E 423 
 
 .M175 
 
 
 ^^SRS 
 
 HH WSM Hi '. 
 
 
 iii-'^H 
 
• » ° <$ 
 V 
 
 
 :• ^ cfr* ^fSJfef. ^ a* .v 
 
 
 c^>^o -^i 11^° a>«^. o%W^ % tS^V : *slfi W* o>^ 
 
 V .'^^': \/ -Jfe": V .Y&5&\ ' 
 
 * ^ 
 
 
 v "% -*L o° ••-Sail* °o .<**••'-'• 
 
 
 
 v t / /&& %.,** v .vasfo. \„y" .-a 
 
^o* 
 
 *b1? 
 
 • 1 n 
 
 
 IP-' **% '•' 
 
 

 REPLY 
 
 OF 
 
 HON. JOHN J. M^RAE, 
 
 TO THE SPEECH OF 
 
 SENATOR FOOTE, 
 
 DELIVERED AT PAULDING, JASPER COUNTY, ON THE 12th, 
 
 AND AT QUITMAN, CLARK COUNTY, ON THE 
 
 14th APRIL, 1851. 
 
 N e to ©rUan*: 
 
 PRINTED AT THE DAILV AND WEEKLY DELTA OFFICE, 112 TOYDRAS STREET. 
 
 1851. 
 

 
REPLY. 
 
 Fellow Citizens : I stand before you as the humble advocate of your rights, in 
 opposition to one of your Senators in the Congress of the United States, who it is be- 
 lieved, has not maintained them in that high position, where they have been put in issue. 
 This is, in some respects, a pleasant, in others an unpleasant duty to perform. To main- 
 lain your cause, and to vindicate tho rights and honor of the South, is the highest pleasure 
 of my heart. To review the course of your wandering Senator, to show that he has uot 
 maintained your cause, and- that ho has not vindicated the rights and honor of tho South 
 in the high position in which they were entrusted to his charge, is not so pleasing a duty. 
 I would prefer, if it were possible, to welcome him with the voice of praise, and to bestow 
 upon him no words of censure. But the conduct of the Senator himself leaves me no al- 
 ternative but the disapproval of his course, and I proceed at once to the merits of his position . 
 He has addressed you, and will again follow me. My time is limited, and in the order of 
 discussion, I have no opportunity of reply. This gives him a great advantage ; but when 
 I have gone through with him on the record which I shall produce, I shall be satisfied to 
 leave him to your judgment, feeling well assured that whatever may bo your opinion of 
 the merits of what are termed the "measures of adjustment," and the position which the 
 State of Mississippi may hereafter take for the wrongs which have been done her, and 
 which have been brought upon her in part by the Senator himself, by his advocacy of 
 this " scheme of adjustment," your judgment will be that of condemnation of his 
 course. 
 
 Before entering, however, upon this discussion, it is due to the Senator and to myself 
 to say, that personally I cherish towards him no unkind feeling. For the many years 
 we have known each other, feelings of friendship and good will have existed mutually 
 between us ; I have partaken of his hospitality, and now that he is in tho country of my 
 home, I welcome him to mine. And if, in the progress of my remarks, reviewing severely 
 his course, any unguarded word of mine shall fall with offence upon his ear, I hope he 
 will attribute it to my younger experience than his own in public discussion, and not to 
 any intention wantonly to wound his sensibility. 
 
 The Senator comes among you, fellow-citizens, to receive the approval of those who 
 sustain his course, to conciliate, if possible, tho many who disapprove it, and who censuro 
 his conduct in his abandonment of your rights, and his wilful violation of tho expressed will 
 of tho people of Mississippi, through their Legislative authority, to which he was directly 
 responsible. He is, doubtless, well prepared for his own defence ; ho is a gentleman of 
 learning, of language, and of talents, skilled in tho high science of political controversy. 
 
Ho comes from the Senate of the United .States, the great theatre of debate, where he has 
 held controversy first, and afterwards communion, with Webster, the God-like — where he 
 has held controversy first, and afterwards communion, with Clay, " the eloquent and the 
 great, ' the " idol and tho idolized" of his followers — where he has held controversy first, 
 and afterwards, not communion, hut collision, with Benton, now the "great defeated," 
 and in the language of the Senator himself, " more than Lieutenant-General in the high 
 arena of political debate." Under all these circumstances, the Senator has many advan- 
 tages, and if in this controversy I should fall before his superior powers, I hope he will ho 
 generous to his vanquished foe. If I should not survive the contest, I ask him to smooth 
 gently the pillow of my dying repose. But if, on the other hand, like David, the -tripling 
 ol Israel, who went out with a sling and a smooth stone, and smote with it in tho forehead 
 and slew the great champion of the armies of the Philistines, it shall so happen to me, 
 armed with the simple weapons of truth, to strike down this great champion and leader of 
 tho armies of the Union party, I promise that it shall be no matter of exultation on my 
 part If in this contest, ho shall fall by my hand, I promise to tread lightly overhis grave, 
 and though I could not strew it with " flowers," I would chaunt over it no "requiem oi 
 triumph.' It will he gratification enough forme that the cause which I advocate has tri- 
 uniplied, and not that my adversary has fallen. lam already conscious that I hold him 
 in my power by chains of his own forging. As conscious that ho is already my victim, 
 as that J will make him yours. 
 
 But the Senator comes also under the auspices of the organ of federal power at 
 Jackson. The Federal Flag, which I hold in my hand, containing a published list of his 
 appointments, accompanies them with the following remarks, among others of a similar 
 character: 
 
 " General Footeleft yesterday for Madison county, whence he will go on a canvass 
 to a portion of the eastern counties. Ho will give himself entirely to the cause of the 
 Lnion, etc. Look out, disunionists ! Wo warn you that your adversary is in hot pursuit, 
 and will expose your treasonable designs to the indignant and withering gaze of an insulted 
 and patriotic public." 
 
 Who of you can doubt, fellow-citizens, notwithstanding the unfair and falso issue of 
 disunion " which this article presents, and the indelicate charge of" treasonable designs" 
 attributed by it to honestly differing political opponents, that its reference was, in part, to 
 myseli I This article was, perhaps, written with the knowledge of the Senator; at all 
 events, he gives to it his approval. Ho sails under the Flag of Federal power, in tho 
 Waciship Consolidation. I meet hhn under the banner of State Rights, on the good 
 old ship, Constitution, and I have no fears of the result of the battle. He comes as the 
 on and leader of what is termed the Union party. 1 meet him as the advocate of 
 the rights of the South under the Constitution. I am here to meet him, by appointment 
 ol the friends of Southern Rights, who have designated me as ono of tho speakers for 
 • his district, to vindicate the cause of the South whenever it may be assailed, and to up- 
 hold it against those, whoever they may be, by whom it may be betrayed. I am hero to 
 meet him at the request of my own friends, and of his friends who desired mo to have m; 
 name published on the same handbill with tho Senator's, to address the people at thL, 
 meeting. I am here to meet him at his own invitation. Winn 1 saw him in November 
 last, alter a flying canvass through a portion of the State, he informed me that his oppo- 
 nents would not meet him in fair discussion. I replied to him they would, when a lair 
 opportunity was affored them. Ho then said, he would visit this portion of the State, and 
 
5 
 
 asked me if I would meet him here. I told him I would, and I am here to make good 
 
 my promi.se, by meeting him to-day. It gives mo pleasure to do so, and without fear of 
 the consequences. I meet him as the brave meets the brave, and I welcome him in this 
 contest of courteous debate, as his friend Corwin desired that the American armies might 
 be welcomed by the Mexicans, with " bloody hands," and I hope to give him a " hospita- 
 ble grave." 
 
 The Senator s^stho issue is made, audit is " Union or Disunion." Tn ether words, il 
 is "prompt secession " for past wrongs, and ho is glad that tho gentlemen who meet him 
 to-day are bold enough to avow it. 
 
 I hope, fellow-citizens, that I am bold enough to take an honest and just position, and 
 to advocate whatever position I avow. Cut there is no such issue as this. It is a mere 
 pretence to deceivo the people by thoso who have betrayed their interests. The Senator 
 makes this issue himself, having no merit upon which to sustain his own course, or the 
 position of the party he represents, and utters it with exclamation, as if he really believed 
 it to be true, and expected to enforce it upon all others, by the hallo with which ho pro- 
 claims it. From tho apparent horror with which he speaks of secession as a proper re- 
 medy under any circumstances, however enormous the wrongs which, in the last resort, 
 may render it necessary ; and the doleful lamentation which ho makes over the " blood and 
 thunder* 1 which would follow a dissolution of the Union, the consequences of which 
 would be the same, from whatever cause, connected with the subject of slavery, the sepa- 
 ration of the States might take place, it might seem that tho honorable Senator had never 
 entertained an opinion of the correctness and rightfulness of tho doctrine of secession in 
 any event. For your information of his former opinions, of quite a recent date, not yet 
 two years old, and by way of refreshing the memory of the Senator, I will read from a 
 speech of his on this subject, published in the National Intelligencer, delivered in tho 
 Senate of the United States, on presenting the resolutions of the Mississippi Legislature, 
 instructing our Senators, etc., to resist by all honorable and Constitutional means the ad- 
 mission of California, which instructions he afterwards so signally violated. The extracts 
 from the Senator's speech are as follows : 
 
 " Tho obligations of that sacred instrument, [meaning the Constitution] are to bo 
 scrupulously observed and executed on the part of the Southern States, whilst its faithful 
 observance by other members of tho confederacy, is to be demanded and insisted upon. 
 The guaranties in which the South is peculiarly interested, are to be respected by the free 
 States of the Union, in all their scope and amplitude. If in all these important points the 
 North should prove unwilling to do justice — (which Heaven forbid ! ) — if the offensive 
 enactments menaced should be adopted, and tho grievances already confessedly inflicted 
 shall remain unredressed — then the Southern Stales will assemble in convention to con- 
 sult for their own safety and welfare ; and if justice shall still bo withheld, after all pacific 
 and constitutional expedients shall be tried, and tried in vain — why. then, the Southern 
 States may feel it to be a duty forced upon them of seceding in tho last resort from tho 
 Union." 
 
 These were the sentiments of tho Senator before he was seduced by tho blandish- 
 ments of power or the influence of a national reputation. They were the sentiments, at 
 the, time they wero spoken, of tho people of Mississippi — they are tho sentiments now of 
 the friends of Southern Rights, which he has abandoned. 
 
 But tho Senator, though to-day he is horror-stricken at the idea of secession, was not at 
 that time content with the mere expression of his own opinion in favor of this doctrine, but 
 
6 
 
 thought it necessary to enforce it by the opinions of the most illustrious men of tlie age, 
 •and oven by the example of our Revolutionary fires. In his same speech above referred 
 to, in speaking of the denunciation of llio National Intelligencer against the Mississippi 
 Address, in recommending a convention of the Southern States, he imputes to the Intelli- 
 gencer, to condemn it in the strongest terms, the doctrine of non-resistance to usurpation, 
 tbe reverse of which he declares " is the dnty of all good citizens, and even of soverign 
 States," and says : 
 
 " It was not (bus that our noble forefathers thought and acted ; nor was it thus that, 
 in a purer and more high spirited generation of public men, men either wroto or spoke. It 
 was not thus that Andrew Jackson expressed himself in that famous proclamation in which, 
 though rebuking nullification, he declared secession to be a just and proper remedy, to be 
 resorted to in all cases of intolerable oppression. It was not thus that the honorable Sena- 
 tor from Massachusetts, [Mr. Webster] spoke tbe other day, in our hearing, when he em- 
 phatically declared the same doctrine. Such was not the doctrine cf Philip P. Barbour, 
 who asserted secession to be tbe political arsenic of our svstem, to be resorted to when 
 all other remedies failed. Such, finally, was not the doctrine of Mr. Jefferson, who often- 
 times declared secession, or " scission," as he called it, to be in certain cases of enormous 
 and long continued outrage, the proper and only remedy. I find the opinion, on this point, 
 of Mr. Jefferson, very precisely set forth in the eulogy delivered some years since upon 
 the lifo and character of Mr. Madison, by Mr. John Quincy Adams. Hero are Mr. Adams' 
 own words, as printed in the volume from which I now read — 
 
 " Concurring in the doctrine that the separate States have a right to interpose, in 
 cases of palpable infractions of the Constitution by the Government of the. United States, 
 and that the alien and sedition acts presented a case of such infraction, Mr. Jefferson con- 
 sidered them as absolutely null and void, and thought tbe State Legislatures competent, not 
 only to declare, but to make them so ; to resist their execution within their respective bor- 
 ders by physical force, and to secede from the Union, rather than to submit to them, if 
 attempted to be carried into execution by force." 
 
 After this vindication of the horrible right of secession, by the honorable Senator, I 
 hope ho will not allow himself to be troubled in future by its ghost, which haunts him 
 merely as a creature of his own imagination, since he has abandoned the doctrine which 
 he once so fearlessly advocated. 
 
 But the Senator says the issue is made, and as the aparition of " secession " floats so 
 constantly before his mind, I propose to examine the platform upon which he stands as the 
 leader of his party, and see if there is nothing like " disunion " in that. I propose to com- 
 pare it with the position of the friends of Southern Rights, the platform upon which I stand, 
 and leave you to determine which is nearest " disunion," the Senator or myself. 
 
 In addition to the platform conjured up under the Senator's own auspices, and adopted 
 by the self-styled Union Mass Meeting at Jackson, the 18th of November last, in which 
 they " declare that violations of our rights may occur which would amount to ' intolerable 
 oppression,' and would justify a resort to measures of resistance," from which I read at 
 present only the two following clauses, the third and sixth Articles of the Union faith, 
 upon the violation of either of which resistance is to be made, viz : 
 
 3. The abolition by Congress of slavery in the District of Columbia. 
 
 G. The. repeal of the Fugitive Slave Law, or the refusal by the general government 
 In euforco the constitutional provision for the reclamation of fugitive slaves. 
 
In addition to these, I say, the Senator and his most excellent Union party, now 
 adopt the Georgia platform, lie lias so said to-day, and tho concluding paragraph of the 
 article in the Federal Flag, at Jackson, from which I have previously read, is in these 
 words : 
 
 " General Foote avows his purpose to abide by the Georgia platform, which he thinks 
 should be introduced into the November State Convention, verbatim, and passed without 
 delay, and that the convention should then immediately adjourn." 
 
 I now read you, fellow-citizens, the Georgia platform, as laid down by the State in her 
 recent Convention. 
 
 " The State of Georgia, in the judgment of this Convention, will and ought to resist, 
 even to the last resort, to the disruption of every tie which binds her to the Union, any 
 action of Congress upon the subject of slavery in the District of Columbia ; or in places 
 subject to the jurisdiction of Congress, incompatible with the safety, the domestic tran- 
 quility, the rights, and the honor of the slaveholding States ; or any act suppressing tho 
 slave trade between the slave-holding States ; or any refusal to admit as a State any ter- 
 ritory hereafter applying, because of the existence of slavery therein ; or any act pro- 
 hibiting the introduction of slaves into the territories of Utah and New Mexico ; or any 
 act repealing or materially modifying the laws now in force for the recovery of fugitive 
 slaves." 
 
 The Senator has adopted this platform. He stands upon it with his Union Party 
 and cannot retreat from it. He has laid down in it distinctly and severally the proposi- 
 tions, upon the violation of either of which, by the action of Congress, " resistance" is 
 to bo made. He has declared in it distinctly the measure of resistance. It is " to the dis- 
 ruption of every tie which binds the State of Mississippi to the Union" What do 
 these words mean? Nothing like secession. I suppose, in the judgment of the Senator. 
 Nothing like disunion. Oh, no ! I suppose they mean " consolidation" — the sticking 
 together of the States forever in inseparable Union. Where is Mr. Jones, the book- 
 seller, with his great new edition of Webster's Dictionary, (not Daniel, but Noah, the 
 real Dictionary man,) to tell us the meaning of these words? Where is the school- 
 master? Where is Dr. Newman, learned in Lexicography, to tell us what these words 
 mean — « Resistance" " to the disruption of every tie which binds the State to the 
 Union !" This is the measure of redress of the par-excellence Union Party, for " any 
 action of Congress upon the subject of slavery in the District of Columbia ; ar any act 
 repealing or materially modifying the laws now in force for the recovery of the fugitive 
 slaves." But it dont mean secession, nor disunion — nothing like that. 
 
 Well, fellow-citizens, the Senator voted for the Bill to abolish the Slave Trade in tho 
 District of Columbia. 
 
 Mr. FOOTE interposed and said he did not vote on the passage of the Bill. 
 
 Mr. M'RAE. I know the Senator did not vote for the bill on its final passage, but 
 he voted for it at one time, to sustain it on a test question to lay the bill on the table, 
 he was in favor of the Bill ; he spoke in favor of it, and though by tho report in the 
 Intelligencer he occupied the floor up to the very moment the question was taken — on 
 its final passage he did not vote — he dodged the vote. 
 
 I read now from the National Intelligencer the proceedings iu tho Senate, August 
 28, 1S50, to show you the recorded vote of the Senator, with Chase and other aboli- 
 tionists to sustain this Bill on a " test vote." 
 
SLAVE TRADE IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMB1 S 
 
 " Mr. CLAY. Before proceeding to tlio orders of the day, I desire the Senate to 
 Lake up the Bill to suppress the slave trade in the District of Columbia, for the purpose 
 of fixing an early day for its consideration. 
 
 The motion was agreed to, and the bill was taken up. 
 
 Mr. CLAY. The bill being before the Senate, I wish to propose such a day as will 
 bo most agreeable to the Senate. I move that it be made the special order for Monday 
 next, at 12 o'clock. 
 
 Mr. FOOTE. I am in favor of that motion, but I hold in my hand an amendment 
 which I desire to present, in order that it may bo printed. 
 
 The amendment was ordered to be printed. 
 
 Mr. PEARCE. I also have an amendment which I desire to submit to the Senate 
 for the same purpose. 
 
 The amendment was received informally, and ordered to be printed. 
 
 Mr. ATCHISON. Mr. President, by way of a test vote in relation to this bill, I 
 move to lay it upon the table, and on that motion I call for the yeas and nays. 
 
 The yeas and nays were ordered, and being taken, were : 
 
 Yeas — Messrs. Atchison, Barnwell, Berrien, Butler, Davis, of Mississippi, Dawson, 
 Downs, Houston, Hunter, Mason, Pratt, Rusk, Sebastian, Soule, Turney, and Yulee — 16. 
 
 Nays — Messrs. Badger, Baldwin, Bell, Benton, Bradbury, Bright, Cass, Chase, Clay, 
 Clarke, Cooper, Davis, of Massachusetts, Dayton, Dickinson, Dodge, of Wisconsin, 
 Dodgo, of Iowa, Douglas, Ewing, Felch, Foote, Greene, Hamlin, Jones, King, Mangum, 
 Pearce, Phelps, Shields, Smith, Spruance, Sturgeon, Underwood, Upham, Wales, Win- 
 throp, Whitcomb — 36. 
 
 So the bill was not laid upon the table, and it was made the special order for Monday 
 next, at 12 o'clock." 
 
 Again the proceedings in the Senate published in the National Intelligencer, Sep. 
 17, show the Senator voting with Seward and Chase to sustain this bill, by recording his 
 volo against striking out the first section, and dodging the vote on striking out tho second 
 section of the bill. The following is the recorded vote : 
 
 " The question was then stated lo be on the motion to strike out the two first sections 
 of tho bill, on which the yeas and nays had been ordered. 
 
 Mr. UNDERWOOD asked for a division of tho question. 
 
 Tho question was accordingly first taken on striking out the first section of tho bill, 
 and the Senato refused to strike out, as follows : 
 
 Yeas — Messrs. Atchison, Berrien, Butler, Davis, of Mississippi, Dawson, Downs. 
 Houston, Hunter, King, Mason, Morton, Pratt, Rusk, Sebastian, Soule, Turney, Under- 
 wood, Yulee — lti. 
 
