it. The Missouri compromise 
 ine is, therefore, as much out of the question as the Wilmot proviso. The ftict is, Mr. 
 President, it is not in any way applicable to the existing state of things, though it waa 
 applicable to the country where it was established, because slavery was there an exist- 
 ing institution, and it was left in force south of 36 30. Insuperable objections, there- 
 fore, exist to such an arrangement, where the condition of the country is entirely 
 changed. 
 
 Well, then, Mr. President, if these things are impossible, if they cannot be done, it 
 remains to inquire what it is in our power to do. 
 
 My own opinion is, sir, that we should take up the bill for the recapture of fugitive 
 slaves, reported by the Judiciary Committee. I am disposed to suspend all our discus- 
 sions, and to lay aside all other business, with a view to act upon that bill without un- 
 necessary delay, and to pass it in such form as may be acceptable to a majority of this 
 body. That is a point upon which the South feels most acutely, and in regard to whioh 
 it has the most serious cause of complaint. I have heard but one man in this body deny 
 the existence of this evil, or the justice or necessity of providing an adequate remedy. 
 
 The act of 1793 provided that the State magistrates in the various cities and counties 
 of the Union should carry that law into efl'ect. This provision has been since renderea 
 nugatory, as these officers will not now act, and consequently the judges of the United 
 States alone have jurisdiction over the subject. They are not enough for that purpose, 
 and the law, therefore, requires an amendment. 1, for one, am willing to take up the 
 jfabject, and provide the necessary means of carrying the provision of the constitutioa 
 
22 
 
 into fail effect. Such a procedure •would have the very best effect upon the South at thie 
 time. It would be a pledge of our sincerity and of our desire to do justice to that great 
 Bection of our common country. 
 
 If I understood the Senator from New York, (Mr. Seward,) he intimated his belief 
 that it was immoral to carry into effect the provision of the constitution for the recap- 
 ture of fugitive slaves. That, sir, is a very strange view of the duties of a Senator in 
 this body. No man should come here who believes that onrs is an immoral constitution 
 — no man should come here, and by the solemn sanction of an oath, promise to support 
 an immoral constitution. No man is compelled to take an oath to support it. He may 
 live in this country an 1 believe what he chooses with regard to the constitution ; but he 
 has no right as an honest man to seek ofiBce, and obtain it, and then talk about its being 
 BO immoral to fulfil its obligations. It is the duty of every man, who has sworn to sup- 
 port the constitution, fairly to carry its provisions into effect ; and no man can stand up 
 before his fellow-citizens and maintain any other doctrine, whatever reasons he may 
 urge in its vindication. 
 
 In one of the most disingenuous portions of the speech of the honorable Senator from 
 ¥ew York, (Mr. Seward) — which itself was one of the most disingenuous I have ever 
 heard — he speaks of "slavery having a reliable and accommodating ally in a party of the 
 free Stales," and he says he " bears witness to its fidelity to the interests of slavery." 
 
 Now, I ask the Senator from New York if he believes there is a man in this Senate 
 from the North whose course is influenced by his fidelity to slavery .' and if he does not., 
 what right he has to cast odium upon gentlemen who are associated with him in the high 
 duties which belong to this position ? 
 
 Mr. Sewart). The Senator addresses a question to me. I rise for the purpose of an- 
 swering it, and for no other purpose. I think it was Jefferson who said that the natural 
 ally of slavery in the South was the democracy of the North. 
 Mr. Hale. It was Mr. Buchanan who said so. 
 
 Mr. Seward, Mr. Foote, and Mr. Dawson had here a conversation, in "which Mr. 
 Dawson said that if the sentiments of Mr. Seward were those of the Whig party, he 
 wished it to be understood that he did not belong to that party. In reply to which Mr. 
 Seward said : — I speak for myself, and for no other man. I am a citizen of the United 
 States ; my duty is to promote the interest, the happiness, and the welfare of the people 
 of the United States. I hold that I can do so in no effectual way by going alone and in- 
 dependently ; and, therefore, in the discharge of my duties, I ally myself to such a party 
 as I find most approximating to the principles and sentiments that I entertain. I will 
 do the Whig party the justice, or rather the injustice to say, that I have been a member 
 {>f it the whole of my active life ; and I will do it the great disservice of saying that, no 
 matter what may kappen, or who may put me under their ban, I shall be the last to 
 abandon it — I shall be the last to leave it — for this reason, that I find it, however indi- 
 viduals may dissent, the party more devoted to the cause of freedom and emancipation 
 than that other party to which I referred in the remarks which arrested the attention 
 of the distinguished Senator from Michigan. I will also do the Whig party the justice 
 to say that its sentiments are not fully in accordance, upon this subject, throughout the 
 whole country, with my own ; and that I do not profess to speak for it, but I have great 
 hopes that the Whig party, and all other parties, will ultimately come to precisely tho 
 same conclusions, which are the guiding and governing principles of my own course. 
 
 Mr. Ca.ss, (resuming.) I was going to remark that, with respect to the creed of the 
 Whig party or the orthodoxy of the Senator from New York, these are matters with 
 •which I have no concern ; but with respect to progress I have something to say. 
 My progress is within the constitution. My age of progress is circumscribed there. If 
 the Senator from New York is going out of it, I do not believe in his progress at all. No, 
 BIT. My object is to support the constitution which, under God, is the source of our 
 prosperity and happiness. 
 
 Mr. Seward, (in his seat.) That is mine. 
 
 Mr. CA^;s. The Senator from New York says that also is his object. If it is, I think 
 he has a very strange way of showing it, by pronouncing it immoral, and denj'ing the 
 validity of its obligations. It scarcely would last a day if that Senator, with his avow- 
 ed principle of action, had the direction of the Government. I do not say that it 
 would be dissolved immediately, but the seeds of dissolution would be sown, and would 
 ripen into a harvest of calamity as speedily as the rankest vegetation gains maturity 
 mnder a tropical sun. 
 
 [Mr Cass here gave way to resume the subject on the next day : on Thursday, he 
 resumed as follows :] 
 
 I was remarking yesterday, when I resigned the floor, there were certain things "we 
 •ould not accomplish, and others that with equal certainty we might take for granted 
 we could do. Among the latter was the bill providing for the recapture of fugitive 
 ilaves; and another object which I trust will be accomplished is the providing of a 
 government for the new Territories. I think it essential to calm this agitation, and 
 •0 long as these Territories are left without a governmeatj sa 19112 will the present 
 
23 
 
 state ofthings continue, and this agitation be kept up, which is so harassing to the 
 tranquillity, and dangerous to the peace of the Union. „ . . , ., 
 
 That a law may be passed authorizing the people of the Territories to govern them- 
 selves, without any Wilmot Proviso being attached to it, is my wish and my hope 1 
 am not goincr to say much upon the propriety of the admission of California, tor the 
 remarks that have fallen from my friend from Illinois (Mr. Douglas) are sowell ex- 
 pressed and so pertinent, that they preclude the necessity of entering anew into tnat 
 topic at any length. „ , ^ ,. . j •. i j„„ 
 
 I understood the distinguished Senator from South Carolina to admit, yesterday, 
 that he did make it expressly a test question. As I remarked before, it w«s this de- 
 mand of the honorable Senator that excited in my mind serious apprehensions as to tne 
 result ; for I knew, and every member of this Senate knew, that if this was made a test 
 question upon which the fate of this republic depended, that fate was sealed. 1 trust 
 I may be permitted to say, with regard to this issue, that it appears to me not only un- 
 wise but useless, for the reasons so well expressed by the Senator from Illinois m his 
 
 speech to-day. , „ , ,tt x -n • 
 
 No gentleman on this floor, from the North or the South, the East or West, will rise 
 in his seat and say he believes that slavery will ever go into the Territory of talitorma 
 —no one can believe this for a moment. What, sir, would the Southern States gain by 
 sending California, after she has come here with a constitution m her hands, back 
 again, to undergo the process of a Territorial Government, and then to return here a 
 year hence, every year perhaps for ten years, and revive the question anew ? What 
 would be gained by it for any portion of the country .' Is it a battle worth ngliting ^ 
 Is the object to be accomplished really worth the contest .' Sir, there is no object that 
 can be accomplished by such a course of procedure. Under existing circumstances, 
 what kind of Territorial Government can be established there .' Can any lerritorial 
 Government be established .' And is this unsettled state of things to go on from year to 
 year, perpetuating the bitter feelings that have already sprung up between one section 
 of the Union and the other ? But I have said also such a course is unwise ; and 1 trust 
 my Southern friends will pardon me for saying they are making a very unwise issue. 
 
