,D73 
 
E 440 
 
 .5 
 .073 
 
 Copy 
 
 c 
 
 STATE OF THE UNION. 
 
 SPEECH 
 
 HON. STEPHEN iT; DOUGLAS, OF 
 
 IN THE SENATE, JANUARY 3, 1861. 
 
 The Senate having under consideration the following 
 resolution reported by the select committee of thirteen, 
 appointed to consider the agitated and distracted condition 
 of the country — 
 
 Resolved, That the committee have not been able to agree 
 upon any general plan of adjustment, and report that fact 
 to the Senate, together witli the journal of the committee ; 
 
 Mr. DOUGLAS said: 
 
 Mr. President: No act of my public life has 
 ever caused me so much regret as the necessity of 
 voting in the special committee of thirteen for the 
 resolution reporting to the Senate our inaljility to 
 agree upon any general plan of adjustment, which 
 
 been organized upon the basis of non-interfer- 
 ence by Congress with the domestic institutions 
 of the people. During that period several new 
 Territories were organized, including Tennessee, 
 Louisiana, Missouri, Mississippi, and Aiabarna. 
 In no one of these Territories did Congress at- 
 tempt to interfere with the question of slavery, 
 either to introduce or exclude, protect or prohibit 
 it. During the whole of this period there was 
 peace and good-will between the people of all 
 parts of the Union so far as the question of sla- 
 very was concerned. 
 
 But the first time Congress ever attempted to in- 
 
 would restore peace to the country and insure the 'j terfere with and control that question, regardless 
 integrity of the Union . If we wish to understand the 1 1 of the wishes of the people interested in i t, the Union 
 real causes which have produced such wide-spread 1 1 was put in jeopardy, and was only saved from dis- 
 and deep-seated discontent in the slaveholding J j solution by the adoption of the compromise of 1820. 
 States, we must go back beyond the recent pres-j[ In the famous Missouri controversy, the majority 
 dential election, and trace the origin and history 1 1 of the North demanded that Congress should pro- 
 of the slavery agitation from the period when it Lhibit slavery forever in all the territory acquired 
 first became an active element in Federal politics. I fromFrance,extendingfromtheStateofLouisiana 
 
 Without fatiguing the Senate with tedious d 
 tails, I may be permitted to assume, without the 
 fear of successful contradiction, that whenever the 
 Federal Government has attempted to decide and 
 control the slavery question in the newly acquired 
 Territories, regardless of the wishes of the in- 
 habitants, alienation of feeling, sectional strife, 
 and discord have ensued; and whenever Congress 
 has refrained from such interference, harmony 
 and fraternal feeling have been restored. The 
 whole volume of our nation's history may be con- 
 fidently appealed to in support of this proposi- 
 tion. The most memorable instances are the fear- 
 ful sectional controversies which brougiit the 
 Union to the verge of disruption in 1820, and again 
 in 1850. It was the territorial question in each 
 case which presented the chief points of difficulty, 
 because it involved the irritating question of the 
 relative political power of the two sections. All 
 the other questions, which entered into and served 
 to increase the slavery agitation, were deemed of 
 secondary importance, and dwindled into insig- 
 nificance so soon as the territorial question was 
 definitely settled. 
 
 From the period of the organization of the Fed- 
 eral Government, under the Constitution, in 1789, 
 down to 1820, all the territorial governments had 
 
 to the British possessions on the north, and from 
 the Mississippi to the Rocky Mountains. The 
 South and the conservative minority of the North, 
 on the contrary, stood firmly upon the ground of 
 non-intervention, denying the right of Congress 
 to touch the subject. They did not ask Con- 
 gress to interfere for protection nor for any pur- 
 pose; while they opposed the right and justice of 
 exclusion. Thus, each party, with their respect- 
 ive positions distinctly defined — the one for and 
 the other against congressional intervention — 
 maintained its position with desperate persistency 
 until disunion seemed inevitable, when a com- 
 promise was effected by an equitable partition of 
 the territory between the two sections on the line 
 of 36° 30', prohibiting slavery on the one side 
 and permitting it on the other. 
 