 Nai/s — Messrs. Badger, Baldwin, Bell, Benton, Bright, Chase, Clay, Davis, of Mas- 
 nachusetts, Dayton, Dickinson, Dodge, of Wisconsin, Dodge, of Iowa, Ewing, Folch, 
 Foote, Green, Hamlin, Jones, Mangum, Norris, Phelps, Seward, Shields, Smith, Spru- 
 ance. Sturgeon, Walos, Walker, Whitcomb, Winthrop — 30. 
 
 Tho question was then taken on striking out tho socond section, and tho Sonato re- 
 fused to strike out, as follows : 
 
 \ eas — Messrs. Atchison, Barnwell, Berrion, Butler, Davis, of Mississippi, Dawson, 
 Downs, Houston, Hunter, Muson, Morton, Pratt, Rusk, Sebastian, Soule, Turney, una 
 \uleo_i. 
 
Nays — Messrs. Badger, Baldwin. Bell, Benton, Bright, Chase, Clay, Davis, ol 
 sachusetts, Dayton, Dickinson, Dodge, of Wisconsin, Dodge, of Iowa, Douglas, Ewing 
 Felch, Greeno, Hamlin, Jones, Mangum, Norris, Phelps, Seward, Shield?, Smith, Spru- 
 ance, Sturgeon, Underwood, Wales, Walker, Whitcomb, Winthrop — 31. 
 
 The first section of the bill which the Senator voted to sustain, by voting againsx 
 striking it out, is in these words, and contains the whole abolition gist of the measure. 
 
 " Be it enacted by the Senate and House, of Representatives of the United States 
 hi Congress assembled, That from and after the first day of January, eighteen hundred 
 and fifty-one, it shall not be lawful to bring into the District of Columbia any slavo what- 
 ever for the purpose of being sold, or for the purposo of being placed in depot to be subse- 
 quently transferred to any other State or place to be sold as merchandize. And if any 
 slavo shall bo brought into said district by its owner, or by the authority or consent of iln 
 owner, contrary to the provisions of this act, such slave shall thereupon become liberated 
 and free. 
 
 Those proceedings further show that Mr. Seward immediately following these votes, 
 offered as a substitute for tho bill abolishing the slave trade his bill abolishing slavery en- 
 tirely in the District. The debate which ensuod will show you that Senator Foote, in 
 favoring tho passage of the slave trade abolition bill, yielded the principle, and the power 
 of Congress to abolish slavery in the District of Columbia, and that tho tho passage of the 
 bill itself was yielded to tho spirit of northern fanaticism, as an entering wedge to the 
 actual abolition of slavery in tho District, and was intended by its friends to assert the 
 power and right of Congress actually to abolish slavery there. I road extracts from this 
 debate. My time does not allow me to read it in full : 
 
 Mr. BALDWIN said : The Senate will recollect that a few days since I introduced 
 to thoir notice certain resolutions passed by the Legislature of Connecticut, one of which 
 was in favor of tho immediate prohibition of the slave trade in the District of Columbia, 
 and of the abolition of slavery upon such terms of compensation to the slaveholder as may 
 bo just and reasonable. In that respect, therefore, it accords with the motion which h 
 now made by tho Senator from New York, but I am not prepared to vote for this proposi- 
 tion as an amendment to the bill before the Senate. I have hoped, and still hope, that the 
 bill reported by tho committee for tho abolition of tho slavo trade in the District may lie 
 adopted by Congress, and I should bo very unwilling to do anything which would have a 
 tendency to prevent the favorable action of the two houses of Congress upon the bill as it 
 was originally reported." * * * * 
 
 " Now, in my view, any action which the Senate may have upon the amendment 
 which is offered by the Senator from New York, and tho amendments to it which will 
 very probably be proposed by others, will tend to embarrass and prevent the favorable ac- 
 tion of Congress upon the proposition now before us for the immediate abolition of the slave, 
 trade in the District, and I prefer myself that the two houses shall act finally upon this bill 
 as a separate measure, before we enter upon tho consideration of any other proposition, 
 which, howover desirable, there is less reason to bolievo will be immediately successful 
 Such a course will, in my opinion, better comport with the resolutions of tho Legislature 
 of my own State to which I have referred. 
 
 Mr. MANGUM. I have already remarked, sir, since this subject has been under 
 consideration before the Senate, that there has been no period for fivo-and-twenty yeaie 
 when, if brought forward under proper auspices, I would not with great cordiality and 
 ploasuro havo voted for tho abrogation of the slave trade in tin- District I have now 
 
10 
 
 changed iiij coura I shall not vote for it. [am - lents that are 
 
 made, that it is impossible losatisfy certain gentlemen. To obtain thoir objects thej would 
 
 wade through the blood knee deep of the whole South, and over the wreck of this I nion 
 The farther discussion of such subjects as this, in my judgment, only tends to operate as 
 an entering wedge to enable these gentlemen to attain the object which they have sought 
 at all times, hazarding the existence of the Union and the safety and liberties of tin- 
 South. 
 
 Mr. MASON. I am exceedingly reluctant to transgress any rule of the Senate. 
 But I confess I have great difficulty in choosing between tho two propositions now pre- 
 i uted, [the compromise, slave trade abolition bill, and Mr. Sewards's slavery abolition 
 bill in tho District.] The Senato having refused to strike from the bill that which relates 
 to tho slave trado within this District, I can look upon the proposition of the Senator from 
 New York, as only effecting directly what the other, however, intended must effect in- 
 directly. One cuts the whole cord ; the other cuts ono stran merely. I should be at a 
 loss how to vote on the two propositions." 
 
 Mr. CHASE. Mr. President, it seems to me that a great deal of feeling has been 
 exhibited in this Chamber, which the circumstances hardly seem to warrant. We havb 
 a bill before us which provides for the abolition of the Slave trade in this District. It has 
 been correctly said by the Senator next me, from Virginia, (Mr. Mason) that this is a 
 step towards the abolition of Slavery itself; and gentlemen deceive themselves if they 
 suppose it is the last step. For one, Mr. President, I am prepared to act upon the prin- 
 ciples I avow. I am prepared to act now as well as at any other time. I shall not seek 
 to excuse myself fram voting for a proposition, which commends itself to my judgment, 
 on the ground of time, or place, or circumstances. — * * * Gentlemen tell us, if 
 we adopt this substitute, it will dissolve the Union. Sir, the Union has stood many shocks, 
 and will, I believe, stand this, if this be a shock at all." 
 
 Mr. BUTLER. Mr. President, I am one of those who" feel very much in doubt 
 how to vote on this matter, because it is very obvious that there are a great many who 
 will vote against this amendment, for the reason that they wish to gauge — yes, sir, I use 
 the word "gauge", — our legislation so as to make it operate gradually, but in effect, 
 looking to tho 6ame end. And it is very obvious that some will vote against this amend- 
 ment upon the ground that it would be moro expedient to take another form of effecting 
 the same object. With this knowledge before me, I do not choose to allow myself to bo 
 blinded to results. And, sir, when the tone of public sentiment at the North can bear it, 
 they will carry you to that result." 
 
 After some remarks in reply to Mr. Butler, Mr. Foot, said, " Sir, I should be very 
 much pleased, indeed, to vote for this bill. I was exceedingly anxious to vote for it. 
 Accordingly, I proposed various amendments with the view of enabling mo to do so. I 
 believe that the bill in its present form, without any amendment, was not only well intend- 
 ed, but well conceived. But I perceive, and others, I think, will perceive, that ingenious 
 men have already, to some extent, made a lodgement upon the public mind in regard to it, 
 and dishonest editors and intriguing politicians havo so calumniated this measure, that it is to 
 a great extent misunderstood in the South. And I apprehend its adoption, without amend- 
 ment, particularly after what has occurred this morning, would at the present time, to 
 some extent, awaken discontent in the South. Believing that would be the effect, 
 and beui ■" aw aking that f< eling in any quarter of the Union, I shall be com- 
 
 pelled, most reluctant)]/ and painfully — if I vote at all — to vote against the bill." 
 
11 
 
 At tho same timo Mr. President, while I thus frankly declare my views, I fee^bound 
 Hi addition, to say that I recognise and consider this proposition of tho Senator from Ohio 
 (Mr. Chase) as a proposition to dissolve the Union. 
 
 Mr. WINTHROP. Mr. President, if I shall vote against the amendment which 
 has now been proposed by the honorable Senator from New York, (Mr. Seward,) it will 
 not be because I regard it as a proposition to dissolve this Union. I do not know what 
 might be the effect of that amendment, if it were adopted. But it really seems to me 
 that the idea that the liberation of two thousand, or at the most twenty-five hundred 
 slaves 
 
 Mr. BALDWIN. Not twenty-five hundred. There are only six hundred slaves 
 here. 
 
 Mr. WINTHROP. I think the Senator must bo mistaken ; but if it bo so, then I 
 say, with all tho more emphasis, that the idea that tho liberation of six hundred slaves on 
 a little piece of territory now reduced to about six miles square, is about, to dissolve this 
 Union, altogether surpasses m}' belief. I am not. quite credulous enough for that. 
 
 Mr. FOOTE. Will tho honorable Senator bear with mo to allow me to explaii 
 one point? 
 
 Mr. WINTHROP. Certainly. 
 
 Mr. FOOTE. Mr. President, it is not tho number of slaves; it is not the immediate 
 consequences ; it is tho hedious violalion of tho political compact of our fathers. It 
 principle — tho most unpardonable injustice towards tho South — which must inflame the 
 public mind, and must inevitably awaken apprehension that this is but the entering wedge 
 to other and more aggressive measures, which are afterwards to follow. That is my view 
 of the matter. 
 
 Mr. WINTHROP. I believe I understod the honorable member from Mississippi 
 before. The facts of the case were certainly as I stated them. His suggestion was, 
 that the passage of a bill to emancipate six or seven hundred negroes on this little patch 
 of territory, which you may almost cover with your pocket handkerchief, was about to 
 bo the entering wedge which was to rive this vast. Union assunder. Sir, it must indeed 
 bo the operation of some awful and mysterious principle, and not tho operation of the 
 act itself, which is about to produce this tremendous result. 
 
 And that leads me to say in the second place, that if I should vote against this 
 amendment, it will not be on the ground that I do not believe Congress have the power 
 to abolish slavery in this District, nor upon the ground that I am not willing to exercise 
 that power on the proper occasion and in a proper manner. That I understand to be tho 
 principle which is about to dissolve the Union. Tho assertion and exercise of this power 
 is so hideous a violation of the political compact, and so unpardonable an injustice towards 
 the South that the dissolution of tho Union is inevitable ? Sir, I hold to no such doctrine : 
 and I desire, if by any chance my name should bo recorded against this amendment, to 
 protest in advance against being understood to acquiesce in any such idea.'' 
 
 These extracts are not continuous, but are the most pointed I can give, not being able to 
 read the whole debate. Can any one doubt from this discussion that the slave trade abo- 
 lition bill, was yielded to the spirit of free soil fanaticism, and that it was intended by its 
 friends to assert the power and the right of Congress to abolish slavery in the District, 
 leaving it as a mere question of time and expediency, to the hostile anti-slavery majority 
 who now and for all future time have in their hands the control of tho Government. And 
 yet the Senator now before you, who favored this measure, declaring the dower of Con- 
 
12 
 
 gross, to liberate and fra slaves in Kir district, from which other conservative Senators 
 
 Mr. Maugum especially recoiled with indignation and horror, witnessing the intolerant 
 Bpmt of fanaticism with which it was enforced, boldly announces himself and his party 
 who rejoice at this " measure of aju.-tiiieiit and peace," as the Simon pure Union men, 
 while at the same time, he stakes the dissolution of the Union upon an act, which by his 
 cour&e, ho has encouraged and still invites, admitting the right and the power of Congress 
 to perform it, and declaring that if it is performed, or if " any action of Congress upon 
 ike subject of slavery in the District of Columbia" in taken, it is to be resisted " to tho dis- 
 ruption of every tio which bind tho Stato to the Union." If tho Senator and his party are 
 not upon tho verge of "disunion;" if they are not tho real " disunionists," then do I 
 confess, that looking to the progress of freesoil fanaticism at tho North, and witnessing its 
 daring, and its triumphs in the popular assemblies, and in the senatorial elections in the 
 great States of Massachusetts, Ohio and Now York, I have either been mistaken in its 
 aims, or I have misinterpreted its real objects. 
 
 Tho Senator says in the romarks of his, which I have just read : 
 " I should be very much pleased indeed to vote for this bill. I was exceedingly anxi- 
 ous to vote for it. Accordingly I proposed various amendments with tho view of enabling 
 mo to do so. I believo that the bill in its present form, without any amendment, was not 
 only well intended, but well conceived." 
 
 I have already read to you the first section of the bill, which tho Senator voted lo 
 sustain, and I now repeat the last clause of it. It is as follows: 
 
 " And if any slave shall be brought into tho said District by its owner, or by tho au- 
 thority, or consent of its owner, contrary to the provisions of this act, such slave shall there- 
 upon become liberated and free." 
 
 This tho Senator considers " teas not only well intended, but well conceived." This 
 power of Congress to liberate and free slaves. 
 
 Again ho says, least it should awaken discontent in the South, and being opposed to 
 awaking that feeling in any quarter of the Union. " I shall be compelled most reluc- 
 tantly and painfully if I vote at all — to vote against the bill." 
 
 But he took care, not to " vote at all."— Though, as I have said, ho spokoup to tho 
 vory moment the question was taken on the passage of the bill, and then dodged the vote. 
 Mr. FOOTE. Will the gentleman allow me. Some time intervened after closing 
 my remarks beforo the vote was taken. 
 
 Mr. McRAE. Tho rocord which I read from the National Intelligencer does not show 
 it. It follows tho Senator's remarks immediately with the vote. 
 
 Mr.'FOOTE, Then you may consider me as voting for the bill. 
 Mr. McRAE. The Senator says I may consider him as voting for the bill. This places 
 him with the whole abolition phalanx, Chase, Hale, Seward, and others whoso namos 
 are recorded in favor of this bill, involving, and yielding, the vital principle to tho South, of 
 the power and right of Congress to liberate and free slaves." 
 
 Now, fellow citizens, on the first introduction into the Senate of Mr. Clay's reso- 
 lutions of Compromise, the Senator took eight distinct positions, as published in tho Nat. 
 Intelligencer, January 3lst, '50, mostly adverse to every proposition contained in tho reso- 
 lutions. I read you his first and sixth positions. 
 
 " Objectionable, 1st. Because they only assert that it is not expedient that Congress 
 should abolish slavery in tho District of Columbia: thus allowing the implication to arise 
 that Congress has power to lcgislato on tho subject of slavery in the District, which may 
 
13 
 
 hereafter bo exorcised if it should become expedient to do bo ; whereas I hold that Congress 
 has, under tho Constitution, no such legislative power at all, and that any attempt thus to 
 Iegislato would be a gross fraud upon all the States of the Union 
 
 6th. " As to the abolition of tho slave trade in Urn District of Columbia, I see no 
 particular objection to it, provided it is done in a delicate and judicious manner, and is 
 not a concession to menaces, or demands of factionists and fanatics. If other questions 
 can be adjusted, this one will, perhaps, occasion but little difficulty." 
 
 Directly in tho face of tho first of these positions, the Senator afterwards supported 
 by his speeches, and sustained by his vote on two occasions, and say now ho may bo con- 
 sidered as having voted for it on its passage, tho slavo trade abolition bill, declaring in 
 express torms tho power of Congress to liberate and free slaves in tho District of 
 Columbia. 
 
 Directly in tho face of his other position, ho afterwards supported and sustained by 
 his votes this same law, when it was passed in a manner " so indelicate and injudicious" 
 as to " liberate and free" the slave, on certain conditions, and was so evidently yielded 
 as a " concession" to the "demands of factionists and fanatics," that other Southern 
 Senators scarcely knew how to choose between it and a proposition directly to abolish 
 slavery in the District. And Mr. Mangum (of North Carolina) always a conservative 
 man, was forced to say, " That there had been no period for five-and-twenty years when, if 
 brought forward under proper auspices, he would not with great cordiality and pleasure, 
 have voted for the abrogation of the slave trade in this District. Ho had now changed his 
 course. Ho would not vote for it. Ho was satisfied from devclopcments that were made, 
 that it was impossible to satisfy certain gentlemen. To attain their objects, they would 
 wade through the blood, knee-deep, of the whole South, and over the wreck of this 
 Union. Tho further discussion of such subjects as this, in his judgment, only tended to 
 operate as an entering wedge to enable those gentlemen to attain tho object which they 
 havo sought at all times, hazarding the existence of the Union and the safety and liber- 
 tics of the South." 
 
 How the Senator can roconcile such inconsistency between his first position and his 
 last, and excuso himself, " lest ho should awaken discontent in tho South," is past my ca- 
 pacity to understand. It is past tho comprehension of the common understanding of tho 
 people of the State, whoso interest and whose will he has so strangely misrepresented. 
 
 I read lastly on this head, from the National Intelligencer of September 19, extracts 
 from the debate in the Senate, immediately preceding tho passage of this bill, with the 
 final vote upon it, and I have done with this branch of the subject: 
 
 Mr. DAVIS, of Mississippi, said : Whilst gentlemen are dividing the honors that re- 
 sult from tho passago of these bills, either in a joint or separate form, I havo only to say, 
 that so far as I represent the public opinion of my State, 1 do not represent that public 
 opinion which required the passago of them here, either jointly or separately." * 
 
 " If any man has a right to bo proud of the success of these measures, it is tho Sen- 
 ator from Illinois, [Mr. Douglas.] They were brought before the Senate by tho Committeo 
 on Territories, and this Committee of Thirteen, which has done so much for the honor of 
 the Senate and the country, merely stuck together the work of other men, save and except 
 the little bill to suppress the slave trade in the District of Columbia. I merely wish to say 
 that so far as the public opinion of the community which I represent has been shadowed 
 forth in public meetings and in the public press, it has been wholly adverse to the great 
 body of these measures." 
 
II 
 
 Mr. FOI >TE. J will detain th^ Senate l>nt a moment longer, J was not ono ol the 
 
 Commiltco of Thirteen, but I was one who most cordially applauded their labors ; and I 
 think they did a great deal. Certain it is that these hills were reported by the Committee 
 mi Territories ; but it was equally certain — and 1 believe 1 maysay that without egotism — 
 that tho report of the Committee on Territories was based upon hills introduced by my- 
 
 Mr. DAVIS, of Mississippi, (in his seat.) Oh, yes, I give you all the credit for 
 that. 
 
 Mr. FOOTE. Now I feel bound to say, in reply to my colleague, that I differ with 
 him mnch upon a certain delicate point which he brought to our notice this morning. Vv e 
 differ, sir, now as we always differ — as friends ; and whatever difference of opinion may 
 exist between us, I tako pleasure in uniformly referring to him as a gentleman whoso mo- 
 tives are as good as my own, though his judgment with regard to certain measures is not in 
 accordance with mine. Ho has concluded by saying that ho does not represent that 
 public opinion which is in accordance with this plan of adjustment. I am gratified at 
 having it in my power to say that I do represent that precise state of public opinion which 
 he repudiates. I feel bound to say, in addition, (and I say it with my hand on my heart, 
 and with the solemn determination to tell the truth about this matter, as I understand and 
 believe it,) that my opinion is, that nine-tenths of the enlightened freemen of the State of 
 Mississippi are now, and have been all along, cordially in favor of this much abused plan 
 of adjustment; and I predict that they will deliberately and formally sanction hereafter all 
 that the Committee have done. I believe they will declare their approbation of all tin- 
 labors of the Committee, and avow their concurrence in all that I have done and said al 
 any time, as one of their Senatorial representatives. Such is my opinion. My colleague 
 entertains a different opinion. We shall soon be at home among our constituents, where 
 we shall confer together as friends, and where we shall consult our mutual constituents also 
 as friends. I go for consulting them, and if they decide against me, I shall be no longer 
 an occupant of a seat in this body. 
 
 Mr. HALE. Mr. President, I rise to enquire what is the question before the Senate. 
 
 The PRESIDENT. It is on the passage of the bill to "suppress the slave trade in 
 the District of Columbia." 
 