 Sir, we cannot stand before the country, and before the world, and object to the admis- 
 sion of California on the ground that has been urged. The objection is not to her 
 boundaries, though that topic has been much debated. The honorable Senator from 
 Illinois, whom we have all just heard with so much pleasure, has discussed the subject 
 so ably and clearly that it would be a work of supererogation in me to renew it. I 
 myself was at first startled at the boundary claimed, stretching as it does along the 
 coast of the Pacific one thousand miles ; a much greater extent than any one State in 
 the Union ought to possess. As the Senator from Illinois and myself are together in 
 the same house, we have conversed repeatedly upon this subject, and with an earnest 
 desire to reduce these boundaries, if the nature of the country would permit. With 
 this view he examined various lines proposed— the parallel of 36o 30', and the southern 
 range of mountains— to ascertain what proper limitation could be imposed upon the 
 new State. But he. ultimately became satisfied that no change could be made. The 
 country between the ocean and the sea is a narrow one, and east of the mountains is a 
 desert, and in proportion to its extent the quantity of arable land is small. Be the 
 boundaries as they may, it is not probable that its population will ever be as great as 
 that of some of the other States of this Union. And if its southern boundary were to 
 stop at the mountains, there would be left between them and the Mexican possessions a 
 small district of country, which would have to remain for an indefinite period, perhaps 
 forever, in a colonial condition. . 
 
 The Senator from South Carolina, (Mr. Caj.houn,) who I regrettosee is not in his 
 seat to-day, does not assume this ground as an objection to the admission of California. 
 That objection rests upon her present position and mode of application ; because she 
 has established a Government of her own without passing through a territorial process, 
 and comes here of her own accord and asks admission into this Union. This ground of 
 objection cannot be maintained in this age of the world, before the people of this coun- 
 try, and I may add the people Christendom. 
 
 One hundred thousand American citizens on the shores of the Pacific are, or mifht 
 be, so far as depends on our action, in a perfect state of anarchy. .Three sessions of 
 Congress have intervened since these new Territories came under the jurisdiction of the 
 United States, and you have not legislated for them in a single instance, except to make 
 provision for the collection of revenue at their ports. All other duties devolving upon 
 you as legislators for the entire Union have been totally neglected. You have used 
 them only for the purpose of collecting taxes from them. Are we, sir, to be told in the 
 in the middle of the nineteenth century that these people under such circumstances 
 have no right to form a Government .' No man can stand up here and assert this doc- 
 trine, and expect to receive the support of the people of this country. My friend from 
 Illinois (Mr. Douglas,) correctly said that the right of government, of some kind of 
 government, was a right inherent in all people upon the face of the earth ; and that the 
 establishment of civil and social order was umong the first necessities of men entering 
 
34 
 
 into civil society. Without government they cannot exist ; and you have provided no 
 
 government for the people of California, and it is now contended that they have no right 
 to provide one for themselves. You have neglected your own duty towards them for 
 the last three sessions, and now, when they come here acknowledging your jurisdiction, 
 and with a constitution in their hands, you are about to send them bacli to the shores of 
 the Pacific to enter into a territorial condition, and to return again at some future time 
 as suppliants to your favor. They love the Union. They have felt its blessings and 
 desire to secure them to themselves and posterity. They will have no other standard 
 to wave in the breezes of the Pacific on their coast but the standard of their fathers — the 
 stars and^tripes of their country. AVould to God that this feeling prevailed with equal 
 intensity at the centre of the republic as it prevails at its distant extremity! While 
 they wish to come in, there are those who wish to go out. It is consoling to find that 
 the patriotic ardor of our countrymen does not diminish as they recede from the older 
 portions of the republic. I repeat, they come here, not as revolutionists, but as an in- 
 tegral part of our great community, asliing admittance into the confederacy. 
 
 Mr. King, (in his seat.) Who is it that prevents them ? 
 
 Mr. Cass. The Senator from Alabama inquires who it is that has prevented them 
 from having a government, and I answer it is the Congress of the United States ; and 
 in saying this, I take the blame myself, as one of its members. 
 
 Mr. Downs. The Wilmot proviso prevents them. 
 
 Mr. Cass. I am speaking of the cause of our neglect. The Wilmot proviso is another 
 thing. I am not examining what diiferences of opinion may have prevented our action. 
 I am speaking of our neglect, and of its effect upon the people of California, and of their 
 justification in forming a State Government. What has the Wilmot proviso, or any 
 other difference of opinion here, to do witli them.' They would still have remained 
 "without a government had they not taken their own causfe into their own hands, and 
 done for themselves what we ought to have done for tliem. Are they to be deprived of 
 social organization, and of all the elements of social order, I may add of existence, and 
 to be treated by us with contumely and mockery, under the pretense that we can do 
 nothing for them, because some one thinks proper to introduce the Wilmot proviso into 
 our legislative proceedings ? 
 
 Mr. Downs. Does not the gentleman know that that is the only reason .' 
 
 Mr. Cass. To be sure; gentlemen would not have voted for a Territorial Govern- 
 ment clogged with the Wilmot proviso. I would not do it myself. But the great fact 
 still remains. It is our fault they have no government. It is not theirs ; and it is be- 
 cause that question has divided you, and prevented you from doing your duty, that the/ 
 appear here to-day and ask justice at your hands. 
 
 Mr. FooTE. Will the Senator bear with me ? 
 
 Mr. Cass. With pleasure. 
 
 Mr. FooTE. I presume the Senator does not wish to do injustice to any one ; but he 
 knows well that what may properly be called the Walker amendment was prevented 
 from being adopted, according to his own account, by the Senator from New York. 
 
 Mr. Cass. If any gentleman supposes that I had the slightest idea of casting censure 
 upon one human being, he is utterly mistaken; such a sentiment never occurred tome. 
 I was speaking of the Congress of the United States ; and of the duties they had to per- 
 form, and had neglected to perform, and did not intend to reflect the slightest censure 
 upon any gentleman north, south, east, or west, much less to arraign their motives. I 
 ■was speaking of the relation which existed between this Government and the people of 
 California, which has justified, in my opinion, the course they have taken. 
 
 Mr. Butler. Will the honorable Senator allow me to ask him a question ? 
 
 Mr. Cass. Certainly. 
 
 Mr. Butler. Do I understand the honorable Senator now to say that it was the 
 duty of Congress to have provided a competent Government for these Territories .' 
 