 In the adoption of this compromise, each party 
 yielded one half of its claim for the sake of the 
 Union. It was designed to form the basis of per- 
 petual peace on the slavery question by establish- 
 uig a rule in accordance with which all future con- 
 troversy would be avoided. The line of partition 
 was distinctly marked so far as our territory might 
 extend; and, by irresistible inference, the spirit of 
 the compromise required the extension of the line 
 on the same parallel whenever we sliould extend 
 
 \ 
 
E4J 
 
 • 31^ 
 
 // 
 
 our tenitorial limits. The North and the South — ; 
 altliougheach was dissatisfied with the terms of the | 
 Battlement, each having surrendered one half of its 
 claim — by common const-nt agreed to acquiesce in 
 it, \nd abide by it as a permanent basis of peace 
 up.' 1 the slavery question. It is true, that there 
 were a few discontented spirits in both sections 
 who attempted to renew the controversy from 
 time to time; but the deep Union feeling pre- 
 vailf^ , and the masses of the people were disposed 
 to sljind ijy the settlement as the surest means of 
 ave/ting future difficulties. 
 
 Ijtacc was restored, fraternal feeling returned, 
 an* we were a happy and united people so long 
 ay we adhered to, and carried out in good faith, 
 OSe Missouri compromise, according to its spirit 
 ts well as its letter. In 1845, when Texas was 
 /'annexed to the Union, the policy of an equitable 
 ■ partition on the line of 36° 30' was adhered to, 
 and carried into eflect by the extension of the line 
 as far westward as the new acquisition might 
 reach. It is true, there was much diversity of 
 opinion as to the propriety and wisdom of an- 
 nexing Texas. In the North the measure was 
 opposed by large numbers upon the distinct 
 ground that it was enlarging the area of slave 
 territory within the Union; and in the South it 
 probably received much additional support for 
 the same reason; but, while it may have been op- 
 posed and supported, in some degree, north and 
 south, from these considerations, no considerable 
 number in either section objected to it upon the 
 ground that it extended and carried out the policy 
 of the Missouri compromise. The objection was 
 solely to the acquisition of the country, and not 
 to the application of the Missouri compromise to 
 it, if acquired. No fair-minded man could deny 
 that every reason which induced the adoption of 
 the line in 1820 demanded its extension through 
 Texas, and every new acquisition, whenever we 
 enlarged our territorial possessions in that direc- 
 tion. No man would have been deemed faithful 
 to the obligations of the Missouri compromise at j 
 that day, who was opposed to its application to | 
 future acquisitions. i 
 
 The record shows that Texas was annexed to j 
 the Union upon the express condition that the 
 Missouri compromise should be extended and 
 made applicable to the country, so far as our new 
 boundaries might reach. Ihe history of that 
 acquisition will show that I not only supported 
 the annexation of Texas, but that I urgtd the 
 necessity of applying the Missouri compromise 
 to it, for the purpose of extending it through New 
 Mexico and California to the Pacific ocean, when- 
 ever we should acquire those Territories, a.^ a 
 means of putting an end to the slavery agitation 
 forever. 
 
 The annexation of Texas drew after it the war 
 with Mexico, and the treaty of peace left us in pos- 
 session of California and New Mexico. This large 
 acquisition of new territory was made the occa- 
 sion for renewing the Missouri controversy. The 
 ajritalion of 1849-50 was a secnnil edition of that 
 of Lsr.)-JI). It was stimuhit<>d by the same mo- 
 tives, aiming at the same ends, and cnfoivod by 
 the same arguments. The northern majority 
 invoked the intervention of Congress to prohibit 
 
 slavery everywhere in the Terriu^ries oithe Uni- 
 ted States — both sides of the Miss>uri lint_»eouth 
 as well as north of 30° 30'. The .'louth, t<^ether 
 with a conservative minority in the\orth,'etood 
 firmly upon the ground of non-intervfcuion,(4;ny- 
 ing the right of Congress to inttrfer. with ihe 
 subject, but avowing a willingness, in Jie spirit 
 of concession for the sake of peace and th. Union, 
 to adhere to and carry out the policy of ai equit- 
 able partition on the line of 36° 30' to the lt-\cific 
 ocean, in the same sense in which it was adopted 
 in 18^, and according to the understanding wl^n 
 Texas was annexed in 1845. Every argumeit 
 and reason, every consideration of patriotism anQ 
 duty, which induced the adoption of tln^olicy 
 in 18~0, and its application to Texas in 1^5, de- 
 manded its application to California and New 
 Mexico in 1848. The peace of the country, the 
 fraternal feelings of all its parts, the safety of the 
 Union, all were involved. 
 