 Mr. DAVIS, of Mississippi. Mr. President, I have heretofore declined to state by 
 vulgar fractions the opinions of the State which I represent. I do not intend to do so now. 
 I have heretofore stated that I believed I represented tho opinions of my constituents in 
 opposing these measures. I am firm in that belief. But I do not intend to argue with my 
 colleague about his opinions. I am well assured he will find no nine-tenths in any one 
 county, still less in the State of Mississippi, favoring his course on these measures. Tho 
 language expressed by my colleaguo here on other occasions excited surprise in Mississippi, 
 and has been remarked upon by the public press. I know of no community in Mississippi, 
 not a single town or county, whero I believe ho can find a majority in favor of all these 
 measures — and nine-tenths is such a majority as scarcely leaves oposition to any propo- 
 sition. That nine-tenths of the people of the Stato are in favor of a system of measures 
 which nearly every prominent man in the State has condemned, is an assertion that marks 
 clearly how far the warm impulses of the gentleman, when pursuing any measure to which 
 he attaches himself, will lead him from the calmer feeling of his maturer judgment. 
 
 As to tho opinion of my colleague, I know him too well to doubt that he says what he 
 thinks. I know him well enough to be assured that his excitability has led him into error 
 
iii relation to thi matte Wkenl ind [ visit our constituents at tho short perio I 
 
 he refers, he will find where public opinion is. 
 
 Mr. FOOTE Mr. President, a single word. 
 
 The PRESIDENT. Tho Chair is under the necessity of stopping this course of de- 
 bate. It is not at all relevant to the question under consideration. 
 
 Mr. FOOTE. I hope tho chair will bear with mo while making a single remark. I 
 am perfectly willing to obido by tho decision to which my colleague refers. And I am 
 willing to leave it to tho Senato and to the country to decide whether he or 1 urn tin- 
 more " excitable " man of the two. [Laughter.] 
 
 Mr. MASON called for the yeas and nays on the passage of the bill, and they were 
 ordered, and were as follows : 
 
 Yeas — Messrs. Baldwin, Bright, Cass, Chaso, Clark, Clay, Cooper, Davis, of Mas- 
 sachusetts, Dayton, Diekiuson, Dodge, of Wisconsin, Dodge of Iowa, Douglas, Ewing, 
 Felch, Fremont, Green, Gwin, Hale, Hamlin, Houston, Jones, Norris, Seward, Shields, 
 Spruauce, Sturgeon, Underwood, Wales, Walker, Whitcomb, and Winthrop — 33. 
 
 Nays — Messrs. Atchison, Badger, Barnwell, Bell, Berrien, Butler, Davis, of Mis- 
 sissippi, Dawson, Downs, Hunter, King, Mangum, Mason, Morton, Pratt, Sebastian. 
 Soule,Turney, and Yulee — 19. 
 
 Tho Senator did not vote but he says I may consider him as having voted for the bill. 
 This places him in tho category with Chase, Seward, and Hale, and I understood my 
 friend, Judge Smith, in his opening speech to say that the Senator, ouly a day or two since 
 at Hillsboro,' pledged himself to resign his seat in the Senate if his name could be found 
 recorded in the vote with these gentlemen on any question involving the interests of the 
 South connected with slavery. 
 
 Mr. FOOTE. I so stated, but do you ask me to resign for saying that you may 
 consider mo as having voted for this bill ? 
 
 Mr. McRAE. Not at all. I do not ask the Senator to risign for anything. A Sen- 
 ator who disobeys the instructions of the Legislature, his immediate constituents, cannot 
 be expected to yield to the request of the citizen, nor to bo held responsible to his private 
 pledges. But if the Senator will abide by his pledges, I will show him before I conclude, 
 that ho will be compelled to resign, The Senator nods assent that he will. Then ho will 
 have to resign, as I will show him in the sequel. 
 
 The second position of the Senator and his party, in their Lhiion platform, is, " that 
 any act of Congress, repealing or materially modifying the laws now in force for tho re- 
 covery of fugitive slaves, is to be resisted to the disruption of every tie whichbinds the Stub 
 to the Union." Now, the Senator, I believe, supported and voted for the Fugitive Slave 
 law. He believes it the great compensating advantage which tho South received in tho 
 legislation of Congress, for the spoliation from her of the territories, and tho admission and 
 assertion of the power of Congress to liberate and free slaves. Though the large majority 
 of Southern Senators believed that it was the mere carrying out of a plain, express, con- 
 stitutional right, which did not admit of compromise. He believes in the constitutional 
 power of Congress to pass this law, and of the constitutional power of Congress to " repeal 
 or modify it." Tho constitutional power of Congress over this subject, with a few excep- 
 tions, is generally conceded. I believe myself, with Mr. Webster, that it is peculiarly tho 
 duty of the States to deliver up fugitive slaves, and to provide suitablo laws for this pur- 
 pose. He says in his great speech of tho 7th of March, on Mr. Clay's resolutions : 
 
 " No man fulfils his duty in any legislature who sots himself to find excuses, ova^i^n 
 
16 
 
 scapes from this constitutional obligation. I have always thought that tin- Constition 
 addressed itself to tho Legislatures of the States, or to the States themselves. It says that 
 those persons escaping to other States shall he delivered up, and I confess I have always 
 been of tho opinion that it was ail injunction upon the States themselves. Where it is said 
 that a person escaping into another State, and becoming, therefore, within the jurisdiction 
 of that State, shall bo delivered up ; it seems to me tho import of the passage is that tho 
 Stato itself, in obedience to tho Constitution, shall cause him to bo delivered up. That is 
 my judgment. I havo always entertained that opinion, and I entertain it now." 
 
 " In this opinion of Mr. Wohstor, fellow-citizens, I concur, but at sho samo time, I 
 believe, that if tho States fail or rofuso to do their duty on this subject, Congress has con- 
 current jurisdiction with them under tho Constitution, and has the power to pass laws to 
 enforce this constitutional provision. Tho Senator, however, believes in the constitutional 
 power of Congress over this subject to its fullest and most unlimited extent, ho oven went 
 so far as to advocate a proposition to make tho United States liable to tho owner of the 
 :;lavo which was not recovered, for its value, instead of the State, by whoso opposition tho 
 fugitive escaped, by which tho South would havo to pay, through tho national treasury; 
 one-half or two-thirds of the valuo of her slaves, stolen by the abolitionists. Ho boliovos in 
 tho entiro constitutional power of Congress to enact, and by consequence, to repeal or 
 modify tho fugitive slave law, and yet he says in his great devotion to Union, that " if 
 ( longress repeals or materially modifies this law," which they have a porfoct constitutional 
 right to do, and provido any other sullicient law, or leavo standing the old law of 1793, 
 enacted under Washington, as good a law as the South desires, if tho Northern States and 
 peoplo would faithfully execute it, ho is for "resistance," " to a disruption of emery tic 
 which hinds the State to the Union." Tho Senator and his party must bo great lovers 
 of the Union, or else they aro endeavoring to play tho greatest and clumsiest farco that 
 ever was enacted, on so serious a question, before an intelligent peoplo. 
 
 But there is another view of tho Senator's great Union platform, to bo taken. It is 
 this, that in tho event of tho violation of either of tho propositions, laid down in it, which 
 I havo discussed, "secession," "disunion," is to take place, as a separate stato measure: 
 by single, separato Stato action. Tho language of tho platform is: "Tho Stato of 
 Georgia, in tho judgement of this Convention, will and ought to resist, even as a last. 
 resort, to a disruption of every tio which binds her to tho Union, any action of Con- 
 gress upon the subject of slavery in tho District of Columbia," &€., "or any act repealing 
 or materially modifying the laws now in force for tho recovery of fugitivo slaves." Tho 
 Senator, "avows his purpose to abide by tho Georgia platform, which ho thinks should bo 
 introduced into tho November State Convention, verbatim, and passod without delay, and 
 that tho Convention should then immediately adjourn." Tho Stato of Mississippi, then 
 separately, single-handed, and upon her own hook, in tho judgement of the Senator, and 
 his most excellent Union Party, in tho event of a violation of either of tho abovo articles of 
 their faith will and outfltt to resist, even as the last resort to a disruption of evert/ tic 
 which hinds her to the Union." 
 
 Well, fellow citizens, looking to tho position of tho Senator and his party, and their 
 efforts to deceived tho poople with tho false cry of Union, under which thoy mask them- 
 selves, this plathform is going a littlo farther towards " disunion " per He in rem ami in 
 a-, than any thing I havo yet seen ; and a little farther, than I had supposed ouroxccl- 
 lent I hiion loving friends would have dared to venture. In making these remarks T would 
 uot bo understood, to oppooo rosititanco to legislation by Congress " Upon tho subject of 
 
17 
 
 slavery in the District of Columbia." " or the repeal, or essential modification of the 
 fugitive slave law." I think they ought to bo resisted, but I think the friends of Southern 
 Rights, the friends of equality of right, and the safety of the South at this moment of peril to 
 her liberty, and her institutions, the party upon whose platform I stand, occupy the true 
 position on that question, and are tho true Union men, by whose efforts alone, the Union 
 must bo sustained, if it can be at all, as it was framed for us by our fathers ; granting to 
 each State, and to every American citizen, equality of right and dignity in the Union, 
 and in all its territory whether North or South, or upon the Atlantic or Pacific shores. 
 
 That tho Senator and his party, who have been instrumental in bringing upon u 
 wrongs which have been done, us, by the legislation of Congress, under what is called the 
 " scheme of adjustment," acquiescing in, submiting to, and rejoicing over these measures, 
 by which the South has been despoiled of the Territories — a sovereign slave State, shorn 
 of a part of her domain, to make it free soil, for a price offered for her acceptance, with the 
 alternative of the sword, if rejected — the power of Congress, asserted, to liberate and free 
 slaves in tho District of Columbia, and thereby encouraging and inviting further aggres 
 sion, should sot themselves up as the "par excellence *' friends of tho Union, and at tho 
 same time lay down a platform of their faith, declaring that " any action of Congress 
 upon the subject of slavery in the District of Columbia,'' which they have admitted, tho 
 principle, the power and tho right of Congress to take, "or any act repealing or materially 
 modifying the fugitive slave law," over which they acknowledge the constitutional power 
 of Congress, are to bo resisted by the separate State action of Mississippi, "to a. disruption 
 of every tic which binds her to the Union!'' — I say that tho Senator and his party under 
 such circumstances, and occupying such a position should claim to bo the genuine Simon 
 pure union men, and denounce all others who differ with them, as "disimionists" and 
 "traitors," is simply to my mind ridiculous, and too shallow a pretence to deceive the 
 intelligent people of Mississippi, whoso rights and whoso interests have been so grossly 
 betrayed, by the "scheme" of the pretended "compromise." 
 
 " I come now, fellow citizens, to consider the position of the friends of Southern Rights, 
 tho platform upon which I stand, upon which in my judgment, tho safety of tho South 
 and the integrity of tho Union depends, and upon which I believe the great majority of the 
 people of Mississippi will stand at the ballot box in September and November, when the 
 questions are fairly understood by them. This position can be best and most concisely 
 presented by an extract from a letter of your distinguished and faithful Senator, Col. JefF. 
 Davis, written at Jackson, Nov. 19th, 1850, and addressed to Messrs. Nabors, Ames, 
 and other self-styled Union gentlemen, and by reference to a very able address to the 
 people of Mississsippi, by the Hon. A. M. Clayton, one of the judges of tho high Court 
 of our State. Col. Davis says, as his opinion of our duty in the present crisis. 
 
 " I am in favor of tho execution of the plan indicated by the State Convention of 
 October, 1849, the address of that Convention to the slaveholding states, and by the 
 Legislature of the state at its last session, which I consider may be stated thus : to submit 
 the question to tho people, in a law, for the assembling of a Convention of tho State, to 
 consider of and decide on our present condition and future prospects, and the measures 
 which should bo adopted. To prepare for the defence of the State, armed if needed be. 
 To propose a Convention of the slaveholding States, to be composed of formly elected 
 delegates, which should unit© all those States who were willing to assert their equality, 
 and right to equal protection, and equal enjoyment of tho common property. Tho States 
 thus united should, in my opinion demand of tho other States, such euranties as would 
 
18 
 
 secure to them tho safety, the benefits, tho tranquility which the Union was designed to 
 confer." 
 
 Tho Clayton Address defines that these "guaranties" are, which Col. Davis says should 
 be demanded of the other States through a Convention of the slave-holding States, com- 
 posed of formly elected delegates, to secure to the South, the safety, the benefits, the 
 tranquility which the Union was designed to confer. The Address suggests that this 
 convention should demand: 
 
 A guarantee that fugitive slaves should be delivered up, in the same way that fugitives 
 from justice are, and that the Stato authority shall assist in and compel their delivery. 
 
 A guarantee that all future discussion or agitation of the subject of slavery in the halls 
 of Congress shall be excluded, unless with a view to extend to it the protection given to 
 other descriptions of property. 
 
 A guarantee by which either of the two great sections of the confederacy should, in 
 future, be deprived of the power of oppressing the other by unequal and unjust taxation, 
 whether direct or indirect. 
 
 Also, that it should ask that Congress shall extend the Missouri Compromise line to tho 
 Pacific Ocean, and to that end, obtain the consent of California that such line may con- 
 stitute her southern boundary, and that the right of the people of the slave-holding states, 
 to carry their slaves to all territory south of it, shall be acknowledged and secured. 
 
 To make these guarantees effectual, the Addresses suggested that the three first shall 
 be made a part of the fundamental law — that they shall be incorporated as additional 
 articles in the constitution of the United States. The last is an application to the descre- 
 tion of Congress to do justice to the South and establish her equality of right in tho 
 Union. 
 
 This, fellow-citizens, is the platform of the friends of Southern Rights — in my judg- 
 ment the true Union party, desiring to preserve the Union as it was established, not as a 
 means of degradation, and an engine of oppression, but to "establish justice, insure 
 domestic tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general welfare, and 
 secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity " 
 
 The two first of the above guarantees, if made a part of the fundamental laws, would 
 be incorporated as additional articles in the Constitution, simply as articles of construction ; 
 it being now the judgment and position of all parties in the South, that Congress has strict- 
 ly under the Constitution, no power to agitate or act upon the subject of slavery anywhere 
 except to give to it tho protection which is given to all other property ; and it been further 
 the opinion of all parties in the South, corroborated by that of many northern statesmen, 
 especially of Mr. Webster, which I have already presented to you, that the Constitution 
 is now directory to the States — is a command to them to deliver up fugitive slaves, and 
 that it is their special duty to do so, and to provide by law for their most early and effec- 
 tual delivery. 
 
 The third guarantee, if made a part of the fundamental law, would bo incorporated as 
 a positive additional article in the Constitution, rendered necessary by the destruction of 
 the equal powers of tho two sections in confederacy, by tho lato action of Congress in 
 depriving the South of her equal right in the territory, thereby securing to the North a 
 permanent sectional majority in the control of the government, and making it absolulely 
 essential, looking to the spirit of hostility in tho North against our institutions, and the 
 antagonist interests of northern to southern labor, for tho advantage and support of 
 which they use tho government against us, that the South shall have certain security 
 
19 
 
 against unjust and oppressive taxation either directly or indirectly. Should this guarantee 
 bo obtained, and Congress should fail in an honest effort to obtain from California her con- 
 sent to make the line of 36 30 her southern boundary, in its extension to the Pacific on 
 the terms demanded, it would afford tho south in some measure redress for the past, by 
 giving her assurance that the equal power of the two sections was not destroyed in the 
 settlement of the territorial questions for the purpose of oppressing her, and would leave 
 her a just hope of security in the future. 
 
 Col. Davis, in his letter, further says : 
 
 " If" these guarantees "bo granted, the minorty could live in equality under the temple 
 of our federal compact ; if refused, it would be conclusive evidence of the design of the 
 majority, to crush all paper barriers beneath the heel of power ; the gulf of degradation 
 would yawn before us. The equality to which we were born being denied, and tho alter- 
 native of slavish submission or manly resistance being presented to us, I shall be in favor 
 of the latter. Then, if full provision has been made, in the preparation of arms, of muni- 
 tions of war, of manufacturing establishments, and all the varieties of agriculture to which 
 our climate and soil are adapted, the slave-holding States, or even the planting States, 
 may apply the last remedy — the final alternative of separation without blood-shed or se- 
 vere shock to commercial interests. Painful under any circumstances it must be to those 
 who have through life cherished the hope of perpetuity to our Union, to see it destroyed ; 
 but faithful history will record our many sacrifices to preserve it, and the responsibility of 
 its destruction must attach to those who, by assailment of the constitution, which they 
 have the power to violate and not the will to observe, have stifled in the Union the breath 
 of its existence. A most unfair attempt has been made to put in the foreground the ques- 
 tion of Union or Disunion by those who were violating or surrendering our constitutional 
 rights. To yield to aggression is to produce, certainly in the future, that condition from 
 which dissolution must and civil war probably will spring ; unless it be assumed, that the 
 southern minority will hereafter consent to occupy such a position, towards the northern 
 majority as the colonies of North America, on the 4th July, 1776, determined not to hold 
 towards the Kingdom of Great Britian." 
 
 Again, he says : 
 
 " If any have falsely and against the evidences before them, attempted to fix on me 
 the charge of wishing to dissolve the Union, under existing circumstances, I am sure your 
 information and intelligence have enabled you to detect the shallow fraud. If any have 
 represented me as skeeing to establish a southern confederacy, on the ruins of that which 
 our revolutionary fathers bequeathed to us, my whole life, and every sentiment I have 
 ever uttered, in public or private, give them the lie. 
 
 If any have supposed gratuitously, (they could not otherwise,) that my efforts in tho 
 Senate were directed to the secession of Mississippi from the Union, their hearts must have 
 been insensible to the obligations of honor and good faith, which I feel are imposed upon 
 me, by the position of an accredited agent from Mississippi, to the Federal Government." 
 
 The Clayton Address says: "If redress like this (the guarantees demand) can be 
 obtained the whole difficulty will be ended, by means which cannot meet objection from 
 any quarter." 
 
 Again it says : " If the North shall refuse to accede to our just demands, then will 
 come up for decision the question, whether we shall submit to grievous wrongs, and take 
 the position of inferiority assigned to us in the Union, or look to ourselves for the protection 
 of our rights and our institutions out of it. The evidence of hostility on their part will be 
 
20 
 
 complete — the cup of submission ononis will'be full. Non-action beyond that point, will 
 
 1)0 unconditional submission. If wo would remain a free people, wo must resort to such 
 remedies, as, under existing circumstances, should then promise to be most effectual." 
 
 Again, the Address says : "We are by no means prepared to recommend to the peo- 
 ple of Mississippi at this time, to take this step ("secession") in advance of her sister states, 
 even should our complaints go unheeded ; but as a measure of precaution, it will become 
 the duty of the Convention to act with reference to the consequences of a refusal, on the 
 part of the Government of the United States, to redress these grievences and to afford 
 guaranties for our future protection and safety, and to that end to provide for the appoint- 
 ment of delegates, whose duty it shall be, in case of such refusal, to meet the delegates of 
 the other Southern States in Convention, and jointly to consider of the grievences, and the 
 mode and measure of redress. — The plan of action thus to be devised by their united wis- 
 dom, to bo laid before the people of the States therein represented, for their final adoption 
 or rejection." 
 
 And again : "We have no desire for a severanco of this Union. Long may it sur- 
 vive if it can be brought back to its pristine purity, to dispense equal justice, and insure 
 domestic tranquility, to a free, united and happy people. We are ready to surrender much 
 to preserve it." 
 
 T have thus, fellow-citizens, presented to you fairly the platforms of the two parties. 
 The one upon which the Senator stands contemplates a dissolution of the Union, as I 
 have shown, upon the happening of either of two contingencies, which by his action here- 
 tofore and his admissions now, Congress has a right to create, and which, looking to the 
 progress of freesoil sentiment at the North, in its triumphs of fanaticism and power over the 
 popular and legislative assemblies, by the conduct of the Senator and his party, acquiescing 
 in, submitting to, and rejoicing over the wrongs which have been done to the South by the 
 legislation of Congress, thereby inviting further aggressions upon our rights, it is rendered 
 most certain will take place. He stakes, and hazards, the dissolution of the Union, upon 
 the happening of either of two events, which he says the state of Mississippi, singly, separ- 
 ately, by her own separate State action, "will and ought to resist, in the last resort, to a 
 disruption of every tie which binds her to the Union," at the same time daring, and chaleng- 
 ing, his Northern adversaries, who are steadily and deliberately marching up to his marks, 
 to the accomplishments of these results, having, by his former and present conduct, invited 
 and welcomed them, to their performance. 
 