 Mr. Cass. There are two positions I have always maintained with reference to this 
 Subject. First, that Congress under the Constitution has no right to establish Govern- 
 ments for the Territories ; secondly, that under no circumstances have they the right to 
 pass any law to regulate the internal affairs of the people inhabiting tliem. The first 
 m:^ be a matter of necessity ; and wlien the necessity exists, if a Senator votes for it, 
 he votes upon his. own responsibility to Iiis constituents If they believe the necessity 
 and support him, he is safe ; but if not he must fall. If I had voted under such circum- 
 stances, I must have looked to my constituents for my justification ; but under no cir- 
 cumstances could I have voted for any law interfering with the internal concerns of the 
 people of a Territory. No necessity requires it. There ia no necessity which would 
 justify it. 
 
 Mr. Chase. Will the Senator allow me to ask him a question ? 
 
 Mr. Cass. Certainly ; I stand ready to be catechised all day on this subject, if Sena- 
 tors desire it. 
 
 Mr. Chase. Did I understand the Senator as saying that in voting for a bill to 
 establish a government in the territories, he would assume the exercise of any au- 
 thority not given in the constitution .' 
 
2b 
 
 Mr. Cass. The honorable Senator will undoubtedly recollect that in a historical 
 document called the Nicholson letter, which subsequent circumstances have made some- 
 what important, I distinctly stated my views upon this subject, and those views have 
 remained unchanged to the present hour. I maintained that no power is given by the 
 constitution to establish territorial governments, but that where an imperious necessity 
 exists for such a measure, the legislator who yield to it must look to his constituents for 
 his justification. t .1 -x- • 
 
 Mr. Chase. I understood the Senator to say that there was no Such authority given 
 by the constitution ? . . , 
 
 Mr. Cass. I said that if we do an act not authorized by the constitution, under a 
 pressure of necessity, that act must be done upon our own responsibility ; and I refer 
 the gentleman to the authority of Mr. Madison, who justified the action of the Congress 
 of the Confederation on the subject of territories upon this ground, and upon thisalone. 
 If the gentleman will take the trouble to look at my speech on the Wilmot proviso, he 
 will find my views on this point, distinctly laid down. What is the objection in princi- 
 ple to the admission of California .' Allow me to say that great political rights and 
 toovements, in this age of the world, are not to be determined by mere abstract or specu- 
 lative opinions. There is no want of heavy books in the world which treat of political 
 science ; but you need not go to them to ascertain the rights of men, either individuals 
 or in communities ; if you do you will lose yourself groping m a labyrinth, and where 
 no man can follow you. If there are. rights of sovereignty, there may be wrongs of 
 sovereignty, and this truth should be held in everlasting remembrance. And this is 
 the case with regard to California. We have rights, and we have duties, and if the 
 former are sacred, the latter should be sacred also. One of these duties we have 
 neglected to perform, and we are told by gentlemen who have spoken here, that when 
 a State wishes admission into the Union, she should come to the door of Congress and 
 knock for admission. California has thus come and knocked. But no door is opened to 
 her, and she is to be told, go back and wait till we are ready. There is but one door 
 through which you can enter, and that door we keep shut. You must pass through 
 a territorial government, but that government we have neglected to give you, and we 
 are probably as far from establishing it as ever. And such is the paternal regard we 
 manifest towards one hundred thousand American citizens, who are upholding the flag 
 of our country on the distant shores of the Pacific. A good deal has been said about 
 
 Erecedents— I am not going to examine either their application or authority, though it 
 as been pretty clearly shown by others, that they fully justify this measure of ad- 
 mission. . 
 
 Great political measures must be judged by themselves. When new and imposing 
 circumstances dictate an unusual course, they furnish the justification for action, and 
 they furnish also a precedent for future proceedings ; and whether such cases as this 
 are to be found in our legislative history, our duty is still the same. That duty im- 
 periously requires the admission of California into our Union. She comes and asks ad- 
 mission ; not, as the honorable Senator from Illinois says, in language of equal force aUd 
 beauty, not to reject your sovereignty, but because her citizens love their native coun- 
 try, know the value of our institutions, and desire to become bone of our bone, and flesh 
 of our flesh. They come, I repeat, not as revolutionists, but as petitioners, asking the 
 greatest favor we can bestow upon them. The distinguished Senator from South Caro- 
 lina has objected that we can only admit a State into our Confederacy, and that Cali- 
 fornia is not a State. Well, sir, in my opinion it is a State, and as truly so as any ex- 
 isting under the sun. The honorable Senator from Maine asked the veryemphatic 
 question. What constitutes a State .' And his answer will find a responsive chord in the 
 heart of every American. He said, with truth, that it is men who make a State. They 
 do, sir. It is not land, nor trees, nor gold mines ; but it is men, by whom and for whom 
 States are constituted and maintained. Why, sir, any other doctrine would carry us 
 back to the worst portion of the middle ages, when Governments were instituted for the 
 protection of the few, and men without property were men without rights. Doctor 
 Franklin, with his native good sense, and, I may add, his native good humor, rebuked 
 this principle of legislation in a manner far more significant than could have been done 
 by the most labored argument. He said that a certain amount of property is necessary 
 to entitle a man to vote. He possesses a jackass to-day of the requisite value, and can 
 exercise this right. To-morrow the jackass dies, and he loses it. To whom does the 
 right belong .' To the man or the jackass ? 
 
 [Here Mr. Butler said someting in a tone inaudible to the Reporter, to -which Ml*. 
 Cass replied, I go for the man, and not for the jackass.] 
 
 But, Mr. President, there are other considerations which seem tome forcibly to urge 
 the admission of California. The Senator from Illinois truly said, that the prideof 
 opinion is strong in the human breast, and that it belongs as well to communities as in- 
 dividuals. The Wilmot proviso is offensive, justly offensive to the Southern section of 
 the Confederacy — offensive independently of its practical consequences. It is considered 
 an arbitrary assumption of power, and is therefore resisted, agreeably to the established 
 laws of human nature. We oppose instinctively all improper assumptions of authoriCy 
 
26 
 
 over us, without stopping to inquire into the pecuniary value they may affect. No man 
 is willing to have a measure forced upon him. Now, the people of California have been 
 driven by necessity to take this matter into their own hands. They have decided the 
 question for themselves. There is no offence to the pride of the South or of the North. 
 There is no invidious Wiliuot Proviso to be passed north or south of 36° 30'. There is 
 no pride of opinion involved, and no overbearing act of one portion of the country against 
 the other, and therefore the admission of California removes much of the present con- 
 troversy in a manner that spares the feelings of all. 
 
 I regret, sir, that the Senator from South Carolina is not present, as I desired to ex- 
 tend my remariis further than I shall now do. I have already said that the speech of that 
 honorable Senator inevitably leads us to the conclusion that upon the admission of Cali- 
 fornia depends the dissolution of the Union. He likewise contended that an amendment 
 to the constitution was indispensable, and his remarks on yesterday seemed to connec* 
 the fate of the country with the accomplishment of this object. 
 
 Mr. Downs. The Senator from Michigan states, that the Senator from South Caro- 
 lina remarked, in his speech, that this amendment was indispensable. Now, I may 
 have misunderstood his words, but certainly I think he only said that it was desirable. 
 