 The platform upon which I stand, and the party of Southern Rights, states no such 
 hazard of the Union. It seeks its preservation under the Constitution, by a course of rea- 
 soning with our adversaries at the North who would destroy it. — It seeks organization 
 through the Union of the southern states, to demand reasonable redress for past wrongs 
 with just security for our future safety, and places the alternative upon the Northern 
 people, who have a majority in the Government, of deciding upon the dissolution of 
 the Union, if such an event must occur, in the preference to granting us these de- 
 mands, which call upon them for no sacrifice of their honor, their interests, or their 
 rights. And in the event of their refusal, it refers back to the peoplo of the aggrieved 
 states looking to the condition of things at the time to decide upon the mode and 
 moasnre of redress — the means to be adopted for their security and safety, the preser- 
 vation of their rights, their liberties, their honor and their independence as a free and 
 happy people. 
 
 You will easily dctermino, fellow-citizens, under this state of facts whether the 
 
21 
 
 Senator or myself, is nearest the "dismrionist," or the "traitor."' He stands with the 
 position indelibly stamped upon him, of the enemy of his country, contemplating tho des- 
 t ruction of the Government, by hazarding its existence upon a mark to which he cha- 
 lenges his adversaries with the acknowledement, on his part, of their constitutional 
 rio-ht to come to it, and to which by his conduct, he welcomes and invites them. 
 
 The Senator closed his remarks by refering to the letter which, with his colleague, 
 Col. Davis, and our Representatives in Congress, he addressed to Gov. Quitman, de- 
 claring the admission of California as a State under all the circumstances of her 
 application, as the Wilmot Proviso in another form. He says it was a mere private 
 letter, deemed of so little importance that he even signed Col. McWillie's name to 
 it — that Gov. Brown was surprised, and regretted as much as anybody that it was 
 made by the Governor, an official communication to the Legislature, and that poor 
 Quitman, wishing to raise an excitement, or produce a new issue, thought proper to 
 make it an official document, as the basis of a special message to the Legislature. 
 
 Now, fellow-citizens, this is a truly new phase to this matter. Such an allusion 
 as that made by the Senator to Gov. Quitman, passes away into contempt, with the 
 breath which utters it, I shall not notice that. But to the letter, I hold it in my hand 
 and it refutes upon its face every statement of the Senator. A private letter ! It is ad- 
 dressed to "His Excellency John A. Quitman, Governor, &c, &c. Not to be communi- 
 cated to the Legislature ! It calls directly for an "expression of opinion by the Legisla- 
 ture, the Governor, and if practicable by the people." To make a new issue. It declares 
 " the proposition to admit California as a state under all circumstances of her application 
 as an attempt to adopt the "Wilmot Proviso" in another form. But I read you tho whole 
 letter. 
 
 Washington, January 21, 1850. 
 
 His Excellency, John A. Quitman, Governor, etc. : 
 
 Sir — We, the Senators and Representatives in Congress from Mississippi, feel it in- 
 cumbent upon us to advise you, and through you our common constituents, that we have 
 a well denned opinion that California will be admitted as a State of this Union during the 
 present session of Congress. The President earnestly recommended it, and we cannot bo 
 mistaken in supposing that a majority of both houses of Congress will be found to vote for 
 it— our individual positions have undergone no change. We regard the proposition to ad- 
 mit California as a State under all the circumstances of her application, as an attempt to 
 adopt the " Wilmot proviso" in another form. But separated as we are from our consti- 
 tuents, and having no convenient means of consulting them as to their views on the new 
 phase of this perplexing question, we desire through you to submit the single fact to the 
 people and the legislature, that California will most likely obtain admission into the Union 
 with her constitutional prohibition of slavery ; and we beg leave to add, that we shall be 
 greatly pleased to have such expression of opinion by the Legislature, the Governor, and 
 if practicable by the people, as shall clearly indicate the course which Mississippi will 
 deem it her duty to pursue in this new emergency. 
 Very respectfully, 
 
 Your obedient servants, 
 [Signed.] ' JEFF. DAVIS, 
 
 H. S. FOOTE, 
 J. THOMPSON, 
 W. S. FEATHERSTON, 
 WM. Mc WILLIE, 
 A. G. BROWN. 
 
22 
 
 The Senator says further in reference to this letter, the Legislature acted upon it, and 
 he lias not much to say about that. They were not well informed ; he supposes the gen- 
 tlemen had not read the papers. Well, fellow-citizens, I think, before I get through, I 
 will show the Senator that as one member of the Legislature I had read the papers and 
 understood them too, and I doubt not that all the other members understood well what 
 they wero doing. This letter was communicated promptly by Governor Quitman in a 
 special message to the Legislature, then in session, as was his duty and no doubt his incli- 
 nation to do, that lie might immediately communicate to the Senator according to his ex- 
 press desire, and to the entiro delegation from Mississippi, and " clearly indicato (to them) 
 the course which Mississippi would deem it her duty to pursue in this new emergoncy." 
 A mass meeting of the people was convened at Jackson — a very large meeting, intelligent 
 and patriotic citizens being there from all parts of the State, at which, after mature deli- 
 beration, the following resolutions wero adopted by a very large majority: 
 
 Resolved, That the policy heretofore pursued by the government of the United States 
 in regard to said territory (of California,) in refusing to provide territorial government, 
 therefor, has been, and is, eminently calculated to promote, and is about to effect indirectly, 
 tho cherished object of the abolitionists, which cannot be accomplished by direct legislation, 
 without a plain and palpable violation of the constitution of the United States. 
 
 Resolved, That the admission of California into the Union as a sovereign State, 
 with its present constitution, the result of the aforesaid false and unjust policy on the part 
 of the government of the United States, would be an act of fraud and oppression on the 
 rights of the people of the slaveholding States, and it is the sense of this Legislature that 
 our Senators and Representatives should, to the extent of their ability, resist it by all hou- 
 orable and constitutional means. 
 
 The Legislature responding to the action of this meeting of the people, and to the 
 action of tho October Convention, that the " Wilmot Proviso, which would in effect exclude 
 tho South from the territories, was an unjust and insulting discrimination, to which the 
 State of Mississippi could not and would not submit," the letter of the Senator declaring 
 the admission of California the " Wilmot proviso in another f or in," after mature delibera- 
 tion, adopted these resolutions as " instructions, etc.," to our Senators and Representatives 
 in Congress, as " clearly indicating the course which Mississippi," speaking through her 
 legislative authority, to which the Senators are directly responsible, deemed it their duty 
 to pursue. 
 
 The Senator afterwards, under the " mesmeric" influences of Mr. Clay, changed his 
 course, and seduced by the "garish light which surrounds the great," and the influence of 
 a " national reputatiou," abandoned his principles, his position, his colleague, Colonel Davis, 
 the entire delegation in the House, and violated the instructions of the Legislature, and 
 misrepresented the interest and will of the people of Mississippi. California being subse- 
 quently admitted under the precise circumstances of her application, at the time the Sen- 
 ator's letter was written, declaring it "tho Wilmot proviso in another form" — the South 
 being virtually excluded from all territories acquired from Mexico, by the unjust legislation 
 of Congress, and other outrages committed against her, in tho dismemberment of Texas, 
 and the assertion of tho power and right of Congress to liberate and free slaves in the slave 
 trado abolition bill under tho scheme, not of " adjustment," but of surrender which the 
 Senator advocated. Governor Quitman in accordance with the previous action of tho 
 State, and the directions of the Legislature, at its regular session, convened the Legislature 
 in extraordinary session, and the Legislature, speaking tho voice and will of the people of 
 
23 
 
 Mississippi, in reference to the conrso of the Senator in disobeying her instructions, based 
 upon his letter, and misrepresenting her interest and her will, adopted the following reso- 
 lutions : 
 
 Resolved, By the Legislature of the State of Mississippi, that the course of the Hon. 
 Jefferson Davis, as Senator, the Hons. A. G. Brown, Wm. McWillie, W. S. Featherston, 
 and Jacob Thompson, as Representatives in Congress from this State, on the question of 
 the admission of California, is approvod, as representing the interest and will of the people 
 of Mississippi ; that the course of the Hon. Henry S. Foote, on this question, is not ap- 
 proved, being, in the judgment of the Legislature, opposed to the interest and will of tho 
 people of Mississippi. 
 
 Be it further Resolved, That the course of the Hon. Jefferson Davis, as Senator, and 
 Hons. A. G. Brown, Wm. McWillie, W. S. Featherston, and Jacob Thompson, as Repre- 
 sentatives in Congress from this State, in their firm and consistent support and able advo- 
 cacy of the rights and honor of Mississippi and the South, in all the questions before Con- 
 gress at its last session, involved in the slavery controversy is approved ; that the course of 
 the Hon. Henry S. Foote, on all these questions, is not approved ; and this Legislature 
 does not consider the interest of the State of Mississippi, committed to his charge, safe in 
 his keeping. 
 
 Approved, November 30, 1850, 
 
 These are the resolutions of which the Senator complains, and which he says tho 
 Legislature did not understand. I think, fellow-citizens, they look very plain now, and 
 very easy to be comprehended. They were accompanied by a preamble reciting the Sen- 
 ator's letter, and were perfectly intelligent to the Legislature which adopted them, with a 
 full knowledge of the vast variety of the Senator's changes and shiftings on all the other 
 questions, besides the admission of California, upon which he misrepresented the interest 
 and will of the people of Mississippi. 
 
 There are two things connected with this letter, to which I wish particularly to call 
 your attention. The first is, that the letter declares the admission of California " under all 
 the circumstances of her application," the " Wilmot proviso in another form." What 
 were these circumstances? The Senator wishes now to excuse himself, and says, that 
 they were the circumstances connected with the settlement of all the questions involved in 
 the slavery controversy besides California. But the letter itself overthrows the Senator in 
 this position. It states itself, the governing circumstances in the mind of the Senator and 
 those who joined with him in it. It is, in the words of the letter, " that California will 
 most likely obtain admission into the Union, with her constitutional prohibition of slavery." 
 Not that the people of California, when properly authorized, would not have had the right 
 to determine this question for themselves, but that acting without authority from tho United 
 States, and without the constitutional power or right to do, what they did do, her organiza- 
 tion was such that she could not be admitted as a State with the " prohibition of slavery " 
 in her constitution, without the adoption by Congress, by the act of her admission, of the 
 " Wilmot proviso in another form." The circumstances of her application were, that tho 
 people of California organized a State government without authority from the United 
 States—that they acted outside of the Constitution, and outside of the constitutional au- 
 thority and dominion of the United States, of whoso Government they were a part, and to. 
 which they owed their allegiance— that they acted contrary to all tho former precedents, 
 and custom of the Government in reference to the territories, since the foundation ol the 
 Qovemment itself— that they acted undor the authority and tho direction of a Military offi 
 
24 
 
 cer of the Government, assuming and exercising the powers of a civil Governoi . with tlio 
 sanction and under tho instructions of tho President of the United States, which officer he 
 was not authorized to empower or create — that they appropriated to themselves, and 
 embraced within tho limits of their pretended State, with a population but little exceeding 
 one hundred thousand of all classes, and not one-half of these American citizens, territory 
 sufficient for five States as large as Mississippi, including the entire Pacific coast, and as- 
 sumed, in their so formed constitution, to exclude from their limits, the citizens with their 
 property, of one-half of the States of the Union, who equally with tho other States, went 
 tho rightful owners of the Territory, and who had furnished the principal portion of the 
 blood and treasure with which it was acquired. These were the " circumstances of her 
 application," which were the same, at the time the letter of tho Senator was written decla- 
 ring her admission to be the " Wilmot proviso in another form " — the " circumstances," un- 
 changed, which accompanied her in her journey in the omnibus, of which the Senator was 
 an outside driver ; and the " circumstances" unchanged, when the omuibus upset, under 
 which she was admitted as a State, as a separate, single measure, not with the vote but 
 with the approval of the Senator, who had then swallowed the irregularity of the proviso, 
 and now rejoices over it, as a matter of triumph for the South. 
 
 The second matter connected with this letter is, that up to the time it was written by 
 tho Senator and the delegation who joined him in it, and up to the time it was received by 
 the Executive and communicated to the Legislature, the State of Mississippi, not believing 
 that so great a fraud would be attempted to be perpetrated upon the southern people, as the 
 admission of California as a State, under such unauthorized and unconstitutional organiza- 
 tion, had taken no distinct position on the California question,under this phase of the exclusion 
 of the South from her territory. Upon this letter of the Senator, the State did take dis- 
 tinct position upon this question ; and he is responsible in the first instance, as far as his 
 influence could go, for that position. If it could have been supposed, at the time that let- 
 ter was received by the Executive and communicated to the Legislature — if there could 
 have been any misgivings that there was any name that might have been unwillingly 
 signed to it, the natural suggestion would have been, from the peculiar relations in which 
 he stood to the President, and the letter declaring that "the President earnestly recom- 
 mended it," [the admission of California,] that it was the name of Col. Davis. No one 
 could have supposed it to be name of the redoubtable Senator who was for hanging Hale, 
 and who denounced Mr. Clay, on the introduction of his Compromise Resolutions, as 
 worse than Hale, Seward and Chase — worse than the vile abolitionists, Garrison, Philips 
 and Douglass. But what are tho facts? The Senator, under the "mesmeric influences" 
 of Mr. Clay, was tho first and only one of Mississippi's trusted, and as she supposed, faith- 
 ful sons, to abandon his position. While the gallant Davis, from the first to the last of the 
 contest, stood up in the Senate of the United States, that the Chamber of the great, the 
 noble champion of your honor and your rights, and bore himself there tho tall defender of 
 Constitutional liberty, as he did the Hero of the tall Plume at the head of tho First Rifles, 
 on the plains of Huena Vista. 
 
 The Senator then before you, fellow-citizens, is responsible, as far as the influence of 
 his name could give weight to his letter, for the position of Mississippi on the question of 
 the admission of California. If that position is wrong, the Senator is, among tho first, 
 responsible for that wrong. His subseqent course has lost him the confidence of the friends 
 of Southern Rights, and I ask now of my Whig friends, my excellent Union friends, a;; 
 they term themselves, of all parties, to know, when I have gone through witli the history 
 
25 
 
 of his changes — when I have taken him from the green to tho sere leaf — and shown them 
 the manner in which he has departed from his original positions and come to the conclu- 
 sions in which they now unite with him, whether he has made to them sufficient atone- 
 ment, that they should make him their champion and their leader. 
 GENERAL INCONSISTENCY. 
 I come now, fellow-citizens, to show you more particularly the utter inconsistency of 
 tho Senator — his total abandonment of his original position, and his entire giving over of 
 your interests into the hands of your enemies. I have already shown you his courso on 
 the abolition slave trade bill, asserting the power of Congress to liberate and free slaves in 
 the District of Columbia. It is not necessary further to notice that. I havo already 
 shown you that, though professing to be republican and a democrat, ho violated the instruc- 
 tions of the Legislature which he asked for himself, and it is not necessary on this point to 
 say more, than that in a violent philippic against Senator Benton, he denounced him for 
 doing the samo thing, for violatiug the instructions of the Missouri Legislature, ou a ques- 
 tion involving the interests of slavery, and said to him, on tho floor of the Senate, in tho 
 spirit of menace and reproach — "It is he who presumes to disobey the instructions of tho 
 Missouri Legislature, to whom he owes the senatorial robes which now invests his person, 
 and all the opportunities for acquiring renown and influence which he has enjoyed for tho 
 last thirty years." Again, in this same speech, he says, in response to a proposition of 
 Senator Benton's to dismember Texas, as was afterwards done by the "scheme of adjust- 
 ment," which he supported : "Were I to bring forward at such a period as this, a project 
 so fraught with mischief as is this one to the whole slaveholding section of the Confederacy 
 I should expect to be speedily instructed out of my seat in this body ; for true it is, as John 
 Randolph used to say, those members of Congress who cannot be instructed in their seats, 
 must perforce be instructed out of them." With what ill-befitting grace, then, does it be- 
 come the Senator to speak lightly of the action of his own State Legislature, on any 
 question involving the interests of slavery, and especially of instructions to himself, which 
 he has so signally violated. But I come to his changes and his vibrations on the other 
 questions embraced in his "scheme of adjustment." 
 
 On the 8th of January, 1850, a speech, in reply to Mr. Clay, on the suspension of 
 diplomatic relations with Austria, pubhshed in the National Intelligencer, January 12th, 
 1850, the Senator made this solemn and deliberate statement : " The slavery question 
 upon which he [Mr. Hale,] is perpetually ranting in this chamber, I shall never more dis- 
 cuss, here or elsewhere, being prepared, as is the State which I in part represent here, for 
 appropriate action upon it, when action shall become necessary." He was very determi- 
 ned at that time to stand by his State, and arms seemed to occupy his thoughts instead of 
 words. But nothwihtstanding this solemn declaration, he has since spoken more on this 
 question, in the Senate and elsewhere, than'perhaps any other man in the Union. To 
 give you some idea of his general spirit of the "Cacathes loquendi,'' I read you a short 
 notice of tho Senator, on the last day of tho sessions of Congress, when there was but 
 little time for any one to speak, taken from tho New Orleans Courier, of March 2] st ult. 
 It is as follows : 
 
 "Remarkable Feats of Fooimanship. — According to tho correspondent of the New 
 York Herald, Gen. Footo spoke no less than forty-three times on tho last day of the ses- 
 sion, including speeches, questions and explanations ; and sprung up, from timo to time, 
 from no less than seventeen different chairs, now on this, now on that side, always on tho 
 move, and for over claiming tho floor, or asking leave for a single remark. If all that lie 
 
26 
 
 said in debate during that day of thirty-six hours is printed in the tiie two official organs/ 
 it will amount in each paper to an average of twelve columns, or twenty-four iu the ag- 
 gregate : 
 
 Twenty-four columns, at $7,50 - - $180 00 
 
 Pay for thirty-six hours, - - - 12 00 
 
 Total, - - - $192 00 
 
 Cost of Senator Foote to the Treasury for one day's debate, one hundred and ninety- 
 two dollars." 
 
 This only a specimen on other subjects of the voluminous and eternal speeches of the 
 Senator, on the slavery question, and the measuers of his favorite "scheme of adjustment" 
 by which the rights of the South were surrendered. 
 
 In a speech made by the Senator, Jan. 8, 1850, which I hold in my hand, on intro- 
 ducing bills to provide territorial governments for California ,Deseret and New Mexico, and 
 to provide for a new State out of part of Texas to be called Jacinto, after speaking of a 
 bill which he had drafted, containing a proposition for dividing Texas on certain conditions, 
 he says: 
 
 This I had resolved to offer as a new scheme of compromise ; which, with the estab- 
 lishment of a territorial government in New Mexico, in Deseret and California and the 
 ultimate admission of California as a State, when freed from her present unfortunate 
 organization, I hoped might tend to settle the vexed question of the Wil mot proviso for- 
 ever. I should certainly have offered the whole bill as it was first drawn up, and in the 
 form in which I had submitted it to the consideration of various sage friends with whom I 
 am in the habit of counselling upon this subject, but for certain proceedings in several of 
 the free States of the North, of which we have been recently notified, which satisfied mo 
 that I could not offer anything that at all bore the characteristic features of a compromise 
 without encouraging our arrogant foes to fiercer and more extended aggresssions and 
 bringing down other and more irritating insults upon the Southern States of the Con- 
 federacy. 
 
 The resolutions of Vermont, now upon your'table — the incendiary messages of the 
 Governors of Pennsylvania and of Massachusets— the manacing resolutions now before the 
 New York Legislature — the extraordinary harangues made in this hall since we assembled 
 — these and other facts of a kindred character, satisfied me that the season for compro- 
 mise had for ever passed by ; or that at least, if propositions of compromise are hereafter to 
 be offered, they ought to emanate from the North. I became satisfied that the time had 
 arrived when it behooved Southern Senators and Representatives in Congress to stand 
 firmly and resolutely up in strict maintenance of our Constitutional rights, as they were 
 secured by our venerated forefathers ; leaving it to the champions of aggression and the per- 
 petrators of injustice to determine whether they would indeed take upon themselves and 
 thoir constituents the responsibility of dissolving that Union, which was once so justly dear 
 to the heart of every American." 
 
 Here, it would seem, the Senator had planted himself upon the strict constitutional 
 rights of the South, and that there he was fixed, immoveable, until the North should pre- 
 sent a compromise, the time having forever passed by when, in his judgement, it could 
 emanate from tho South. But, strange to say, in a short time afterwards, a cloud came 
 over his mind's eye, a " change came o'er the spirit of his dream," and he was moving 
 himself busily with a Scheme of Compromise — he was moving a resolution for a Commit- 
 
27 
 
 tee of Thirteen, through which, under the influence of leading Senators, and big Paci- 
 ficators and little Pacificators, the interest of the country might bo betrayed and the 
 rights of the South surrendered. 
 
 To show you, fellow-citizens, how totally the Senator must have changed every 
 principle and position with which he first set out, in coming to his last conclusion, I now 
 read you certain extracts from his speeches and writings, which must shock and convince 
 every mind. It is well known to you that Mr. Clay though always opposed to slavery 
 and declaring in a letter to the Cleveland abolition Convention, that no one was more op- 
 posed than he was to the extension of slavery into the territories acquired from Mexico, 
 either by individual enterprise or by legislative enactment, and iu the Senate of the 
 United States, that no earthly power could induce him to do an act to extend slavery 
 into territory where it did not exist, was the great leader in the pretended scheme of 
 compromise (though there was also a little leader,) and that it was to his influences more 
 than any other, that the South is indebted for the surrender of her rights. He says him- 
 self, in his speech before the Kentucky Legislature, 15th Nov. last—" The perhaps pre- 
 sumptuous hope that I might, under the blessing of Providence, be an humble instrument 
 in assisting to allay it, [ the slavery excitement J constituted a principle motive with mo 
 for returning to public life. Long before the meeting of Congress, and during the earlier 
 part of the season, it engaged almost exclusively all my most anxious thoughts. The re- 
 sult of my reflections was, that series of resolutions which I presented to the Senate of 
 the United States in February last. I now read you from a speech of the Senator, in 
 the National Intelligencer of Feb. 22d, delivered in the Senate Feb. 20th, '50, on Mr. 
 Clay's Resolutions of Compromise, a few days after they were introduced, and which Mr. 
 Clay says, " long before the meeting of Congress, and during the earlier part of the ses- 
 sion, engaged almost exclusively all his most anxious thoughts." The extracts from the 
 Senator's speech is as follows : 
 
 "Mr. President, I am justified by the course pursued by the honorable Senator from 
 Kentucky on this occasion in going somewhat particularly into his past history in connex- 
 ion with the subject of slavery. In the early days of young and blooming manhood, the 
 honorable Senator from Kentucky was betrayed, as I think, into some gross but rather 
 fantastical errors in relation to slavery, from which he has never been able to relieve his 
 mind siuce. These errors seem to have been theoretical merely ; they were not of a na- 
 ture, at any rate, so potential as to induce the honorable Senator to emancipate his own 
 slaves, or to persuade his neighbors and friends to tho execution of any such fanciful 
 scheme of philanthropy. In subsequent life he became known as a member, as President 
 of the Colonization Society, and as such has delivered more than one address, in which 
 he has borne eloquent testimony to the evils of slavery. On several occasions in Congress 
 the honorable Senator has been known in former years to exhibit himself more or less as a 
 decided disapprover of the system of domestic slavery in the South. Last summer he took 
 another step, and recommended to the people of Kentucky, in a deeply interesting letter, the 
 adoption of a system of prospective emancipation.— Tho publication of this letter brought 
 on a contest in that State, which was waged heatedly and actively for several months, 
 and not without some bloodshed; but which happily terminated in the utter defeat of this 
 plau of emancipation. A short time since, the Free-Soilers of Ohio, and I behove of 
 several other States, held a Convention at Cleveland, at which they adopted resolutions 
 more objectionable to the South than any which had antecedently appeared. A commit- 
 tee of this Convention wrote a letter to the honorable Senator from Kentucky, to which 
 
28 
 
 he replied, approving fully the objects of their assemblage, and giving his assent to their 
 general doctrines. Such was tho predicament of the honorable Senator when he came 
 among us atti ; and what has been his course here? Why, sir, I feel bound to 
 
 admit that th« [e Senator has been quite consistent. His first important move- 
 
 ment was the introduction of his resolutions of compromise. And what are these resolu- 
 tion^ :' W by, one of them is formally declarative of the heated Wilmot proviso princi- 
 
 ; another brings in California ; another, by inevitable implication, asserts the power of 
 Congress to abolish slavery in the District of Columbia ; another proposes to abolish the 
 slave trade in the District of Columbia. And all this is to be conceded by the South 
 without, any compensating advantages whatever. I am certainly not a great deal sur- 
 prised that such terms of adjustment should have been brought forward by the honorable 
 Senator from Kentucky, taking into consideration the events of his public life already re- 
 ferred to: but I shall certainly always remain unable to perceive in his resolutions any of 
 the features of a genuine compromise. 
 
 And what sort of a speech was that by which these resolutions were accompanied ? 
 hy. sir, I undertako to say that there is more in the sentiments and language of 
 that speech to mortify Southern sensibilities, to awaken dissatisfaction, and to provoke 
 resentment, too, as well among all who are not quite convinced as I am of the pu- 
 rity of the honorable Senator's motives, than we find in any speech of professed 
 abolitionists, not excepting even the far-famed Garrison, and Phillips, and Douglass. 
 < ertamly no speech at ail approximating to the one of tho honorable Senator from 
 Kentucky has ever been delivered before in either House of Congress. I will not par- 
 ticularize ; but I am sure that all who have read that speech will admit that I have 
 done it but simple justice.— Why, sir, a speech so replete with offensive doctrine— so 
 dogmatical and overbearing in its tone— so menacing in its spirit, no man but one pos- 
 sessing the moral prowess which so eminently distinguishes the honorable Senator from 
 Kentucky, could ever have been able to enunciate. I am sure that the honorable 
 Senator from New York ( Mr. Seward ) will never dare to deliver such a speech 
 here. The honorable Senator from New Hampshire, ( Mr. Hale, ) with all that rhe- 
 torical heroism which he displayed among us the other day would recoil from the ut- 
 terance of much that fell with an easy grace from the lips of the honorable Senator 
 from Kentucky ; and the honorable gentleman from Ohio, ( Mr. Chase, ) I am confi- 
 dent js too moderate and forbearing in his temper ever to deliver such a philippic as 
 this against the whole system of demestic slavery, and against tho efforts of the South- 
 em states of the Confederacy to protect themselves against menaced aggressions. Sir, 
 I feel that no other member of the Senate besides the Senator from Kentucky could 
 have pronounced such a speech in the hearing of Southern men without falling forth 
 a response full of indignation and asperity. And yet wo have listened to the honora- 
 ble Senator's harauguo with coolnoss, with forbearance, with respect, and even with 
 '"'lings of kindly allowance. Of all this the honorable Senator from Kentucky seems to 
 bo insensible ; and he even complains that he has not been treated with fitting polite- 
 ness by several Southern Senators, myself included. Let me beg tho honorable Sen- 
 ator to consider calmly all tho facts which I have stated; to bear in mind the har- 
 assment to which wo have been subjected, tho indignities inflicted upon us, the injuries 
 so fiercely threatened, the horrors which are now clearly discerned in the future, and 
 then let him tell me if he is not amazed at the meekness and moderation which has 
 heretofore marked the domeanor of Southern Senators towards himself? Let him, I 
 
29 
 
 pray, not complain of harshness or incivility, but be ready to acknowledge the most 
 wonderful instance of self-restraint, amidst enormous wrongs and persecutions, that tho 
 parliamentary history of the public has yet offered. I hope that he will in future spare 
 us all necessity for future complaint or censure." 
 
 This, fellow-citizens, I should call rather bitter, but it seems that Mr. Clay, by 
 magic or "mesmerism,'' soon afterwards ."came it over" the Senator, and did after- 
 wards spare him "all necessity for future complaint or censure." I read you now a 
 letter of the Senators, writing by him at Louisville, Ky., on his way home, immediate- 
 ly after the adjournment of the session of Congress, at which Mr. Clay's ' scheme of 
 compromise ' was passed, in reply to a committee inviting him to attend a great bar- 
 becue and Union Festival in compliment to Mr. Clay, at the Fair Grounds, near Lex- 
 ington. The following is the letter, and you will witness its contrast with the extract 
 from the Senator's speech : 
 
 Louisville, October 9, lfcioO. 
 Gentlemen : It is, I assure you, with deep and peculiar regret that I feel constrained 
 to decline the honor of being present at the Clay Barbecue on the 17th instant, to which 
 you have so courteously invited me. I have been for two years past absent from the State 
 of Mississippi, and I regret to say that certain public movements are now in progress within 
 her courts, for the speedy counteraction of which I consider myself bound to do all in my 
 power, and under circumstances which seem to admit not of a moment's delay. It has 
 been my wish for several years to visit the interior of your noble State, and to become bet- 
 ter acquainted with her institutions, her people, and her eminent men ; and I confess that 
 there is something particularly attractive in the festive scene to which I have b een so gra- 
 ciously summoned. I have witnessed with unmingled delight and admiration those patri- 
 otic exertions to which you are about to do special and deserved honor. I have listened 
 with pleased ears and with overflowing heart to every word of those majestic harangues 
 of which you have perchance only seen a cold and meagre report in the public prints. I 
 have beheld Mr. Clay's untiring efforts by night and by day in public debate, and in pri- 
 vate conference, to save our institutions from menaced ruin, and our people from the hor- 
 rors of intestine war. I have seen him rise, with a magnanimity unsurpassed in the annals 
 of statesmanship, above all the influences of party, and section, and personal prejudice. 
 In fine, I have beheld him, and nearly, whilst as the acknowledged leader of a band of 
 patriots whose meritorious efforts no language or commendation can adequately portray — 
 for weeks and months of earnest exertion and patriotic industry, and fearless energy, he 
 struggled to secure the adoption of that scheme of adjustment and compromise, over lho 
 consummation of which twenty millions of freemen are now rejoicing, and to which tho 
 civilised world is rendering already deserved homage and respect. Indeed, gentlemen, I 
 would rejoice to be with you on the 17th instant ; but as cruel necessity forbids me this 
 pleasure, allow me to ask of you to tender to those who will be there assembled, the fol- 
 DWiog sentiment in my name : 
 
 Henry Clay— The venerable Chairman of the Committee of Thirteen— the magna- 
 nimous statesman, who, when his country is in danger, " knows no North, no South, no 
 East, no West, who shrinks from no difficulties— recoils from no dangers— and dares to do 
 his duty, regardless alike of censure and of applause — in defiance of faction and of fac- 
 lionists. May his noblo example be both admired and emulated. 
 
 I have the honor to be, gentlemen, your friend and fellow-citizen, 
 
 HENRY S. FOOTE." 
 
•iu 
 
 Well, fellow-citizens, this is rather sweet. It is certainly very flat, after the above 
 extract from his speech. 
 
 Mr. FOOTE. Will the gentleman allow mo? That letter Befers to Mr. Clay's 
 course on the measures of compromise reported by the Committee of Thirteen, and not to 
 his resolutions of Compromise. 
 
 Mr. McRAE. Ah ! the Senator don't like the variations. Then I will change the 
 tune, and give him the music on another string — perliaps the bass. I read you now from 
 the National Intelligencer of April 12, 1850, an extract from the Senator's remarks in the 
 Senate on the day previous, the discussion being on his resolution to raise the committee on 
 the " scheme of adjustment." It is as follows : 
 
 " Mr. FOOTE. I do not rise to detain the Senate by any lengthened discussion ; 
 but as the Senator from New Hampshire has several times presented the same view of the 
 matter without any reply from me, I trust the Senate will bear with me patiently while I 
 make a short remark only in response to him. Ho complains that I have made my reso- 
 lution too comprehensive. I did so, because the distinguished Senator from Kentucky, 
 (Mr. Clay) in the beginning of the session, as I thought very appropriately, proposed in a 
 spirit of compromise, and with a view to the adjustment of all the questions which have 
 caused the springing up of discord and unfraternal feeling between the two sections of this 
 Union, that all the questions arising out of the institution of slavery, should be settled or 
 adjusted by us at the present time. He submitted resolutions declaring it to be expedient 
 that we should make proper efforts to adjust all the questions growing out of the institu- 
 tion of slavery, and accompanied the resolutions with a speech, the greater part of which 
 I certainly approved of at the time, and for which I was duly grateful to him." 
 
 Well, fellow-citizens, this is a " winder up .' " — this caps the climax even of the fa- 
 naticism of change. 
 
 Mr. FOOTE. Will the gentleman allow me ? I must say that this report of my re- 
 marks is an incorrect one. I hope the gentleman will examine the corrected debates. 
 
 Mr. McRAE. I read from the National Intelligencer of April 12, 1850, the remarks 
 of the Senator verbatim, in the Senate on the 11th of April, on his own resolution to raise 
 the Committee of Thirteen for the " scheme of adjustment." I have no documents here 
 except those opposed to my own side of the question. The Senator disputes the National 
 Intelligencer, the highest authority on his side. I will say to him, that if in any statement 
 which I may make, I am in error, if it is shown to me I will correct it. But when an 
 authority is produced, if he disputes it, it is his duty to bring forward the corrected proof, 
 otherwise it stands good against him. In the absence of his doing so, I leave it to you, 
 fellow-citizens, to decide the dispute between the Senator and his favorite authority, the 
 National Intelligencer. 
 
 To show you how little reliance is to be placed in the statements of the Senator, in 
 excusing himself for his wonderful inconsistencies, and tho facility with which ho explains 
 away what ho has said and done so contradictory at different times, I read you two extracts 
 from speeches of the Senator, as a fair specimen generally. 
 
 Mr. FOOTE. Will the gentleman allow me ? Do you mean by that to question my 
 veracity ? 
 
 Mr. McRAE. Not at all. I do not intend in anything I have said, nor in anything I 
 may say, to question the veracity or the motives of the Senator. What I mean to say is 
 what his colleague, Colonel Davis said to him in the Senate, when he said that nine-tenths 
 of the people of Mississippi, would sustain every thing that he had done, and every word 
 
31 
 
 that ho had spoken in favor of the compromise, that his statements show " how far the 
 warm impulses of the gentleman, when pursuing any measure to which he attaches him- 
 self, will lead him from the calmer feelings of his more mature judgment." 
 
 The following is an extract from the Senator's speech, which I have before quoted 
 from, of the 20th February, on Mr. Clay's Resolutions of Compromise. 
 
 " Mr. FOOTE. Mr. President, I feel constrained now, by the course of the honor- 
 able Senator from Kentucky, to speak more plainly and strongly in regard to his present 
 attitude upon the questions which occupy so painfully the attention of the country, than I 
 had thought either necessary or expedient a few days since. Sir, had the honorable Sena- 
 tor confined himself to the propounding of terms of settlement, however unfair and oppres- 
 sive to the South, or had he been contented to advocate the resolutions of compromise 
 which he has introduced here with all his well-known eloquence, I should not have been 
 disposed to complain of him in the least. — Though I certainly concur with my esteemed 
 friend from Alabama, Mr. Clemens, who has spoken to-day with a strength and brilliancy 
 seldom if ever surpassed in this body, in all that he has said touching the true character 
 and effect of the resolutions of the Senator from Kentucky; though I certainly agree with 
 the Senator from Alabama that these resolutions yield up the whole ground of controversy 
 to our insatiate adversaries." 
 
 This speech of Mr. Clemens, which the Senator endorsed so fully, " in all that ho 
 said touching the true character and effect of the resolutions of the Senator from Ken- 
 tucky," was one of the most brilliant and pointed which was made in the Senate agaiust 
 Mr. Clay, and his resolutions, especially against the admission of California. 
 
 Among other things it says : 
 
 "After all the reflection which he, Mr. Clay, has been able to bestow upon the sub- 
 ject, aided by the resources of his long experience, and his great familiarity with difficult 
 questions in trying times, he has been able to suggest no remedy which does not recognise 
 the right of aggression on the one side, and demand unconditional submission on the other. 
 He has submitted for our consideration a series of resolutions dignified with the name of a 
 compromise, but which, like most other compromises between the weak and the strong, 
 is little better than a cloak to hide from the public gaze a hideous wrong. It is not my purpose 
 now to enter into any general examination of those resolutions. I shall refer to one of them, 
 and one only. Of that one I desire to speak uninfluenced by prejudice against, or par- 
 tiality for the author. I have been all my life carrying on a warfare against his political 
 measures, and I do not think it would be altogether in good taste for me to indulge in ex- 
 travagant eulogies of a man whose public measures I never did approve, and whose latest 
 acts has been a deadly blow at the rights and interests of my constituents. For his per- 
 sonal character I have that respoct and admiration which genius and high talents, com- 
 bined with great boldness, never fail to inspire ; but long ago he made his choice between 
 tho North and the South." 
 
 All this the Senator endorsed. 
 
 Again it says : 
 
 " The admission of California will do nothing towards arresting the current of abolitiou 
 aggressions. It will bo regarded every where as an anti-slavery triumph ; as one more 
 outwork carried, from the shelter of which tho assailing party may the more effectually 
 annoy and harrass the assailed. Yet the Senator from Kentucky says that we yield no- 
 thing by assenting to it. I quote the Senator's own language : 
 
 " Well, now, is there any concession in this resolution by either party to the other ? 
 
32 
 
 1 know that gentlemen who come from slave-holding states says the North gets all that 
 it desires ; but by whom does it 1 Docs it get it by any action of Congress ? If slavery 
 bo interdicted within the limits of California, has it been done by Congress — by this Govern- 
 ment ? No sir. That interdiction is imposed by California herself." 
 
 I answer that every thing is conceded by the admission of California. The wholo 
 matter in controversy terminates at once. The North gets all tha t she has ever asked, 
 (lets it by the action of the great legal principle that the wrongdoer shall not profit by bis 
 own wrong. 
 
 Who among us does not know that agitation in the State Legislatures and in tho 
 National Cougress has prevented the southern emigration to California, and placed the 
 country in the power of those who have imposed this restriction? — Who is there so blind 
 as not to see that this lias been the result of aggressions commenced here ? And who 
 dues not feel that Congress is responsible for the fact that slavery has been excluded.' 
 Property is proverbially timid. The slaveholder would not carry his property there with a 
 throat hanging over him that it was to be taken away by operation of law the moment 
 he landed. Agitation then in Congress — repeated declarations made every where — in stato 
 Legislatures — in Conventions — in the public press — from the pulpit even — that the slave 
 should bo excluded by law, has deprived us of our constitutional rights as certainly and 
 effectually as auy positive enactment could have done, and we are not only asked to sub- 
 mit to it, but to accept it as a boon, and be very thankful for an outrage. Sir, I prefer the 
 Wilmot Proviso direct. I prefer it, because it is bolder, plainer, and more manly — Tho 
 robber who meets me on the highway and demands a surrender of my property, leaves mo 
 at least the option of a contest ; and is entitled to far more respect than the assassin who 
 lurks behind a corner, and stabs in the dark. So, sir, ho who undertakes to deprive me of 
 my legal rights by open means, is always entitled to higher respect than ho who seeks to 
 accomplish the same end by deception and trickery. I hold that whatever opposition is 
 due to tho Wilmot proviso — whatever resistance it demands, is doubly due to this scheme 
 of smuggling a sovereign state into the Union." 
 