 Mr. C.'^ss. I do not desire to exchange words upon this point, and have not the 
 slightest disposition to provoke debate upon it. In order to satisfy the Senator from 
 Louisiana, I will read the Senator's own words : 
 
 " The North has only to will it to accomplish it; to do justice by conceding to the 
 South an equal right in the acquired territory, and to do her duty by causing her stip- 
 ulations relative to fugitive slaves to be faithfully fulfilled ; to cease the agitation of 
 the slave question, and to provide for the insertion of a provision in the constitution, 
 by an amendment, which will restore to the South in substance the power she possessed 
 of protecting herself before the equilibrium between the sections was destroyed by the 
 action of this Government. There will be no difficulty in devising such a provision, 
 one that will protect the South, and which at the same time will improve and strengthen 
 the Government instead of impairing and weakening it. But will the North agree to do 
 this.' It is for her to answer this question. But I will say she cannot refuse, if she 
 has half the love of the Union which she professes to have, or without justly exposing 
 herself to the charge that her love of power and aggrandisement is far greater than her 
 love of the Union. At all events, the responsibility of saving the Union rests on the 
 North, and not the South. The South cannot save it by any act of hers, and the North 
 may save it without any sacrifice whatever, unless to do justice and to perform her 
 duties under the constitution should be regarded by her as a sacrifice. It is time, 
 Senators, that there should be an open and manly avowal on all sides as to what is 
 intended to be done. If the question is not now settled, it is uncertain whether it ever 
 can hereafter be; and we, as the representatives of the States of this Union, regarded 
 as governments, should come to a distinct understanding as to our respective views in 
 order to ascertain whether the great questions at issue can be settled or not. If you, 
 who represent the stronger portion, cannot agree to settle them on the broad principle 
 of justice and duty, say so, and let the States we both represent agree to separate and 
 part in peace." 
 
 I have not another word to say, Mr. President. If these remarks do not justify tha 
 conclusion I have drawn from them, I do not know what can. 
 
 I am not going to dwell upon this point of construction. God knows I have not the 
 slightest wish to misrepresent the opinions or the objects of the Senator. I have only 
 to say that any man who reads the speech must come to the same conclusion, that, in 
 the opinion of the Senator, the dissolution of the Union, if not altogether, was almost 
 inevitable. When I alluded to this subject yesterday, saying that, agreeably to the 
 views of the Senator from South Carolina, if the amendment of the constitution did not 
 take place now, "it would be fatal to the country," the honorable Senator answered 
 " certainly it will in the end." The Senator says expressly, in his speech, the amend- 
 ment must be made now. Yesterday he explained, and I took his explanation with tha 
 greatest pleasure — that he conceives an amendment necessary to be made, but that he 
 does not conceive it is necessary to be done now. That is all I have to say in regard 
 to this matter. What, then, is the avowed object of the Senator from South Carolina ? 
 lie says he seeks to establish an equilibrium in this Government. I do not know pre- 
 cisely what is meant by an equilibrium in a Government. I do not know in what 
 way legislation is to be exactly weighed or measured, with reference to the varioui 
 sections or interests of the country. There has never been such a political expedient 
 since the commencement of this Government, or indeed of any other ; and there never 
 can be. When the Government came into operation there were six slave and seven 
 non-slaveholding States The majority, therefore, in this Senate was in proportion 
 then what it is now. There was, of course, no sectional equality, and if a disposition 
 had been felt to oppress the South, it could have been as easily indulged by the North- 
 ern statesmen at that day as at this; for if your equilibrium is not perfect, you have 
 no security from this new contrived equipoise. If the majority is disposed to disregard 
 *il constitutional checks, and to oppress the minority, that can as well be done by a 
 
27 
 
 small preponderance in the legislature as by a larger one. The security now is just 
 what it was when the constitution went from the hands of its framers. 
 
 But what kind of equilibrium could be established ? Is every section of this coun- 
 try—North, South, East, and West— is every interest, manufacturing, agricultural, 
 commercial, and mechanical, to be weighed each against the other ? Is each to hold 
 the Government in a state of equipoise ? What it would become in such a case, while 
 in nominal operation, no man can tell. We can all tell, however, what it would not 
 do. It would leave its great functions unperformed, and would, ere long, die in the 
 affections of the people, as it would be already dead to their interests. Who ever 
 heard or dreamed of such a Government .' I believe the constitution was intended to 
 provide for every interest. But each must be cultivated and protected as the circum- 
 stances of the country may require, without the vain attempt at mathematical accuracy 
 in the progress of public affairs. 
 
 In the days of Solomon it was said there was nothing new under the sun ; but I con- 
 fess that a perfect equilibrium, for all time and for all interests, be these interests 
 greater or smaller, would be something new. There is a difference of opinion respect- 
 ing the constitutionality of the Wilmot proviso. The attempt to enforce it is not the 
 result of any arbitrary disposition to injure the South, but arises from a belief that the 
 measure is legal and salutary. These differences of construction are inseparable from 
 human language; and he who expects to prepare a written constitution, carrying with 
 it universal concurrence of opinion, in all its constructions, indulges a chimera as wild 
 as ever presented itself to any man, sleeping or waking. I ask, sir, when did the 
 North seek to injure the South, or when did the South seek to injure the North in the 
 mere wantonness of oppression .' This charge of sectional rivtlry I know has been a 
 fruitful theme of discussion among the political parties of the day ; but it has no real 
 foundation in the progress of our history. We have gone on, sir, increasing in power, 
 in all the elements of prosperity, with a rapidity unknown among the nations of the 
 earth. The charge, indeed, is not new; it goes back to the days of Mis Jefferson. 
 When the aggressions of England required counteracting measures to be adopted by 
 this country, non-intercourse and the embargo, and finally war, were resorted to in 
 defence of the rights and the independence of the country. At that time a powerful 
 party in the Eastern States desired to secede from the Union. They said then, as is 
 said now, there is a sectional majority against us : they disregard our rights and de- 
 stroy our interests, and we will go out from among them. There was not an argument 
 used then which is not used now ; nor a measure proposed which is not now proposed. 
 There are some of us yet here who were living at that period and participated in these 
 events. And the younger generation well know that these facts stand prominently 
 forward in the history of their country. 
 
 Sir, the objection of the Senator from South Carolina is repeated here to-day by his 
 colleague, and it amounts to this, that if you give power to a Government it may be 
 abused. So it may ; and I should like to see the Government where power cannot be 
 abused. It would be another new thing under the sun. We may all suppose cases of 
 extreme oppression, where a State would be justified before the world in resisting the 
 acts of a majority, and in seceding from this Union or from any other. We can all sup- 
 pose such a case, but, sufiBcient unto the day is the evil thereof; and, when that evil 
 d,ay comes, let those who have the responsibility act upon it, and decide for themselves 
 and for their posterity. There has generally been a sound public opinion existing in 
 our country. Wisdom and patriotism are found in both Houses of Congress, as well as 
 in the State Legislatures, whose influence is everywhere felt and appreciated. And 
 these are salutary checks against the abuse of power. And we happily possess another 
 institution, the Supreme Court, which contributes its full share to the stability of our 
 institutions. There are nine men, advanced in years, with neither the power of the 
 sword nor the purse, whose decisions are received with confidence and obeyed with 
 alacrity, from one end of this broad republic to the other. It is an oasis in the desert 
 of politics, a green spot for the eye to rest upon. It is a tribunal of which we may all 
 be proud. There is none higher upon the face of the earth. By their ability, their 
 dignity, their impartiality, their unimpeached probity, the judges have won the respect 
 of their countrymen; and, besides the performance of their judicial functions they 
 everywhere exert a salutary influence upon public opinion. It is refreshing to leave 
 these chambers of discussion and dissension, and to enter the hall below us, and mark 
 the tranquility and wisdom with which the high interests of the community are thus 
 considered and determined. 
 