 All this the Senator endorsed, declaring " that whatever opposition was due to tho 
 Wilmot Proviso — whatever resistance it demanded, was double due to this scheme of 
 smuggling a sovereign State into the Union," uuder Mr. Clay's resolutions of compromise. 
 A short time afterwards, when the Senator most unaccountably changed his entire course, 
 and became the flattering admirer of Mr. Clay, as tho Chairman of the Committee of tho 
 pretended Compromise measures ; Mr. Clemens witnessing with wonder and surprise 
 the extraordinary phenomenon in tho conduct of the Senator reviewed his course severely, 
 in the Senate, and inflicted upon him a most withering rebuke. In an effort to excuse 
 himself under this castigation, to show you how awkwardly the Senator sometimes re- 
 treats from his positions, and how weakly he succeeds in his explanations, I read you 
 an extract from his speech in the Senate, May 20th, 1850, in reply to this infliction upon 
 him by Mr. Clemens, referingto the same speech of Mr. Clemens, from which the above 
 extracts are taken, and of which ho endorsed all that it said '"'touching the true cha- 
 racter and elfect of tho Resolutions of tho Senator from Kentucky." It is as fol- 
 lows : 
 
 " Tho honorable Senator, by way r of making out a case of rank inconsistency against 
 ink, averred that I had sanctioned his speech as read, and then declared that he had no 
 doubt that I woidd now pronounce it altogether treasonable. In both these points, as it 
 seams to me, tho Senator is laboring under scmo dolusion. In the first place I havo cer- 
 
33 
 
 Vainly not the least recollection of approving the views contained in the honorable gentle- 
 man's speech at all, though it is certain that I felt gratified, as one of his early friends, that 
 ho made so brilliant au exhibition in our body. Nor do I now recollect that I ever read 
 the speech, or any part of it, in my life. I certainly heard it , and was pleased with it, so 
 far as I was able to catch its meaning. In the second place, I am by no means prepared 
 to denounce that portion of the honorable gentleman's speech which has been read this 
 morning as at all treasonable ; and, indeed, I am rather inclined to think that, making al- 
 lowance for its being a little unduly burdened with fantastic figures of speech, and swelling 
 words of sound and fury, I should even now, if formally called upon to pronounce con- 
 cerning the views contained in it, be inclined to express an opinion not altogether unfavora- 
 ble. I am sure that I thought the speech at the time quite skilfully prepared for effect, 
 and particularly calculated to produce an impression upon the audience to whom it was ad- 
 dressed ; and if I uttered more or less of commendation upon it and its author, I doubt not 
 that it was sufficiently deserved." 
 
 I do not read these extracts from the speeches of the Senator and Mr. Clemens, so 
 much to show any identity or want of identity of opinion between them at different periods, 
 as to show to you fellow-citizens, with what facility tho Senator explains away his own po- 
 sition, to his own satisfaction, but how awkardly to those whose interest and whose will 
 he has misrepresented. 
 
 But the Senator says his letter, which I have read you, refers to Mr. Clay's course on 
 the " measures of compromise," and the extract from his speech, to Mr. Clay's "resolutions 
 of compromise." We will examine now what Mr. Clay himself says on the difference 
 between the merits of his " measures " and his " resolutions " of compromise. It is pre- 
 sumed that Mr. Clay knew what ho was about, and that he understood the meaning of the 
 " measures," aud the " resolutions " of compromise. At all events, it is admitted I believe, 
 even by the Union party, that he has as much talent, and as correct judgment, as the Sen- 
 ator himself — that his opinions are entitled to as much respect, and that when these opin- 
 ions are the result of great reflection, " of his almost exclusive and most anxious thoughts," 
 the conclusions to which he comes are perhaps as uuchangable as those of the Senator 
 The following is an extract from Mr. Clay's speech before the Kentucky Legislature, tho 
 15th of November last. 
 
 " Mr. CLAY. The perhaps presumptuous hope that I might, under the blessing of 
 Providence, be an humble instrument in assisting to allay it, [the slavery excitemeut] con- 
 stituted a principal motive with me for returning to public life. Long before the meeting 
 of Congress, and during the earlier part of the session, it engaged almost exclusively all 
 my most anxious thoughts. The result of my reflections was that series of resolutions 
 which I presented to the Senate of the United States in February last. My desire was to 
 embrace all the subjects of agitation arising out of the institution of slavery, and to leave 
 none open for future agitation, and if possible to settle them in a just and honorable man- 
 ner, as to both the contending parties. How these resolutions were received, opposed, and 
 discussed on their first presentation, it is not necessary to state. Subsequently a committee 
 of thirteen was appointed by the Senate charged with the duty of considering all the sub- 
 jects. The committee reported, and their various measures varied but inconsiderably from 
 tho resolutions which I previously offered." 
 
 Mr. Clay's own statement overthrows the Senator. He did not, and does not now 
 consider that the "measures" and the "resolutions" of compromise varied materially. 
 His statement is, that thoy " varied but inconsiderably.'''' He was tho author of both, and 
 
34 
 
 he knew that by both or either, the South gained no part of the territory. He had de- 
 clared in the Senate, during the discussions on this subject, " that no human power 
 could induce him to do an act, which would extend slavery into territory where it did not 
 exist," and he was determined to maintain the position. The Senator first opposed, then 
 united with him in the accomplishment of his object. 
 
 I now turn to what the Senator himself, has said, and make a comparison of the 
 difference, if there be any perceptible, between these measures. I refer again to his 
 speech of 20th Feb., on Mr. Clay's resolutions. In this speech, he says of the Senator 
 from Kentucky as follows : 
 
 " His first important movement was the introduction of his resolutions of Compro- 
 mise. And what are these resolutions? Why, one of them is formally declarative of 
 the hated Wilmot Proviso principle ; another brings in California ; another, by inevita- 
 ble implication, asserts the power of Congress to abolish slavery in the District of Colum- 
 bia ; another proposes to abolish the slave-trade in the District of Columbia. — And all this 
 is to be conceded by the South without any compensating advantages whatever. I am 
 certainly not a groat deal surprised that such terms of adjustment should have been 
 brought forward by the honorable Senator from Kentucky, taking into consideration the 
 events of his public life already referred to ; but I shall certainly always remain unable to 
 perceive in his resolutions, any of the features of a genuine compromise." 
 
 This is the Senator's own description of the resolutions. " One of them is formally 
 declarative of the hated Wilmot Proviso principle." — Well, fellow-citizens, the report of 
 the committee by Mr. Clay, on the scheme of adjustment, upon which the compromise 
 measures were based, was " formally declarative of the hated Wilmot Proviso principle." 
 "Another brings in California." — The very object of the compromise measures, was to 
 smuggle in California and they did bring her in, precisely as 6he presented herself. 
 " Another, by inevitable implication, asserts the power of Congress to abolish slavery in 
 the District of Columbia." The compromise measures, in the slave trade abolition bill, 
 not only by " implication," but by direct and positive enactment, asserted the power of 
 Congress to abolish slavery in the District of Columbia, by declaring the slave on certain 
 conditions, liberated and free " " Another, proposes to abolish the slave-trade in the 
 District of Columbia." The compromise measures, by the slave-trade abolition bill, did 
 abolish the slave-trade in the District of Columbia, in the most odious form. 
 
 But the Senator says the resolutions " yielded every thing to our insatiate adversa- 
 ries," all that they demanded, was to be conceded by the South, without any compensat- 
 ing advantages whatever." With the compromise measures it was the same. According 
 to his own showing, the resolutions yielded every thing which the compromise gives, and 
 he cannot now, gainsay his own positions as to what the resolutious did propose ; and 
 every one will perceive that the compromise, left the South no more, if so much. Both 
 should have been abhorrent to every friend of the constitution and the rights of the South. 
 I have already said that on the introduction of Mr. Clay's resolutions into the Senate, the 
 Senator took eight distinct positions in reference to them, mostly adverse to them, pub- 
 lished in the National Intelligencer, January 31st, 1850. His seventh position is as fol- 
 lows : 
 
 7th. " The resolutions which provide for the restoration of fugitives from labor or 
 service, and for the establishment of territorial governments free from all restriction on the 
 subject of slavery, have my hearty approval. The last resolution— which asserts that 
 Congress has no power to prohibit tho trade in slaves between State and State — I equal- 
 ly approve." 
 
35 
 
 The compromise measures, or what the Senator calls a part of them, (I do not admit 
 myself that a law, however stringent, to carry out a plain express provision of the con- 
 stitution, was a subjoct of compromise, to obtain which the South was to barter away a 
 part of her rights) " provide for the restoration of fugitives from labor or service" — they 
 establish territorial Governments for Utah and New Mexico, free from restriction on the 
 subject of slavery" by direct congressional enactment ; and they did not go as far as the 
 resolution in " asserting that Congress has no power to prohibit the trade in slaves be- 
 tween State and State," on this point they made no declaration at all. And I defy the 
 Senator according to his own positions to show, that the compromise measures which he 
 so warmly advocated, give to the South any " compensating advantages," which by his 
 own statements the resolutions which he so violently denounced, did not give. The Sena- 
 tor in his fourth position, against the resolutions, which I shall refer to more particularly 
 hereafter, says, I think one of the resolutions of the honorable Senator from, Kentucky 
 draws into question the title of Texas to all the territory embraced in her boundaries, as 
 laid down in her law of 1836, which he considered, " full complete, and undeniable," and 
 was unwilling to say anything to draw it in question " by resolution or otherwise." The 
 compromise measure not only disputed the title but dismembered Texas, and I will show 
 subsequently, that the Senator even abandoned this last position, and both spoke and 
 veted to dispute the title of Texas, which he had so solemly affirmed to be " full complete 
 and undeniable." The propositions contained in the Senator's seventh position, which I 
 have read, that provision should be made for the delivery of fugitive slaves, that territorial 
 governments should be established free from all restriction on the subject of slavery, and 
 that Congress has no power to prohibit the trade in slaves between the States, are matters 
 of strict constitutional right. They are no concessions to the South— they are hers positively 
 unequivocally, and unconditionally, without limit or restraint. They form no compen- 
 sating advantages to the South for any surrender of her rights, and should never have 
 been brought in question under any scheme of compromise ; without these, the resolu- 
 tions, and the measures of compromise, were unjust to the South, and gross aggressions 
 upon her constitutional rights — with them, they were the same, as these were matters or 
 positive constitutional right, which could not be subjected to disparagement on any con- 
 ditions whatever. I have shown by the opinions of Mr. Clay, and the statements of the 
 Senator himself, that the resolutions, and measures of compromise are one and the same 
 thing, or in the language of Mr. Clay, that they " varied but inconsiderably," and I leave 
 the Senator like the man in the labyrinth, to wind himself out of his inconsistency iu sup- 
 porting the " scheme of adjustment," with the declaration upon his lips " that he should 
 certainly always remain uuable to perceive in the resolutions any of the features of a 
 genuine compromise." 
 
 CALIFORNIA QUESTION. 
 I next come te consider the course of the Senator in reference to California. His first 
 position on this question was to provide for California a territorial government. As this is 
 what should have been done, and there is no objection to it, I suppose the Senator will not 
 deny this, if he does I hold in my hand a pamphlet copy of his speech in the Senate, Jan. 
 8th, 1850, accompanied by a bill introduced by the Senator at the samo lime, to " provide 
 for the organization of the territorial governments of California, Deseret, and New Mexico, 
 and to enable the people of Jacinto, with the consent of the State of Texas, to form a con- 
 stitution and State government, and for the admission of such State into the Union, upon 
 an equal footing with the original States in all respects whatever." The Senator at thia 
 
H6 
 
 time seemed determined to have another slave State in the South, as a " compensating ad- 
 vantage," even for the " territorial government " of California, etc. In this same speech 
 however, while the bill looked one way, the Senator seems to have had an eye the other 
 way, and looked to the admission of California as a State under certain circumstances. 
 After speaking of a bill which he had drawn proposing to divide Texas on certain condi- 
 tions, he says in reference to it : " This I had resolved to offer as a new scheme of compro- 
 mise, which with the establishment of a territorial government in New Mexico, in Deseret 
 and California, and the ultimate admission of California as a State, when freed from her 
 present unfortunate, organization, I hoped might tend to settle the vexed question of the 
 Wilmot proviso forever.'' Here the Senator unfolds the " circumstances of the applica- 
 tion " of California, which in his judgment would make her admission as a State " the 
 Wilmot proviso in another form." They were " her unfortunate organization," from 
 which she must bo freed before she could be admitted. Now if a territorial government 
 could have been given to California, Utah, and New Mexico, without any restriction as to 
 slavery, and California had afterwards in a regularly authorized manner, when all the citi- 
 zens of all the States had an opportunity of entering her, and being equally protected in 
 their property, formed a constitution and applied for admission into the Union, it certainly 
 would have tended to settle the vexed question of the Wilmot proviso. This is all the 
 South desired, it was the Senator's original position, and 't is pity he did not stick to it. 
 
 His second position was aii abandonment of his first. It is laid down by him in his 
 eighth position against Mr. Clay's resolutions, and is as follows : 
 
 8. " If all other questions connected with the subject of slavery can be satisfactorily 
 adjusted, I see no objection to admitting all of California above the line of 36 30 into the 
 Union, provided another new slave State can be laid off within the present limits of Texas, 
 .so as to keep up the equiponderance between the slave and the free States of the Union ; 
 and provided further all this is done by way of compromise , and in order to save the Union, 
 (as dear to me as any man living.") 
 
 Hero he abandons the formation of a territorial government for California. He 
 abandons the position that she must be " freed from her present unfortunate organiza- 
 tion," which constituted with him at first, the " circumstances" which made her appli- 
 cation " the Wilmot Proviso in another form." Ho became in favor of her admission 
 as a State with the lino of 36 ° 30 as her southern boundary, if all other questions con- 
 nected with the subject of slavery could be satisfactorily adjusted ; but this was only to 
 be done "provided another new slave State could bo laid off within the present limits of 
 Texas, so as to keep up the equiponderance of the slavo and free States of the Union ; 
 and provided further, that all this was done by way of compromise, and in order to save 
 the Union," &,c. Here was an almost entire giving up his first position. 
 
 His third position was again an abandonment of his second. This was his support 
 of the Omnibus Bill. His willingness at all times, after the report of that bill by the 
 Committee on the " scheme of adjustment," to admit California as a State, and his ef- 
 forts for months to smuggle her into the Union through the Omnibus, that he might vote 
 for her in that vehicle, " under all the circumstances of her application," which made 
 her admission " the Wilmot Proviso in another form," and without any of tho "compen. 
 sating advantages," with which he first set out, and which he claimed in his first and se- 
 cond position. Without the satisfactory adjustment of all the other questions connected 
 with the subject of slavery ; because, even if tho Omnibus had not been odious tho fugi- 
 tive slave bill reported with it provided the right of trial by jury for the slave in the State 
 
31 
 
 from which he fled, and compelled his owner to bring him forward at the first term of the 
 Court after his return, and give him a trial for his freedom under a penalty of a thousand 
 dollars ; the slave-trade abolition bill, as it was reported and as it passed, asserted tho 
 power of Congress to abolish slavery in the District of Columbia, by declaring tho slave 
 on certain conditions to bo liberated and free, and the Omnibus bill was to be passed be- 
 fore either of these measures were to be acted upon by the Senate. Without the admis- 
 sion or laying off another new slave State within the limits of Texas, " to keep up the 
 cquiponderance between the slave and the free State," but with the actual dismember- 
 ment of Texas, by cutting off from her territory enough for two States, to bo placed un- 
 der the control of a free-soil majority in the government. He supported the admission of 
 California in the Omnibus under circumstances entirely at variance with his former posi- 
 tions, and under circumstances by her admission in that bill, forever to destroy the equi- 
 yonderance of the slave with the free States in the Union, and to give to the free States 
 a permanent sectional majority in the control of the government. 
 
 His fourth and last position, was an entire abandonment of all his others. It was 
 his willingness to bring in California as a single, separate, isolated measure, barefaced and 
 under " all the circumstances of her application." Though lie did not vote for her on 
 the final passage of the bill for her admission in the Senate, yet I will show you, in a short 
 time, that afterwards, the bill passed the House of Representatives, he expressed his de- 
 sire that she should come in, not in direct words for her admission, but in such a manner 
 as to show the true feelings of his heart on this subject. The California bill passed the 
 Senate the 13th of August ; on the 26th August an interesting debate took place in tho 
 Senate called the battle of the books ( published in the National Intelligencer, August 
 29th, 1850 ) on the subject of printing books, in which Senator Foote participated, and 
 from which I extract the following remarks made by him : 
 
 " I voted with the Senator from Texas, I think, for the printing, lithographing, binding 
 and so fourth, of a book with which is favorably connected the name of a gentleman dis- 
 tinguished for scientific attainments, for public spirit, and for patriotism, and who I trust 
 will shortly be, as I cannot doubt he will prove, a distinguished ornament of this body. 
 I re fer now, of course, to Colonel Fremont." 
 
 How could Colonel Fremont become a member of the Senate without the admission 
 of California ? This expression shows what was the real sentiment of the Senator's heart. 
 It was for the admission of California even as a separate measure, as the bill had passsd 
 the Senate ; and this desire was expressed while the bill was before the House of Repre- 
 sentatives, when not a single solitary measure of what is now termed the compromise, had 
 been acted upon or had passed that body, and when the fate of all was uuknown there. 
 The Senator cannot excuse himself and say that he made this statement out of respect 
 for the high attainments of Mr. Fremont, and that he desired to bring him into the Senate 
 simply as an ornamental member, because he had no right to trifle with the great interests 
 of the South involved in the admission of California, merely to compliment any individual 
 by such expressions. If he desired to express his admiration of Mr. Fremont, looking also 
 to the interests of the South, he should have said he wished him everything except a place 
 in " that body " as a Senator from California, " under all the circumstances of her appli- 
 cation." He cannot say that it was purely on account of his love for Colonel Fremont, 
 because he quarrelled with him soon after his admission into the Senate ; and besides this 
 he had made this very charge against Colonel Benton, and accused him of desiring tho ad- 
 mission of California because Colonel Fremont was his son-in-law. I read you an extract 
 
38 
 
 from one of his speeches on this subject, published in the National Intelligencer, March 
 2Sth, 1850. It is as follows : 
 
 " I am not surprised, sir, that the honorable Senator (Mr. Benton) has now be- 
 come a most zealous and unswerving advocate of the claims of California to admission as 
 a State ; but I know also that some have supposed it to be at least possible that his halting 
 and reluctant zeal has been stimulated at the present session by certain personal and do- 
 mestic considerations, quite natural and amiable within themselves, but not entitled to ope- 
 rate here in contravention of the high public reasons which have been stated by various 
 Senators at different times in our hearing." 
 
 I read you further on this point an extract from the Southron, [now the Flag of the 
 Union] published at Jackson, in our own State, March 8th, 1850, commenting upon this 
 charge of Senator Foote against Mr. Benton. If this was from a Southern Rights paper 
 I would not read it, as I do not think it expressed in altogether respectful terms to the Sena- 
 tor, but I suppose it is authority which with himself and party will fix the truth of the fact 
 I have stated. I read as follows ; 
 
 " Senator Foote. — The extraordinary personal knowledge which our garrulous and 
 gossipping Senator, Gen. Foote, possesses of the despicable and selfish motives which 
 govern the actions of all who disagree with him, was manifested, in a peculiar manner 
 in the debate of the Senate on the 14th February, on Mr. Clay's resolutions. After refer- 
 ing to some " whispering" which ho had noticed, a day or two before, between Messrs. 
 Benton and Clay, he said he knew that there was a plot on foot to bring California into the 
 Union as a State, and that the " scheme " found favor with the Senator from Missouri, 
 because his " son-in-law," Col. Fremont, was one of the Senators. This speculative libel 
 on the motives of his senatorial associate elicited a discussion, of which we only have room 
 for the following:" 
 
 I have now shown you fellotv-citizens, that the Senator like a skilful manoeuverer, 
 under what strange influences it is not ior me to determine, retreated from every position 
 which he took on the California question, from his first to his second, from his second to his 
 third, from his third to his last, and that he finally became in favor of the admission of 
 California as a single measure, " under all the circumstances of her application," which 
 he at fir st declared " the Wilmot Proviso in another form." 
 