 At the last session of that court a sublime moral spectacle was presented, of 
 which every American may be justly proud. One of the greatest States of this Union 
 appeared at the bar and made itself a party, asking the court to judge its cause, and to 
 remove certain impediments to the navigation of the Ohio river, which were considered 
 an injury by the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. Yes, like an individual, that State 
 asked the court to sit in judgment upon the cause, and to direct these impediments to 
 be removed. Who would witness such a spectacle if this Union were dissolved ? Dif- 
 fexences like this would then be adjusted, not by reason, but by the strong hand. 
 
28 
 
 Another similar scene passed in the same place a short time since, when ^wo States, 
 members of this Confederacy, disputing about their boundaries, asked this court to de- 
 cide between them, and the court did decide; and I understand the line they fixed is 
 now running by commissioners armed only with a slip of paper, and through a country 
 heretofore highly excited by this question, but now calm and satisfied, leaving the sur- 
 veyors to perform their duty with as much safety as if protected by all the force of the 
 Republic. Such lines elsewhere are run by armies, and marked by the sword. Thus it 
 will be seen that our Government has a mode of settling difiBculties — a constitutional 
 mode — that ought to commaand the assent of all. 
 
 I do not deny that there may be great political c^ses where this court can have no 
 jurisdiction. When such cases arise, I trust a peaceable remedy will be found for their 
 adjustment. I leave that to time and events. It is one of our national characteristics 
 to neglect our immediate advantages, and to look forward to some great calamity, which 
 is to overtake us after the lapse of centuries. 
 
 The Senator from South Carolina (Mr. Calhoun) has not stated the amendment by 
 which he proposes to secure the equilibrium of the Government. There are, however, 
 two indications in his speech which leave but little doubt as to the nature of the reme- 
 dy, though its details must of course be conjectural. He pointed out two difficulties in 
 the operations of the Government which it would be necessary to obviate. 
 
 First, that it claimed to use force in order to carry into effect the powers it felt au- 
 thorized to exercise. Well, sir, what Government exists, or ever existed, which does 
 not use force .' Human beings are influenced by hope and fear, (I leave higher con- 
 siderations out of view in this discussion,) and, as no GoTcrnment is rich enough to buy 
 obedience, it must comj^l it by force. 
 
 The second difficulty is, that the Government assumes to judge of the extent of its 
 own powers. It does so, and necessarily. And so must every other Government, in a 
 greater or less degree. I do not propose to enter into any argument upon this point, 
 nor to investigate the course necessary to pursue in the event of collisions of opinion 
 between the General and State Governments. That must be determined by events as 
 they arise. I merely allude to these topics briefly, in order, by ascertaining the evils 
 supposed to exist by the Senator from South Carolina, to ascertain the nature of the 
 remedy he is desirous of applying to them. He is seeking a constitutional remedy, which 
 shall produce an equilibrium, by which the rights of evci-y section and of every inte- 
 rest of the country can be preserved from aggression. The South is not the only sec- 
 tion which is liable to oppression. There are also the East, the West, and the remote 
 West, which may have the same cause of complaint. And the various interests I have 
 already enumerated may, in like manner, each demand peculiar protection. There is 
 to be some controlling principle within the constitution by which its operations may be 
 regulated when these several sections of interest may consider their rights assailed or 
 endangered ; for I do not suppose the honorable Senator is so local in his views as to 
 propose a remedy which shall not be applicable, under similar circumstances, to every 
 portion of the country. And that remedy is an equilibrium, as it is called, which, 
 when translated into English, means a plan by which a sectional minority may, at its 
 pleasure, control or suspend the operations of the Government. I have already said, 
 that the general plan is more easily ascertained, than the specific details. Well, sir, 
 such an equilibrium, instead of being a balance wheel, would be a check wheel. It 
 would stop the whole oj^erations of the Government. It would in fact place it under 
 the control of a minority. 
 
 Now, sir, these minority governments are not new in the world. They have ex- 
 isted since the institution of civil society, and will continue, I suppose, until it is 
 terminated. Tliere are many of them found in Europe, and in other quarters of the 
 world. There is one at St. Petersburgh, another at Constantinople, and another at 
 Vienna ; and these governments take very good care of the rights of the minority ; but 
 I do not see the advantage of the plan, for I believe the rights of the majority are 
 very little regarded ; at any rate, such is the opinion of the Poles and of the Hunga- 
 rians, and of many an oppressed people besides. It is all idle, .sir, to talk of such a plan. 
 Provide proper checks and limitations for all sections and interests as a just foresight 
 may require. But after this is done by the constitution, the Government must be con- 
 ducted agreeably to the will of a majority, unless you choose to intrust your rights to 
 a single man and thus establish a despotism. That, I suppose, is the perfection of a 
 minority government. No intellect, however profound, can give plausibility to such a 
 scheme, or obviate the insuperable difficulties which would present themselves in any 
 political organization thus strangely constituted. The machine would stop by its own 
 inherent arrangements. Such minorities would, in fact, become majorities, controlling 
 public affairs at their pleasure. 
 
 Mr. President, I will terminate my remarks as speedily as possible, and I trust the 
 Senate will bear witli me a little longer. There are one or two circumstances, alluded 
 to by the Senator from South Carolina, which I desire to notice, and which appear to 
 me not a little extraordinary. I hold in one hand the speech of the Senator from South 
 Carolina, and in the other the speech of a gentleman from Pennsylvania, (Mr. Stevens,) 
 
29 
 
 delivered tlie other day in the House of Representatives ; a gentleman who, in all his 
 opinions upon the subject before us, so far as we know, is directly the opposite of the 
 Senator from South Carolina; aye, as far as the antipodes— as far asunder as the poles. 
 The bane and antidote are both before me. The distinguished Senator from South Car- 
 olina says, in that speech, that this Government is one as absolute as that of the Auto- 
 crat of Russia. The expression is strong, and I will read it from the speech, so that I 
 TDjiy not be accused of misrepresentation : 
 
 "What was once a constitutional federal republic, is now converted in reality into 
 one as absolute as that of the Autocrat of Russia, and as despotic in its tendency as any 
 absolute Government that ever existed." 
 Mr. Butler. Who says that.' 
 
 Mr. Cass. Your colleague, the distinguished Senator from South Carolina. 
 Mr. Butler. I thought you were reading from another speech. 
 Mr. C.^ss. No sir, from the speech of your colleague. He says that this is the most 
 despotic Government on the face of the earth. Well, sir, the representative from Penn- 
 sylvania reiterates a similar sentiment, and speaks of this Government as a despotic 
 one. All this shows how often extremes meet in this world, and it is not a little curi- 
 ous that both these gentlemen, in the illustration of their views, refer to the Autocrat 
 of Russia. 
 
 We lose all, our confidence in the force of language, and in the authority of years 
 and intellect, when such extravagant assertions are presented to us. Is there a man in 
 this broad land who does not know and feel instinctively that he is free .' And yet he 
 is told seriously — not in an extemporaneous debate, such as we are now engaged in, 
 when no man should be held to a rigid accountability for his expressions, but in a pre- 
 pared speech, written and printed before its delivery, and laid upon our tables imme- 
 diately after— and I believe sent through all parts of our country cotcmporaneously 
 —we are told, I say, that this is the most despotic Government on the face of the earth ! 
 And who tells us so .' One of the most distinguished men of this country—a man who 
 has rendered her important services and occupied high places in her councils for more 
 than one-third of a century— possessing the highest intellect and unspotted integrity, 
 and who has won a world-wide reputation ! What will be thought and said of this in 
 Europe ? In republican Europe .' In monarchical Europe ? Why, sir, it is on its way 
 to Siberia already. It will be transferred into every paper on the Eastern continent, 
 and even the Siberian will be admonished that he lives under a paternal Government, 
 far better than that despotic democracy, nicknamed the Pattern Republic, on the other 
 shore of the Atlantic, thus characterized by one of its most renowned citizens and high- 
 est oflScers. All this does serious injury to the cause of freedom throughout the world. 
 Out of our own mouths are we condemned. Let an American go to Europe, and if he 
 come back and does not say that this is not the worst Government on earth, nay — if he 
 does not say it is the best, let his countrymen distrust him. His head or heart iss 
 wrong; probably both. Another word and I abandon this topic. 
 
 Mr. President, I am going to give one proof, one irrefragible proof, that will not be 
 contradicted, and which, indeed, admits of no contradiction, that this, instead of being 
 the most despotic, is the freest Government in the world. I ask every one in the Sen- 
 ate chamber, actor or auditor, whether, under any other Government, now in existence, 
 be it a constitutional monarchy, an aristocracy, a democracy, or a despotism, if sucli a 
 speech as that we heard from the Senator from South Carolina could be delivered with 
 impunity .' That is the question I ask. Go to Europe, to Asia, to Africa, for an answer, 
 if you need one. He who should make such an experiment in St. Petersburgh would 
 find himself on the road to Siberia in half an hour, and in Constantinople he wouldfind 
 the bow-string around his neck in the same time. In England it would send him to 
 Australia, where many a good man has been transported for language less significant. 
 There is not a country on the face of the earth where a man could make such a speech 
 with impunity. I thank God that this is so, and that a man may say here what he 
 pleases, and as he pleases. He may assail the Government with perfect safety, ita 
 principles, its practices, and its tendencies, and there is no one to make him afraid. All 
 this but provokes investigation, and the more our institutions are investigated, the 
 stronger will they become in the hearts of the people, who will continue to love the 
 Government, which has given them a greater measure of prosperity than aay other 
 people ever enjoyed, and will support and defend it against all assaults. Such senti- 
 ments never struck my ear before in this high place, and I trust I may never hear 
 them again. 
 
 There is another subject to which I must allude. Almost at the time the Senator 
 from South Carolina was endeavoring to show how the North had injured and oppress- 
 ed the South, and how the Government, or, rather the majority, had gone on to assume 
 despotic power, almost at that very time a distinguished member from Virginia, in the 
 House of Representatives, (Mr. Meade, ) was placing in singular contrast the author- 
 ity which the South hadg.ained and exercised over the Government of the country. 
 
 " Though we have been in a numerical minority in the Union for fifty years, yet du- 
 ring the greater part of that period we have maniiged to control the destinies of the 
 
30 
 
 Union. Whether on the battle field or in the council, the sons of the South have taken 
 the lead ; and the records of the nation afford ample testimony of their superior ener gy 
 and genius. 
 
 AVell, sir, put this and this together, and then we see who is right. I state the facts. 
 I leave these gentlemen to settle their own controversy. I do not deny, no man is more 
 ready than I am to acknowledge, the obligations we owe to the South, to Washington, 
 to Jefferson, to Madison, to Monroe, to Jackson, and to the distinguished men the South 
 has sent here to preside over the Executive department of the Government, or to assist 
 in its operations. They have won imperishable fame for themselves, and imperishable 
 honor for their country. I accord to them the full meed of praise, for I have no sec- 
 tional feelings to interfere with my sense of justice, and I love the South as well as the 
 North or West. I have been so much of a wanderer during my life that sectional feel- 
 ing is absorbed in a general one, and I love my country, and my whole country, with 
 equal ardor. Abroad it is the name of American which inspires honor and confidence, 
 and not the name of\'irginian or Pennsylvanian,or any other less eminent in our country. 
 I repeat that Southern statesmen when conducting our afi^airs have conducted them 
 with ability and success, and the best proof of this is the prosperity we enjoy, and th* 
 proud eminence we have attained. 
 
 I desire to refer to another fact. The distinguished Senator from South Carolina 
 speaks of the disastrous effects of the Union upon the material interests of the South, 
 while the Senator from Louisiana (Mr. Downs) endeavored to prove, the other day, 
 that in all the elements of prosperity of the South were better off than the North. 
 Let any man who will, reconcile these differences — if he can. It is an effort I shall not 
 undertake. I think it proves to the satisfixction of every moderate man that the whole 
 matter is greatly exaggerated, and that expressions are used, and facts assembled to- 
 gether, sometimes indeed in an imposing form, which furnish no justification for the 
 serious conclusions presented to the country. But, sir, instead of depreciating one 
 section and exalting another, let us all join together to thank that God who enabled our 
 fathers to assert their rights, and who, we may humbly hope, will enable their sons, if 
 they are not struck by judicial blindness, to maintain them, and to transmit them, un- 
 impaired, to their posterity. 
 
 Mr. Davis, of Mississippi. I understand that the honorable Senator from Michigan 
 expressed a wish to ask me a question. 
 
 Mr. Cass. Yes, sir. I wished to ask the honorable Senator from Mississippi if he 
 would vote for the Missouri compromise .' 
 
 Mr. Davis, of Mississippi. I will answer the Senator from Michigan with great 
 pleasure. I liave stated on several occasions that I would take the Missouri compro- 
 mise. This I have said elaborately and decidedly, on several occasions, and explained 
 at some length in a recent speech on the resolutions of the Senator from Kentucky. I 
 have stated that I considered it as an ultimatum, less than I believed to be the rights of 
 the South, but which I would accept to stop the agitation which now disturbs and en- 
 dangers the Union. 
 
 Mr, C.\ss. As I had a conversation with the Senator on this subject in the morning, 
 I supposed he understood the precise object I had in view. As this, however, appears 
 not to be the case, I will ask him if he would accept the Missouri compromise, as it was 
 regulated by the statute providing fcr the admission of Missouri into the Union.' 
 
 Mr. D.vvis, of Mississippi. I understood the Senator, in a conversation this morning, 
 to make that inquiry. I then told him I would not. I now answer before the Senate, 
 No. To meet this inquiry, I waited in the Senate chamber, expecting that he would, 
 at the expiration of the morning hour, address the Senate; but, as he did not, I left 
 here, when the Senator from Illinois was addressing the Senate, to answer a summons 
 to see a sick fiiend. I returned in a few minutes. As I was informed, after the Sena- 
 tor from Michigan commeiwcd his address, that he had signified a wish to ask a ques- 
 tion of me, it seemed to me proper to remind liim, at the close of his remarks, of the 
 wish he had announced. I now answer his question in its modified form. I would not 
 take the terms of the Missouri act, but would accept its spirit if presented in terms ap- 
 plicable to this case. When I spoke of the Missouri compromise, I spoke of it as an ar- 
 rangement by which the Territory was divided between the slaveholding and the non- 
 slaveholding interests ; I spoke in reference to the result, the intent of that compromise, 
 which gave to each a portion. I have always been ready to rebulve that mean spirit 
 that would evade its true meaning by a delusive adherence to its words. 
 