 But the Senator said in his speech that 35 ° 30 could have been obtained as the south- 
 ern boundary of California, but for the refusal of southern Senators to support it, and 
 speaks of it as a matter of great triumph which he could have accomplished ; he had 
 private assurances of it if southern Senators would have stood by him. Why fellow - 
 citizens, he made this very statement in the senate, and said he was going to come home, 
 and tell every body and I suppose " the rest of mankind," that he could have done all 
 this ; but the record of the proceedings in Congress, do not exactly sustain the Senator in 
 his facts. I hold in my hand the National Intelligencer of July 23rd, 1850, which gives us 
 some information on this subject. Mr. King, of Alabama, on the 19th July, offered an 
 amendment to make 35 30 the southern boundary of California, and supported it in a 
 very able speech, and after full discussion it was defeated. I read you the record : 
 
 " Mr. King's amendment is as follows: The boundary of the State shall be as fol- 
 lows : Commencing on the Pacific at the 42d degree of North latitude ; thence with the 
 southern boundary lino of the Territory of Oregon to the summit of the Sierrea Neveda, 
 then along tho crest of that mountain to a point where it intersects the parallel of latitude 
 35 deg.30min. thence with said parallel to the Pacific Ocean." 
 
39 
 
 The debate was continued at much length by Mr. Berrien, Mr. Clay, Mr. Foote, 
 Mr. Hale, Mr. Davis, of Mississippi, and Mr. King. 
 
 Mr. Davis, of Mississippi, moved to amend the amendment of Mr. King, by striking 
 out the word " five " and inserting " six " so as to establish the line of the Missouri com- 
 promise as the southern boundary of California. His amendment was disagreed to by tho 
 following vote : 
 
 YEAS— Messrs. Atchison, Badger, Barnwell, Berrien, Butler, Clemens, Davis, 
 of Mississippi, Dawson, Downs, Foote, Houston, Hunter, King, Mangum, Mason, Mor- 
 ton, Pratt, Rusk, Sebastiu, Soule, Turney, Underwood, and Yulee — 23. 
 
 NAYS— Messrs. Baldwin, Benton, Bradbury, Bright, Cass, Chase, Clay, Cor- 
 win, Davis, of Massachusels, Dayton, Dickinson, Dodge, of Wisconsin, Dodge, of 
 Iowa, Douglas, Fetch, Green, Hale, Hamlin, Jones, Miller, Norris, Phelps, Seward, 
 Shields, Smith, Spruance, Sturgeon, Upham, Wales, Walker, and Whitcomb — 32. 
 
 The question was then taken on the amendment of Mr. King, and resulted as fol- 
 lows : 
 
 YEAS— Messrs. Atchison, Barnwell, Berrien, Butler, Clemens, Davis, of Mississippi, 
 Dawson, Downs, Foote, Houston, Hunter, King, Mason, Morton, Pratt, Rusk, Sebastin, 
 Soule, Turney, and Yulee — 20. 
 
 NAYS— Messrs. Badger, Baldwin, Benton, Bradbury, Bright, Cass, Chase, Clarke, 
 Clay, Cooper, Corwin, Davis, of Massachusetts, Dayton, Dickinson, Dodge, of Wisconsin, 
 Dodge, of Iowa, Douglas, Felch, Greene, Hale, Hamlin, Jones, Mangum, Miller, Nor- 
 ris, Pearce, Phelps, Seward, Shields, Smith, Spruance, Sturgeon, Underwood, Upham, 
 Wales, Walker, and Whitcomb — 37 
 
 It will be seen by these proceedings what becomes of the Senator's statement, that 
 35 ° 30 could have been obtained as the Southern boundary of California, and the vote 
 shows who is responsible for its defeat. The genuine Southern Senators voted for it, of 
 whom there were generally nineteen, and the Senator this time accidentally fell in with 
 them. 
 
 But ho says he afterwards had private assurances that this lino could bo obtained. 
 Well, on another occasion the Senator had private assurances, and he was very " confi- 
 dently assured," that California could not be admitted as a State, "as a seperate and 
 distinct measure at all," which he afterwards, as I have shown, became in favor of him- 
 self; and he had private assurances at another time, and even predicted on a certain Sat- 
 urday, that the Union was to totter into ruins. I will read you what he said in the Sen- 
 ato of the first of these private assurances, connected with which he said the Union was 
 to bo dissolved, and then Mr. Webster's opinion, of the reliance to be placed on both as 
 taken from their respective speeches published in the National Intelligencer, April 6th, 
 1850. The Senator says: 
 
 " There are other views of the subject of still more striking character which I do 
 not feel at liberty to withhold. Sir, you cannot, thank Heaven ! you cannot pass a bill 
 for the admission of California, as a separate and distinct measure, at all. I say you can- 
 not do it ; and I speak of what I feel most confidentially assured when I make this declar- 
 ation You may pass the bill here, sir, though I hope that this is even a little doubtful. 
 You may pass it here, sir, but it will never become a law notwithstanding. It has to 
 be approved in the other wing of this Capitol ; it must be sanctioned by both Houses of 
 Congress ; and that I hold to be impossible." 
 
 Mr. Webster in reply, says : 
 
40 
 
 Mr. WEBSTER. Tlicro is nothing personal the honorable Senator from Missis- 
 sippi has said to which I take the slightest exception. I must only say that 1 am quite in- 
 credulous to all the predictions of disunion from any thing- growing out of the present 
 controversy — quite incredulous. My honorable friend from Mississippi will tillow me to 
 remind him that in the prophecies of later times there was a certain Saturday mention- 
 ed. — The day went over and no pillar of the constitution was shaken — no bond of the 
 Union was severed. The sun rose in the morning, we all enjoyed a very agreeable day, 
 and all went to bed at night conscious of the integrity of the Government still subsisting. 
 
 It seems that Mr. Webster had not much confidence in the Senator's private assu- 
 rances, and would not rely upon his statement. Let us see then what reliance southern 
 Senators placed upon his private assurances, and his statements that 35 30 could have 
 been obtained as the southern boundary of California, when he declared in the Senate 
 that he was going to tell the whole world so. Senator Soule, of Louisiana, says : 
 
 " Upon a like proposition by the Senator who occupies the chair, (Mr. King) we of 
 the South voted in the affirmative, and yet it was defeated ; defeated by whom ? I want 
 to know sir, whether honorable Senators, acting upon principles, can justify themselves in 
 the eyes of the country for voting against an amendment to-day for which they would have 
 voted on yesterday. If there was any good reason to defeat that amendment when it was 
 proposed by tho Senator from Alabama, we were bound to presume that the same reasons 
 would exist to defeat it when it should be proposed again. Let not the country therefore 
 be deluded by assertions that has no meaning. We tried the question; we lost it; we 
 were defeated— defeated by whom ? The country will not be at a loss for an answer." 
 
 But the Senator assumes that Mr. Soule is not worthy to be taken as authority against 
 him. He wishes to cast reflections upon him as a native of another land, and says that he 
 is a very clever gentleman who came over here a few years ago from France, and this is the 
 authority which I produce against him. Mr. Soule, fellow-citizens, though a stranger by 
 birth, is a citizen by adoption, and in principle a lover of republican liberty. He has been 
 honored by the State of Louisiana as a representative of her sovereignty in the Senate 
 of the United States, and on a question of fact connected with Senatorial proceedings, his 
 statements are entitled to as high consideration as thoso of any Senator, even the Senator 
 himself. I will say to him there was a time when another gentleman came over here from 
 France, of whom it has been said by one of America's most eloquent and gifted orators — 
 " He came when darkness hung over the land — when the prospects of the revolution were 
 most gloomy — when the heart of the patriot sunk within him — when tho plowshare stood 
 still in the field, and briers cumbered the garden of beauty." This was Lafayette, tho 
 friend of Washington. America owes him a debt of gratitude she can never repay. His 
 name shall go down to immortality a beacon light to the friends of freedom forever. Tho 
 wave of time shall nover roll over it. " Oblivion shall never shroud its splendor." This was 
 Lafayette, tho friend of Washington ; he came to assist him in tho purchase of American 
 freedom. Soule is the friend of our own gallant JefT. Davis ; he has como to assist him in tho 
 maintainance of that freedom which Washington and Lafayette won. 
 
 And what did our own Senator, Col. JefT. Davis, always as true to tho south as the 
 needle is to tho polo, say to him on this point? The following is an extract from his re- 
 marks : 
 
 " But, sir, in relation to this curtailment of California. Who voted for it ? Those 
 southern men who are accused of defeating the " compromise" bill. They voted for it, 
 as a restriction of tho extended limits of California. And I think it was straining a point 
 
41 
 
 lo get them to vote for it ; for it was a studied evasion of tho line of 36 dbg. 30 in. lest that 
 line should carry some " implication " with it. But our friends were generously retiring 
 from that line, on which I think they ought to stand. There was no consideration in rela- 
 tion to the public lauds : no consideration of physical geography which justified the south- 
 ern representatives in receding one degree south. There was nothing, I say, in the line 
 35 deg. 39 min. to commend itself to any except to those who had determined from the 
 beginning to avoid the line of 36 deg. 30 m., lest it might carry an " implication" with 
 it. — We were then conceding a great deal when w t o took that line. But it was voted 
 down. When it was last offered, I know not under what auspices, an amendment was 
 proposed to recognize the rights of the South in tho country below 35 deg. 30 m. That 
 was voted down. So we could not get our righls acknowledged in the Territories. 
 
 But wo are told time and again, that the line of 35 deg. 30 m. would have been 
 agreed to, and the bill passed containing that for the line. This remiuds me of a celebrated 
 jumper from Leeds. He was always speaking how far he had jumped, and how many 
 men he could bring to prove it. Finally, one day some one said to him, " save yourself 
 the trouble of hunting up witnesses; it would cost you much time and expense : just make 
 the jump over again." [Laughter.] Now, sir, if gentlemen have the power to draw 
 that line let them draw it. Tho southern men who opposed the bill constitute no obstacle 
 to it. I cannot understand how Senators would to-day vote for a line upon such high 
 principles as should govern any member of this body, and to morrow from~a little spite, 
 altogether refuse to vote for such a line. I hope no Senator will take that ground. If 
 that line can be drawn, why not draw it now?" 
 
 These extracts are taken from the debates published in the National Intelligencer, 
 August tho 8th, 1850, and so totaly refute the statements of the Senator, as to leave him 
 no way of escape, from the entire want of confidence in his private assurances, that he 
 could have obtained 35 30 as the southern boundary of California, but for the want of 
 support of southern Senators, he finds great fault with the southern senators, and thinks 
 the south has suffered greatly on their account. I concur with him in this opinion if in 
 no other. But the difference between us is, that he places the responsibility upon one class 
 of southern Senators, I place it upon another. Ho places it upon those who, under all 
 circumstances, maintained the rights of the south. I place it upon those who betrayed 
 them, and the Senator, in my judgment, is not in tho category with his own class. 
 
 Utah and New Mexico. — Of the Senator's course on the Utah and New Mexico 
 Territorial bills I have but a few remarks to make It was not such as became a southern 
 Senator, and though my time is limited I give it a passing notice. Pending the discus- 
 sion of these bills Col. Davis introduced as an amendment to them, to remove all doubt 
 as to the Mexican Law, tho following, to come in at the end of the 21st section of the 
 Omnibus bill in which they were included : 
 
 " And that all laws or parts of laws, usages, or customs pre-existiug in the Territories 
 acquired by the United States from Mexico, and which in said Territories, restrict, abridge, 
 or obstruct the full enjoyment of any right, of person or property, of a citizen of the United 
 States, as recognized or guaranteed by the constitution or laws of the United States, are 
 hereby declared and shall be held as repealed." 
 
 This amendment so reasonable and so just the Senator spoko against at length, and 
 at another time voted with the abolishionists against the following amendment offered by 
 Col. Davis as an amendment to his own amendment to the compromise bill, to cut off that 
 portion of her Territory south of 35 30. 
 
42 
 
 " And that all laws aud usages existing in said Territory at the date of its acquisition 
 by the United States, which deny or obstruct tho right of any citizen of the United States 
 to remove to and reside in said Territory with any species of property legally held in any 
 of the states of this Union, be and are hereby declared null and void." 
 
 The following is tho vote : 
 
 YEAS — Messrs. Atchison, Barnwell, Bell, Berrien, Butler, Clemens, Davis, of 
 Mississippi, Dawson, Downs, Houston, Hunter, King, Mangum, Morton, Pratt, Rusk, 
 Sebastin, Soule, Turnej', Underwood, and Yulee — 22. 
 
 NAYS — Messrs. Badger, Baldwin, Benton, Bradbury, Bright, Cass, Chase, Clarke, 
 Clay, Cooper, Davis, of Massachusetts, Dayton, Dickinson, Dodge, of Wisconsin, Dodge, 
 of Iowa, Felch, Foote, Greene, Hale, Hamlin, Joues, Miller, Norris, Pearce, Seward, 
 Shields, Smith, Spruance, Sturgeon. Upham, Wales, Walker, and Whitcomb — 33. 
 
 So the amendment was not agreed to. 
 
 It is true Col. Davis did not believe the Mexican law could rightfully prevail iu the 
 Territories to the exclusion of the South — the majority of the Southern Senators did not 
 believe it ; a majority of the Southern people do not believe it ; I do not mvself believe it. 
 But Mr. Clay and other Southern men believe it did prevail to our exclusion. A majori- 
 ty of the Senators believed it ; the whole North believes it ; the majority in Congress in 
 giving territorial government to these Territories assumed that we were excluded with our 
 property by this Mexican law. Mr. Clay said a majority, of the jurists in the United 
 States were of this opinion, and the law actually prevailed de facto, whether rightfully or 
 not, in New Mexico. Under this 6tate of the facts, with this doubt hanging over the 
 rights of the South in these Territories, it was the duty of the Senator, to have supported 
 the amendment and voted to remove this doubt ; to have dissipated every cloud which 
 hung over our rights. His course cannot be approved in not having done so. 
 
 But he says the Wilmot Proviso is not attached to these bills. It was not, because 
 the Mexican Proviso, in tho judgment of the majority who passed them, was equally fatal 
 to the Southern rights in these territories. Again he exclaims, "the Wilmot Proviso is 
 dead ! I helped to kill the monster ! ! I saw him slain ! ! ! I saw him buried ! ! ! ! " If 
 the Wilmot Proviso is dead, it was killed by the united action of the Southern people in de- 
 termining to resist it, " at all hazards and to the last extremity." The same that would 
 have killed the California Proviso, and tho Mexican Proviso, and secured all the rights of 
 the South in all tho territory acquired from Mexico, but for the desertion of the Senator 
 and others from the South, who, with him, abandoned tho cause of the South. But let us 
 6ee, after this division in the South, and after the Senator with others from the South had 
 given their support to tho scheme of surrender of Southern rights, what are the facts in 
 reference to the death of the Wilmot Proviso, which the Senator has announced with 
 such an air of self satisfied triumph, that it seems if I were to call upon him in the lan- 
 guage of the fable, and ask him, " who killed cock robbiu ?" he would respond, "I did it" 
 The day after the passage of the California bill in the Senate, the New Mexico territorial 
 bill was under consideration, aud Mr. Chase, of Ohio, moved to attach to it the Wilmot 
 Proviso. The record is as follows, published in the National Intelligencer, August 17th» 
 1850: 
 
 Mr CHASE I beg leave to submit an amendment to come in in the 9th line of sec- 
 tion twenty-two, after tho word residents : 
 
 " Nor shall there be in said territory either slavery or involuntary servitude otherwise 
 than in punishmet of crime, whereof the party shall have been duly convicted to have 
 been personally guilty." 
 
43 
 
 The question on the amendment of Mr. Chase, resulted as follows: 
 
 YEAS — Messrs. Baldwin, Bradbury, Bright, Chase, Cooper, Davis, of Massachu- 
 setts, Dodge, of Wisconsin, Felch, Greene, Hale, Hamlin, Miller, Norrie, Phelps, Shields, 
 Smith, Upham, Walker, Whitcomb, and Winthrop — 20. 
 
 NAYS — Messrs. Atchison, Badger, Bell, Benton, Berrien,, Cass, Davis, of Missis" 
 sippi, Dawson, Dodge, of Iowa, Downs, Foote, Houston, Hunter, Jones, King, Mangum, 
 Mason, Morton, Pratt, Rusk. Sabastin, Soule, Sturgeon, Underwood, W T ales — 25. 
 
 Here the vote stood twenty to twenty-five on a direct proposition to adopt the Wil- 
 mot proviso, in the New Mexico territorial bill, the very day after the admission of Cali- 
 fornia as a state. — Only five majority against it, and only three Northern members voting 
 against it. Only forty-five votes cast out of sixty, and the Northern members who be- 
 lieved the South excluded from the territory by the Mexican law, dodging the vote. If 
 the Wilmot proviso is dead, since the divisions of the South, and since Southern Senators 
 have abandoned her cause, it is because the North having already robbed the south of all 
 the territory, there is no more — no, none — to which the proviso can now be applied, and 
 no thanks are due to the Senator, for having been an eye witness, when the monster was 
 slain, or for any part he may have taken in his death, or his burial. 
 TEXAS DISMEMBERMENT. 
 
 The Senator was equally unfortunate in his course on the Texas boundary question 
 His first position was, that the title of Texas to all the territory laid down in her law of 
 1836, was undeniable aud complete — that a sum of money should be paid to her for her 
 ownership of the public lands in that part of her territory called New Mexico — that all her 
 territory was slave territory, and that this principle should be preserved in the territory 
 purchased, whithout which the risk would be incurred of immediately multiptying the 
 number of free states, which would deeply endanger the whole southern section of the 
 Union. At this time he did not intend to admit California as a state at all, until " freed 
 from her present unfortunate organization." — He intended to give her a " territorial 
 government." This position will appear by an extract which I read from a pamphlet copy 
 of his speech in the Senate, dated the 8th January, 1850. It is as follows: 
 
 My bill originally proposed to pay to Texas, a specific sum, just one-half of the sum 
 now proposed by the Senator from Missouri, for her ownership of the public lands situated in 
 the country, commonly called New Mexico, north of a line to be run in an easterly direc- 
 tion from the Paso del Norte to the head waters of the Red river ; cautiously reserving, 
 though, to the territory in which the right of property in a portion of the public lands 
 was thus to be purchased the principle of compromise embodied in the resolutions 
 of annexations. This reservation, it will be at once perceived, is an arrangement which 
 cannot be dispensed with without incurring the risk of immediately multiplying the num- 
 ber of free states, and deeply endangering the whole southern section of the the Union. 
 
 This extract was immediately followed, by the statement that a territorial government 
 was to be provided for California, and that at some subsequent time when " freed from her 
 present unfortunate organization," she might be admitted as a state. The position assum- 
 ed in it, was, in part, more distinctly stated, with some enlargement in his fourth and 
 fifth positions against Mr. Clay's resolutions, and was laid down by him as follows : 
 
 4th. " Considering, as I have several times heretofore formally declared, the title of 
 Texas to all the territory embraced in her boundaries as laid down in hor law of 1836, full, 
 complete, and undeniable, I am unwilling to say anything, by resolution or otherwise, 
 
44 
 
 which may in the least degree draw that title into question, as I think is done by one of the 
 resolutions of the honorable senator from Kentucky.'' 
 
 5th. " I am, upon constitutional and other grounds, wholly opposed to the principle 
 of assuming state debts, which I understand to be embodied in one of the resolutions of 
 the honorable senator from Kentucky. If Texan soil is to be bought, (and with certain 
 appropriate safeguards, I am decidedly in favor of it) let us pay to the sovereign state of 
 Texas the value thereof in money, to be used by her as she pleases. It will be, as I think, 
 more delicate and respectful to let her provide for the management of this matter, which 
 is strictly domestic in its character, in such maimer as she may choose — presuming that 
 she will act wisely, justly, and honorably towards all to whom she may be indebted." 
 
 In this last proposition, the senator assumed the position distinctly, that he was 
 " upon constitutional and other grounds, wholly opposed to the principle of assuming state 
 debts" by the genera) government, and if Texas soil was to be bought that he was 
 decidedly in favor of paying to the sovereign state of Texas, the money for it to be 
 used as she pleased, which would be more delicate and respectful to her, presuming 
 she would act wisely, justly and honorable towards her creditors. This position ho 
 ;iftenvards virtually abandoned, in his support of the bill for the dismemberment 
 of Texas, included in what he now calls the compromise measures, it being well known 
 to all of you, that the Bill which appropriated ten Millions to the purchase from Texas 
 of a part of her territory, provides, that Five Millions of this sum shall not be issued 
 to Texas, until her creditors for the payment of whose debts her customs were pledged 
 should file their claims at the Treasury of the U. S. thereby imposing upon Texas 
 the implied obligation to discharge these debts, with the Five Millions thus withheld from 
 her — distrusting in a most indelicate and disrespectful manner, that she would act justly 
 and honorably towards her creditors, and virtually and impliedly assuming this amount 
 of her debt by the Government, in violation of the principle laid down by the Senator, 
 to which he was opposed on Constitutional and other grounds. 
 