 I would not take the compromise in the terms by which it was applied to the remain- 
 ing part of the territory acquired under the name of Louisiana. I would not take it ajB 
 applied to Texas when that State was admitted into the Union, because the circum- 
 stances of both were different from those of the Mexican territory ; but I would take it, 
 if made applicable to the existing case, and extended to the Pacific. I considered that, 
 when this Senate had voted to receive petitions and to refer them to committees, to con- 
 Bider upon the power of this Government over slavery in the Territories, over slavery 
 in the District of Columbia, and over the future admission of slave States, we had taken 
 one great step in advance, and one^hich should awaken the apprehension of the Soutli, 
 
31 
 
 and when, in close connection with this action of the Senate, followed the remark of the 
 honorable Senator from Michigan that the Missoiiri compromise could not be extended 
 to the recent acquisitions from Mexico, I looked upon it as a conjunction in our political 
 firmament which boded evil to those likely to be destroyed by the joint attraction of 
 these planets. It was, therefore, that I spoke of the declaration as a thing to be noted, 
 marked as the foreshadow of an event. If we are not to have non-intervention, the right 
 to go into these Territories and there claim whatever may be decided to be ours by the 
 decree of Nature ; if we are to be debarred from acquiring by emigration, by enterprise, 
 by adventure, by toil, and labor, equally with others, from the common domain of the 
 Union ; if we are to be forbidden to use the commons belonging to the common field of 
 which we are joint owners; if, in addition to all this, we are told that no division 
 can be made, that all of that which we own in common must finally become the exclu- 
 sive property of the other partners — in truth, sir, we are rapidly approaching to that 
 state of things contemplated by the Senator from South Carolina (Mr. Calhoun), Avhen, 
 without an amendment of the constitution, the rights of the minority will be held at the 
 mercy of the majority. Give us our rights under the constitution — the constitution 
 fairly construed — and we are content to take our chance as our fathers did for the 
 maintenance of position in the Union. We are content to hold on to the old compact, 
 and, as we believe in the merits of our own institutions, we are willing to trust to the 
 working out of our own salvation. If we are to be excluded, by Congressional legisla- 
 tion, from joint possession on the one hand, and denied every compromise which, by 
 division, would give us a share on the other — neither permitted to an equality of pos- 
 session as a right, nor a divided occupation as a settlement between proprietors — I ask 
 what is the hope which remains to those who are already in a minority of this confed- 
 eracy .'' What do we gain by having a written constitution, if sectional pride or sectional 
 hate can bend it as passion, or interest, or caprice may dictate.' What do we gain by 
 having a Government based upon this written constitution, if, in truth, the rights of 
 the minority are held in abeyance to the will of the majority .' And, now, I ask the 
 Senator from Michigan a question : Will he not, under the crisis which hangs upon the 
 face of the country — will he not support the Missouri compromise — the spirit of the 
 compromise — for a division of the Territories between the two interests of the country ? 
 
 Mr. Cass. I will answer the Senator. I spoke of the Missouri compromise, which 
 established a line that ran through a country in which slavery existed, and which de- 
 clared that slavery should be excluded north of that line, and left the country south of 
 it as it found it, to continue slavery or to exclude it, as the people might judge best. I 
 say that my doctrine for the whole territory is non-intervention. 
 
 Mr. Davis (in his seat). I prefer that, too. 
 
 Mr. Cass. I agree, therefore, with the Senator from Mississippi. I say that this 
 Government has no right to interfere with the institution of slavery in the Territories ; 
 and I say, if the South think they have rights there under the constitution, in God's 
 name, let the Supreme Court determine the question. No one can object to that. 
 
 Mr. Davis (in his seat). But we cannot get there. 
 
 Mr. Cass. I do not know that. I think otherwise. I would observe, and the Senate 
 will remember, that the point at issue was the Missouri compromise; and now I under- 
 stand the Senator from Mississippi would not vote for that measure unless it was 
 accompanied with the declaration that slavery should, or may, or does exist south of 
 the line. Do 1 understand him aright ? 
 
 Mr. Davis, of Mississippi. I have several times had occasion to explain that point. 
 I will agree to the drawing of the line 36 deg. 30 min. through the territories acquired 
 from Mexico, with this condition, that while slavery is prohibited north of that line, it 
 shall be permitted to enter south of the line ; and that the States which shall be ad- 
 mitted into the Union shall come in under such constitutions as they think proper to 
 form. 
 
 Mr. Cass. What I would do to save this Union from dissolution, if dissolution were 
 impending over it, and to be averted only by one course of action, it is difiicult to say. 
 I would do almost any thing. 
 
 I desire to advert to another topic, and that is one relating personally to myself I 
 need not remind the Senate, that, within a short time, I have passed through a very 
 severe ordeal for any man. I said, and I said truly, when the Senator from Kentucky 
 rema,rked, a few days since, he was the best abused man in the country — that he was 
 80 with one exception. That exception my modesty prevents me from naming. During 
 that campaign I was silent, and left the falsehoods, which in this country seem to belong 
 to such a contest, to serve out their purpose, and then to die. But when these things 
 are resuscitated, and repeated here, or in the other branch of the National Legislature, 
 I choose to defend myself I am not now in a position which precludes me from the 
 exercise of that right, and I will exercise it in my place when the nature of the assault, 
 or the standing of the assailant may render this necessary. I owe this duty to my con- 
 stituents, by whose favor I am here, not less than to myself A gentleman from North 
 Carolina (Mr. Stanly) said in the House of Representatives, a few days since, "thr 
 Taylor beat Cass, who thanked God he never owned a slave," &c. I never said th 
 
3lfe 
 
 It IS one of the unfounded stories whose functions having been fulfilled, is thus suddenly 
 called from its resting-place for some purpose, I know not why. It is an expression I 
 never used. It conveys a meaning I utterly disavow. I do not arraign the motives 
 of the gentleman who has thus arraigned me. He had heard the story, and I presume 
 believed it. But he should have ascertained the fticts before he thus summoned me, 
 not in the heat of an excited contest, but in the cool hours of legislation, to the bar of 
 the House of Representatives, and, in effect, to the bar of the country. The charge, 
 sir, places me in the position of a Pharisee, thanking God that I better than the men 
 of the South, and free from offences which they commit. All this is as contrary to 
 my feelings as to my habits. I cast no reflections upon the South then or at any other 
 time. 
 
 What I said and did I will now state, and if a single Senator on this floor will condemn 
 my course, I will then confess that this charge is not wholly groundless as it appears 
 to me. 
 
 AVhile I was in France, it is well known that Great Britain had formed a plan by 
 which she intended to gain the command of the seas. There is no secret about this now, 
 and it has been openly avowed. Her object was, under the pretext of putting an end to 
 the slave trade, to board our vessels, which would have been followed by the impress- 
 ment of our seamen and other acts of aggression incident to her naval superiority. My 
 friend, Mr. Stevenson, was then our representative in London. It is the first and great 
 duty of an American Minister abroad, when the rights of his country are assailed, to 
 assert and defend them. Mr. Stevenson did so in an able and fearless manner, in a cor- 
 respondence marked with signal ability. During the progress of the controversy the 
 public mind in England became much excited, and there was a strong effort made to 
 connect the continuance of the slave trade with the condition of slavery in our country, 
 as though the former were essential to the latter. All the tirades against slavery we 
 sometimes hear at home, were poured out there 
 
 The Senator from Massachusetts, in his eloquent speech the other day, spoke of a Con- 
 gressional and an American vocabulary, but I can tell him there is such a thing as an 
 English and a Parliamentary vocabulary, and I have never heard a worse one, when 
 circumstances call it out, on this side of Billingsgate. Well, sir, my friend, Mr. Steven- 
 son, received his full share of these choice compliments What was said .' Why, that 
 be was a slaveholder and a slavebreeder, and, therefore, his testimony was discredited 
 and worthless ; that he was an interested witness, and not to be believed ; and all this 
 produced its effect upon the excited temperament of the English people. When it came 
 to my turn to take part in the defence of my country, I explained my views in a pamph- 
 let, from which I will read an extract : — 
 
 " As to the status of slavery itself, it were idle to contend it is illegal by the common 
 consent of mankind. It has existed since the earliest ages of the world, and there is 
 probably no nation, ancient or modern, among whom it has not been known. By some 
 it has been abolished, and where it yet survives we hope its condition has been melior- 
 ated. This is certainly true of the United States. A general disposition is gaining 
 ground to improve the situation of this unfortunate class of society. This is felt in the 
 Southern States of the American Confederacy as well as elsewhere, and he who should 
 judge of the treatment of the slaves in that region, by their treatment in tlie West In- 
 dia colonies, would do the Southern planter egregious injustice. * * « » 
 
 " We are no slaveholder. We never have been. We never shall be. We deprecate 
 its existence in principle, and pray for its abolition every where, where this can be ef- 
 fected justly, and peaceably, and safely for both parties. But we would not carry fire, 
 and devastation, and murder, and ruin into a peaceful community, to push on the ac- 
 complishment of the object. But, after having visited the three quarters of the old 
 continent, we say, before God and the world, that we have seen far more, and more 
 frightful misery, since we landed in Europe — and we have not visited Ireland yet— than 
 we have seen among this class of people in the United States. Whatever may be said, 
 there is much of the patriarchal relation between the Southern planter and the slave. And 
 as to the pliysical distress, which is seen in Europe, resulting from a want of food and from 
 exposure to a rigorous winter without adequate clothing, we believe it to be so rare as 
 not to form a just element in the consideration of this matter. But the subject of the 
 emancipation of two millions and a half of human beings, living among another popula- 
 tion of different race and color, and with different habits and feelings, is one of the 
 gravest questions which can be submitted to society to solve. It can be safely left only 
 to those who are to be so seriously affected by it ; and there it is left by the constitution 
 of the United States. It is a matter with which the General Government has no con- 
 cern." 
 
 There is the testimony which I bore to the condition of American slavery while in 
 Surope, and for which 1 am now condemned in the House of Representatives. Why did 
 ^^peak thus .' For the purpose of showing that I was a disinterested witness, and that 
 
 Xstatements were not subject to the suspicions attempted to be cast upon Mr. Steven- 
 
 \ Here I close my extract and my defence, and leave gentlemen from the South to 
 
 ^me for my assault upon that section of oar common country and its institutions. 
 
THE PEEK'S DAUGHTERS. 
 
 BY LADY BULWER. 
 
 Price Thirty-seven and a-half cent?. 
 
 The above Novel contains all the vivacity and point of it3 predecessor, 
 " Cheveley." but it eniovs the immense advantage of a splendid story oJ history a 
 page, drawn from the times of Louis XV. It is an all-powerful production, from 
 whatever side viewed. 
 
 MATERXx\L LOVE. 
 
 St mtd. 
 
 BT THK AUTHOR OF rilE FORTCNES OY WOMAN," " IIRST LOVE;' ETC., ETC 
 
 Three volames in one, entire and unabridged, from the London Edition. 
 Price Twenty-live cents. 
 
 N0TIC2S OF THE PRESS. 
 
 " It is a "ood novel— well written, full of spirited and interesting incident, 
 ■ind conveviiig m a strong and impressive manner a lofty and excellent moral. It 
 is above the average of novels in tone, interest, and worth."— Co«n<?r nnd 
 Enquirer. 
 
 " A first-rai*- novel, equal to any of Mr. Grey's, or others ol our most popular 
 writers ; it is as instructing as it is amusing." — Literary Gazette. 
 
 " The \uthor of ' ^Maternal Love' has bestowed great pains upon this work. 
 Descriptions of domestic life, in its various aspects, is the forte of the author, who 
 has some ever cherished aim of good in view." — AthencEum. 
 
 " Out of elf-ments exceedingly simple in themselves, the author has constructed 
 a story intensely interesting. Tliis novel is entitled to take rank among the best 
 works of fiction." — Spectator. 
 
 MmANDA; 
 
 A TALE OF THE FRENCH REVOLUTION. 
 
 BY THE AUTHOR OF "THE TRAFPER'S BRIDE." 
 
 Price 50 cents. 
 
 This is one among many stories of the dark and gloomy times of the French 
 Revolution Unlike its contemporaries, however, the whole narrative is endowed 
 with a vi<Tor, force, and degree of individual portraiture, that have won tor us 
 author a reputation as deserved as his work is meritorious. Like our own Revo- 
 lutionary times, the era covered by this romance was one of tnal, extremity and 
 fierce conflict--save that innocence and weakness too often fell beneath the merci- 
 less policy of stern leaders, like Danton, Robespierre, and Collot D Uerbois. A 
 finer field for human portraiture could hardly be presented, and to say that the 
 author is up to the mark in capability to grapple with the subject, is small praise, 
 for he has, aside from this, thrown off one of the most brilliant histoncal hctions it 
 has been our lot for some time to read. 
 
RECENT PUBLICATIONS 
 
 THE OLD JUDGE; OE, LIFE m A COLONY. 
 
 SAIJ SLICK," 
 
 BY THE AUTHOR OP 
 
 " THE CLOCKIJAKEH," 
 kc, &c., S:c. 
 
 YANKEE STORIES." 
 
 One large volume — 50 Cents. 
 
 In this nolable collection, the delineation of Anieiicaii character is perfected 
 to a chnrm. The facetious author is too well known in the world of letters to 
 require introducing. " The Clockniaker" shakes every body by the hand, and he 
 is always welcome. Long life to him and all the good books he gives us I 
 
 CONTENTS OF THE OLD JUDGE. 
 
 THE OLD JUDGE. 
 
 HOW MANY FINS HAS A CoD I 
 
 ASKING A GOVERNOR TO DINE. 
 
 THE TOMBSTO.VES. 
 
 A BALL AT GOVERNMENT HOUSE. 
 
 THE OLD ADMIRAL AND THE OLD GENERAL. 
 
 THE FIRST SETTLERS. 
 
 MERRY-MAKINGS. 
 
 THE SCHOOLMASTER, OR HECKE THALEK. 
 
 THE LONE HOUSE. 
 
 THE KEEPING-ROOM OF AN I.VN. 
 
 A PIPPIN, OR SHEEPSKINS AND GARTERS. 
 
 HORSESHOE COVE, OR HUFEISEN BUCHT. 
 
 THE SEASONS, OR COMERS AND GOERS. 
 
 THE WITCH OF INKY DELL. 
 
 COLONIAL GOVERNMENT. 
 
 " Let him laugh now who never laughed before. 
 And him who always laughed, now laugh the more." 
 
 ADVENTURES IN THE GOLD DIGGINS. 
 
 IN A SERIES OF ONE HUNDRED ENGRAVINGS; 
 
 AND THE LETTEK-PKESS IN EXPLANATION OF THIS WONDERFUL JOURNEY. 
 Price 25 Cents. 
 
 Among the profusion of notices this side-shaking book has called forth, we give 
 
 the following : 
 
 " This book is got up a la Cruikshank, and for mirth, pungency and humor, 
 outrivals ' Dr. Syntanx,' ' Oldbuck,' and all ' o' that ' ilk.' In these dolorous times 
 it will be found the best antidote to choleraic fears and misanthropy existing. — 
 Troy Whig. 
 
 "Journey to the Gold Diggins, by Jeremiah Saddlebags. New-York: 
 Strincrer and Townsend. — A series of fanciful illustrations of the symptoms and 
 results of the gold fever." — N. Y. Com Advertiser. 
 
 " It is an efTectual cure, for the moment, of all blue devils." — N. O. Picayune. 
 
 Californians, in this book, may read their own history. The 
 struggles and miseries of poor Saddlebags have their prototype 
 in many a poor gold-digg(^'s er-yevharo 
 
^- ' 
 
 LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 
 
 ■>*«e"