 But to the first of these positions I wish to call your attention more particularly. In 
 this he laid down the proposition as distinctly as it could be made, and averred it as his 
 opinion several times formally declared that " the title of Texas to all the territory em- 
 braced in her boundaries, as laid down in her law of 1836, was full, complete, and unde- 
 niable,'' in reference to which he was unwilling to say anything by resolution or other- 
 wise, that might in the least degree draw it into question. Now, fellow-citizens, you would 
 not suppose that the Senator ever would have abandoned this position, nor that after this 
 solemn asseveration he would by word or deed ever have disturbed the title of Texas to 
 any part of her territory as defined in her law of 1836. But strange as it may seem, when 
 he went over to the enemies of the South, he abandoned this position and disputed this very 
 title by his speeches and his vote. On the 9th August, pendiug the discussion in the Sen- 
 ate on the Ten Million Bill, to dismember Texas, the following amendment, by way of 
 substitute, was offered by Mr. Mason, of Virginia, to confirm the title of Texas to all the 
 territory within her limits under her law of 1836, and to define her boundaries as claimed 
 by her under tho compact of annexation to the United States. Against this proposition, 
 for which both the Texas Senators voted, and which was directly in accordance with his 
 own original position as to the title of Texas, which he was unwilling to say anything to 
 call in question in any way, the Senator both spoke and voted in the face of his own dec- 
 larations to dispute this very title. The following is Mr. Masons bill, or amendment, with 
 the vote upon it. 
 
45 
 
 " Mr. MASON moved to amend the bill by striking out all after the enacting clause, 
 and inserting the following : 
 
 That by the joint resolution approved March 1st, 1845, for annexing Texas to the 
 United States, it being ordained that " the territory properly included within and rightfully 
 belonging to the Republic of Texas" might be erected into a new State and admitted into 
 the Union, it is the opinion and judgment of Congress that the admission of Texas into 
 the Union, with the boundaries prescribed by the laws thereof, not objected to by the 
 United States at the time of such annexation, is conclusive against the United States 
 of the right of Texas to all territory included within such boundaries. 
 
 2. Be it Resolved, That when in a state of war, and in the absence of actual Stato 
 authority anywhere without the limits of a State, military possession is taken by the United 
 States, of such part of the territory of a State, such possession can rightfully be consi- 
 dered as taken and held only in subordination to the authority of such State, to be surren- 
 dered forthwith on the demand of such State when the war is ended. 
 
 3. And be it further Resolved, That it is the duty of the United States forthwith to 
 surrender to the constituted authorities of the State of Texas all and any territory within 
 the limits of that State, as the same are prescribed by the laws thereof, which may have 
 been temporarily in the military occupation of the United States during the late war with 
 Mexico. 
 
 Yeas — Messrs. Atchison, Barnwell, Butler, Clemens, Davis, of Mississippi, Houston, 
 Hunter, King, Mason, Morton, Rusk, Soule, Turney, and Yulee — -14. 
 
 Nays — Messrs. Badger, Baldwin, Bell, Benton, Berrien, Bradbury, Bright, Cass, 
 Chase, Clark, Cooper, Davis, of Massachusetts, Dawson, Dickinson, Dodge, of Wiscon- 
 sin, Dodge, of Iowa, Douglas, Ewing, Felch, Foote, Greene, Hale, Hamlin, Mangum, 
 Norris, Pearce, Phelps, Seward, Shields, Smith, Spruance , Sturgeon, Underwood, Upham, 
 Wales, Walker, Winthrop— 27. 
 
 So the motion was not agreed to. 
 
 But there is another point connected with this vote to which I wish now to direct the 
 Senator's particular attention. He has said if it can be shown that he has recorded his 
 vote on any question involving the interest of the South connected with slavery — and he 
 pledged himself to abide by it — with Chase, Hale and Seward, that he will resign his seat 
 in the Senate. I have said that I would show it, and that If he would stick to his pledge 
 he would have to resign. The above vote shows it. The name of the Senator stands re- 
 corded with Chase, Hale and Seward, and the whole abolition phalanx, in the vote against 
 confirming the title of Texas as a slave state, to the whole of her territory, as laid down in 
 her law of 1836, which she claimed under the compact of annexation, which he said him- 
 self was full, completo and undeniable, and which he would not say anything, by resolu- 
 tion or otherwise, to call in question. He voted with Chase, Hale and Seward against 
 the proposition to confirm Texas in the integrity of her entire boundary as a slave stato, 
 which would have fixed the territory, beyond any cavil, within her entire limits, as slave 
 territory, when her title to a part of this territory was disputed by the Government, and 
 the adverse proposition in the Senate was, to take from her this part of her territory for a 
 pecuniary consideration, and removing from it the restriction of her " assent " in its for- 
 mation into States to place it under the control of an anti-slavery majority in Congress, 
 who disputed it as Texas soil and denied its character as slave territory. I know tho 
 Senator will say that this was a mere question of boundary, not involving the interests 
 of slavery. But this will not avail him. Every one will admit that, had the title of Tex- 
 
46 
 
 us to all the territory within her limits been confirmed by act of Congress, by the amend- 
 ment offered by Mr. Mason, that it would all have been absolutely confirmed as slave 
 territory, by act of tho Government, and if subsequently any portion of it had been pur- 
 chased, the character of that portion would have been fixed as slave territory, beyond 
 cavil or dispute. I could show, from the Senator's own speech, of 8th January '50 ; 
 which I hold in my hand, that he was himself of the opinion, that to cut off a part of the 
 territory of Texas west of tho Colorado, and on the upper Rio Grande with her title in 
 dispute, would make it free soil. But as he has spoken so often on every side of every 
 question, and so differently at different times, I fear his own speech would not be good 
 authority with him, which conflicts with his present position. I therefore give you the 
 opinion of Mr. Webster on this point, who, in the judgment of the Senator, is one of the 
 great champions of Southern Rights. In his speech in the Senate, June 17, '50, Mr. 
 Webster says : 
 
 " Sir, it does not seem to strike other Senators as it strikes me, but if there be any qual- 
 ification of the general remark which I made, or the opinion which I expressed on the 7th 
 of March, that every foot of territory of the U. S. has a fixed character for slavery or no 
 slavery ; if there be any qualification to that remark, it has arisen here, from what seems 
 to be an indisposition to define the boundaries of New Mexico ; that is all the danger there 
 is. All that is part of Texas was by the resolutions of 1845 thrown under the general 
 character of Texan territory ; and if, for want of defining the boundaries of New Mexico 
 by any proceeding or process hereafter, or by any event hereafter, let me say to gen- 
 tlemen, that if any portion which they or I do not believe to be Texas should be consider- 
 ed to become Texas, then, so far, that qualification of my remark is applicable. And 
 therefore, I do feel, as I had occasion to say two or three days ago, that it is of the utmost 
 importance to pass this bill, to the end that there be a defective boundary, fixed now, and 
 fixed forever, between the territory of New Mexico and Texas ; or the limits of New 
 Mexico and the limits of Texas. Here the question lies. If gentlemen wish to act effici- 
 ently for their own purposes, here it is, if in my poor judgment, that they are called upon 
 to act. And the thing to be done, and done at once, is to fix tho boundaries of New 
 Mexico." 
 
 Here Mr. Webster distinctly avows the opinion that if the part cut off from Texas 
 remained with her, its character was fixed as slar^e territory — if she was dismembered 
 with her title to it disputed, and the part cut off from her added to New Mexico, as was 
 done by the so termed compromise, its character was fixed as anti-slave territory. I have 
 now made good my proposition that I would show the name of the Senator recorded with 
 that of Chase, Seward, and Hale, in a vote involving the interests of the South on the 
 slavery question, on which he pledges himself to resign his seat in the Senate. But he 
 need not be alarmed ; as an individual I shall not ask him to resign. The voice of his di- 
 rect constituency has spoken to him, clothed with the sovereign authority of the people of 
 tho State, saying to him that he had misrepresented the interests and will of the people of 
 Mississippi, and that the interests of the State confided to his charge were no longer safe 
 in his keeping, and he passes that unheeded. I do not believe that explosive gun cotton 
 could blow him out of his seat in the Senate. 
 
 LOYALTY TO THE STATE. 
 
 Having now concluded with the Senator on the measures of his favorite " Scheme of 
 Adjustment," I come to speak of his loyalty to the State of Mississippi, to which he owes 
 his highest allegiance, and to which he is indebted for, not his Senatorial honors, but his 
 
47 
 
 high position as Senator. In a speech made by him in the Senate, June 27th, 1650, and 
 published in the Jackson Southron, July 19, 1850, ho says : 
 
 " I hold it to be the most in possible of all impossibilities that the State of Mississippi 
 will ever bo found in favor of secession, except in a case of intolerable oppression, not 
 now to be apprehended. But sir, if contrary to my belief, contrary to my hopes, that noble 
 and patriotic State shall ever yield to influences, either domestic or foreign, and for " light 
 and transient causes," should enlist under the black banner of disunion, then humble as I 
 may be, and all unworthy to occupy a seat in this grand national council house, 1 should 
 scorn any longer to be recognized as the Senatorial Representative here even of the onco 
 glorious State of Mississippi. This is plain language ; at such a moment I could use no 
 other ; and it is language not one word of which I shall ever retract, modify, or repent that 
 I have uttered." 
 
 For this single sentiment, if no other, uttered by him as a Senator from Mississippi, 
 upon the floor of the Senate, when it was admitted by all of the South that the Federal 
 Government was aggressing to some extent upon our rights, he should have been instructed 
 out of his seat. As the Representative of the State of Mississippi, to maintain her honor 
 and her interests in the National Senate, he was not authorized to give utterance to such 
 a sentiment. It was not for him to determine what were " light and transient causes," 
 which the State of Mississippi, when her sovreignty was invaded, might consider sufficient 
 to determine her to any mode of resistance. This is a question for the people of Missis- 
 sippi to decide, and not for him as her Senator. A citizen being a traitor to the State might 
 utter such a sentiment, but her accredited representative in the highest branch of the Na- 
 tional Legislature can never be justified in doing so. And I doubt not the majority of the 
 people of Mississippi now look with as much " scorn " and a great deal more, upon tho 
 course of the Senator, as their " Senatorial Representative," as he will ever feel " scorn " 
 in being considered so. But fellow-citizens, this sentiment was very deliberately uttered 
 by him, and you would suppose that he certainly meant to stand by it, for he says, " this 
 is plain language ; at such a moment I could use no other ; and it is language not one word 
 of which I shall ever retract, modify, or repent that I have uttered." This is pretty posi- 
 tive, very emphatic, and it would seem, that if tho Senator ever stuck to anything ho 
 would stick to this. But ho was obliged to abandon even this. Ho was obliged to change, 
 he could 'nt help it. 
 
 The day following in the Senate, June 28th, Col. Davis, in reply, as appears by a 
 pamphlet copy of his speech which I hold in my hand, spoke as follows : 
 
 " My colleague has truly represented the people of Mississippi as ardently attached 
 to the Union. I think he has not gone beyond the truth when he has placed Mississippi 
 one of the first, if not the first of the States of tho Confederation in attachment to it. 
 But, sir, even that deep attachment and habitual reverence for the Union, common to ua 
 all — even that, it may become necessary to try by the touchstone of reason. It 
 is not impossible that they should unfurl the flag of disunion. It is not im- 
 possible that violations of the Constitution and of their rights should drive them to that 
 dread extremity. I feel well assured that they will never reach it until it has been twice 
 and three times justified. If, when thus fully warranted, they want a standard-bearer, 
 in default of a better, I am at their command. This is part of my doctrine of allegiance 
 to the people of Mississippi, and with this feeling my colleague will not be surprized to 
 learn that I regretted to hear him suppose a case, contemplate a contingency, in which 
 he would scorn to represent the people of Mississippi." 
 
48 
 
 This was the sentiment of the glorious and immortal Jeff. Davis. T!:o patriotism 
 which it breathed frightened the Senator out of tho propriety of his own e ••utiment, so 
 wanting in respect and loyalty to the State, as is shown in another debate on this subject 
 when it came up again, and Col. Davis again said — 
 
 " Not having heretofore discussed the subject of disunion, I do not propose to do it 
 now. I said on a former occasion that I was not here to dissolve the Union, and therefore 
 I am not here to decide when or for what the Union is to be dissolved. I have said be- 
 fore, and I repeat it now, that, as the representative of a sovereign State, I am here truly 
 to maintain her interests and honor, as far as I can consistently with my obligations to 
 the constitution and the dictates of my conscience. When that state shall find disunion 
 necessary this post will no longer become me, and she can call me from hence to use mo 
 wherever my mother state may require my unimportant services. I have nothing there- 
 fore, to say here as to what should or should not determine the state to dissolve her con- 
 nexion with the Union. I repeat, this is a question for her decision, not mine." 
 
 The Senator then changed his tune and set his music to another string. Listen to 
 what he says, after declaring that he would scorn to be the Senatorial Representative of 
 Mississippi, assuming to himself to decide what might bo " light and transient causes" 
 with her, for taking a position of resistance to Federal aggressions and that it was lan- 
 guage, not one word, of which he should ever retract, modify, or re-pent that he had 
 uttered. The following is an extract from his remarks : 
 
 " Mr. FOOTE. I did not intend to quote the language of my colleague for condem- 
 nation ; but, on the contrary, it was to say that I approved of tho sentiments which ho 
 expressed. I have not had, so far, an opportunity of displaying my own inclination to do 
 what a man should do, under appropriate circumstances, in defence of his country, when 
 her rights, her peace, or her honor is assailed, yet I trust that I should not be more back- 
 ward than my colleague himself in maintaining the honor of Mississippi, if it should be 
 put in danger. One thing is certain, that should the State of Mississippi assume such a 
 position as that alluded to, I should return to her limits with as much expedition 
 even as my colleague, in order to perform my duty as a loyal citizen. I shall not be even 
 behind my colleague in rushing to the rescue of our noble state, and hope, after reaching 
 tier confines, I should not be far behind him in aught becoming an emergency so 
 perilous." 
 
 Who doubts the consistency of tho Senator now ? Who doubts his patriotism and his 
 loyalty to this State ? Patriotism among the ancients was said to bo from the inspiration 
 of the Gods. The Senator's patriotism was at first drawn from Earth, even out of Clay, 
 for the Senator from Kentucky had uttered sentiments precisely similar in reference to 
 his own State. But the gallant Davis, breathed into him a holier fire, a purer flame, a 
 loftier patriotism, kindled upon the alter of God and liberty. In this last sentiment he 
 speaks with respect to his State, ho seems to think in any emergency he might fight for 
 her, would induce tho belief that ho is a sort of military man, and even intimates a com- 
 parison of his military courage with that of the gallant Colonel of the over glorious First 
 Rifles. 
 
 I have thus, fellow-citizens, traced tho Senator through his wanderings. I have, as 
 far as my limitted time would allow mo, gone through with tho history of his changes, 
 and followed him in his windings wherever he has left the print of his " Sandal Shoon or 
 Scallop Shell." And in concluding this branch of the subject, I say again, what I said 
 to you in the beginning, that with the facts bofore you which I have now presented, 
 
19 
 
 whatever may be your jugdment of the merits of the measures of Compromise, and of 
 the position which Mississippi shall take in the future in reference to them, the course of 
 the Senator must be condemned. 
 
 CONCLUSION. 
 
 The Senator, with an unbecoming air of self importance assumes that I am not a 
 competitor worthy to meet him in the high arena of debate, that I am not a foemau. 
 worthy of the steel of such a champion as himself, and says, ho expects to meet with 
 such wherever he goes throughout the State. I will say to him, that is a question for your 
 decision, not his. I am willing to abide by the judgment you shall render. I will say to 
 him it is unbecoming and unmanly in him, when I came to meet him at his own invita- 
 tion, which he said others had refused. I will say to him further that I know it is the 
 opinion of would-be great men like himself, who come from the West to look with con- 
 tempt upon tho talent and the wealth of this region of the State — to think it is poverty- 
 stricken in intellect and resources, and that nothing rich grows here but rosin. Well, fel- 
 low-citizens, whatveer there is of me has grown here, and whether it is rich or not, I 
 leave you to determine. I will not respect the opinions of the Senator who, vanquished 
 on the merits of the controversy, so illy respects his own position as to evade the issues of 
 the contest and resort to personalities, 
 
 The Senator says, Virginia has spoken — his native State. Virginia, for which he 
 has a great veneration and affection. She has laid down a platform and acquiesces in 
 the " measures of compromise." Virginia does not approve his course, else she never 
 would have re-elected Mason to the Senate, almost unanimously, who was the very an- 
 tipode of the Senator, on every measure of his " scheme of adjustment," by which the 
 rights of the South were surrendered. If ho were there to-day, Virginia would spurn 
 him from her councils as one who having gone over to her enemies, strengthened their 
 hands to inflict upon her the wrongs in which she does not willingly acquiesr, but to 
 which she sullenly submits. He seems, however, to have a great respect for Virginia, 
 and thinks her Legislature speaks the voice and will of the people of the State. He has 
 not so high a respect for Mississippi. I, too, have respect for Virginia — for the Virginia of 
 the Revolution which gave Washington to America, to dissolve the Union of despotism with 
 Great Britain— for the Virginia of '98 and '99, under the lead of Jefferson and Madison, 
 the apostles aud defenders of republican liberty, which Washington and our fathers 
 achieved. But for the Virginia of '51, who, forgetting her sires, cringes at the foot-stool 
 of federal power, and submits, however sullenly, to wrongs knowingly committed, I must 
 confess, no associations connected with her prestnt actions, hallow her in my affections 
 Mississippi is my State. I respect tho position she has taken, and which I hope and be- 
 lieve she will maintain to the end. I respect the voice and will of her people, as expressed 
 through her constituted authorities. The Senator respects neither, and in his aspirations 
 for a more dazzling reputation, they fall upon him with deaf ears. 
 
 I think now, fellow -citizens, I have shown the Senator that I have read the papers, 
 and that I understand them too. He says I am a good reader, and that I am now only a 
 young David, who when he grew old, came to be the sweetest singer in all Israel, he thinks 
 I may become the sweetest singer in all the land. I will say to the Senator that I am not 
 much given to music, but when the people shall speak to him in thunder tones through the 
 ballot-box in September and November next, and consign him to his political grave, I hope 
 to have grown old enough to sin£ over it the requiem of his National reputation. 
 
50 
 
 My time is out, and I now call upon the Senator, as a Senator and a statesman, to 
 meet the issue I have made, and vindicate himself on this record, which in all fairness I 
 have produced against him. He cannot do it — he will not attempt it. He will undertake 
 to amuse you with anecdotes and buffoonery, and draw you off from the merits of the con- 
 troversy. Let not the facts as I have stated them, pass from your minds ; and I conclude 
 by repeating the declaration with which I set out, that whatever may bo your judgment of 
 the merits of the measures of compromise, and of the action which Mississippi may take 
 in reference to them in future, the course of the Senator must be condemned. 
 
 146 
 

 XL- X c°* • 
 
 '; ?■%> -WIS'? /°" 
 
 P* . ^ % ^ J> .."L. V / / ' 
 
 
 
 
•_E«5\W«k - ^ .^ 
 
 * 6 *...X* ^v % 
 
 
 ^^ .\£fi^^ '^^" «vs ^v* 
 
 1°, 
 
 G* V %TT» l 
 
 A V o « • „ *^ 
 
 . •j^C^fc^ <-> .^ 
 
 
 » ^ 
 
 q, ♦.,,•* A 
 
 . ^ a* .W^ ^ ^ •*■ 
 
 V .»•*' 
 
 
 - X* -mfe ^ •'JHI: X* •*' 
 
 ..^»o «5°*ft \y3M&J ^P***. ^