 Utider these circumstances, as chairman of the 
 Committee on Territories, I introduced into the 
 Senate the followinj proposition, which was 
 adopted by a vote of 33 to XJl in the Senate, but 
 rejected in the House of Representatives. I read 
 from the Journal, August 10, 1848, page 563: 
 
 " On iiirilioii liy Mr. DoiiiLvs Id ainond the bill, section 
 fourteen, line one, by inserting alter tlie word 'enacted:' 
 
 " That the line of ;«j' 30 of norlli latitude, known as the 
 Missouri eoniproniise line, as delim-d by the eighth section 
 of an act entitled ' .\n act to authorize the people of the 
 Missouri Tcrritor>' to form a constitution and Slate gov- 
 ernment, and for the admission of such 5?uile into the 
 Union on an enual I'outino with the original States, and to 
 prohibit slavery in certain Territories, approvinl March 6, 
 lt<20." be, and the same is hereby, declared to extend to the 
 Pacilie ocean ; and the said ei(;hth section, togellier witll 
 the compromise therein effected, is hereby revived, and 
 declared to be in full force and binding, for the future or- 
 ganization of the Territories of the I'nited Stat«s. in the 
 same sense, and with the same understanding, with which 
 it was originally adopted ; 
 " It was deie'rmined in the affirmative — yeas 33, nays 21. 
 " On motion by .>Ir. IUi.uwin, the yeiis and nays being 
 desired by one filth of the Senators present, those who 
 voted in the aflirinalive are : 
 
 >' Messrs. Ateliison, Bailger, Bell, Benton, Berrien, Bor- 
 land, Bright. Butler, C':illiuun, Camenm, U.ivis of Missis- 
 sippi, Dickinson, DuugliLs, Downs, Fitzgerald. Foole, Han- 
 negan, Houston, Hunter, Johnson i>f .Maryland, Johnson of 
 Louisiana, Johnson of Georgia, King. Lewis, Mangum, Ma- 
 
 I son, Metealf, Pearce, Sebastian, Spruance, Sturgeon, Tur- 
 
 ! iiev, Underwood. 
 
 I '> Those who \ oted in the negative arc : 
 
 1 " Messrs. .-Mien, .Mherton, Baldwin, Bradbury, Breede, 
 Clark, Corwin, Davis of Ma.ssaehusetLs, Dayloii, Dii, 
 Dodge. Feleh, Green, Hale, Hamlin, .Miller, Nile?, Phelps, 
 
 ; Ipham, Walker, Webster. 
 
 I " So the proposed amendment was agreed to." 
 
 I The bill, as amended, was then ordered to be 
 engrossed for a third reading, by a vote of 33 to 
 I 2*2, and was read the third time, and passed on the 
 5 same day. By the classification of the votes for 
 my |>rop(isiti(in to carry out the Missouri com- 
 : promise, it will be seen that all the southern Sen- 
 ators, twenty-six in number, including Mr. Cal- 
 j houn, voted in the affirmative; and of the northern 
 Senators, seven voted in the affirmative and twen- 
 ty-one in the negative. The proposition was re- 
 jected in the House of Renresentalives by almost 
 'a siclional vote, the whole South voting for it, 
 ; and a large majority of the North against it. 
 i It was the rejection of that proposition— the rc- 
 ' pudiation of the policy of an equitable partition 
 
of the territory between the two sections, on the 
 line of 360^0' — which reopened the floodgates of 
 slavery agitation and deluged the whole country 
 with sectional strife and bitterness, until the Union 
 was again brought to the verge of disruption, 
 before tiie swelling tide of bitter waters could be 
 turned back, and passion and prejudice could be 
 made to give place to reason and patriotism. 
 
 Had the Senate's proposition been concurred 
 in by the House of Representatives; had the pol- 
 icy of an equitable partition been adhered to; had 
 the Missouri compromise been carried out in 
 good faith, tlirough our newly acquired territory, ' 
 to the Pacific ocean, there would have been an : 
 end to the slavery agitation forever. For, the line ■ 
 of partition between free and slave territory being 
 once firmly established and distinctly defined 
 from the Atlantic to the Pacific, all new acqui- 
 sitions, whether on the North or the South, would i 
 have conformed to that adjustment, without ex- [ 
 citing the passions, or wounding the sensibilities,! 
 or disturbing the harmony of our people. I do | 
 not think it would have made any material dif-l 
 ference in respect to the condition of the new i 
 States to be formed out of such territory, for I ] 
 have always believed, and often said, that the 
 existence or non-existence of African slavery de- 
 pends more upon the necessities of climate, health, 
 and productions, than upon congressional and 
 territorial enactments. It was in reference to this 
 great truth that Mr. Webster said that the con- j 
 dition of all the territory acquired from Mexico,' 
 so far as the question of slavery was concerned, 
 was irrevocably fixed and settled by an irrepeal- 
 able law — the law of climate, and of physical ge-1 
 ography, and of the formation of the earth. You ' 
 might as well attempt by act of Congress to com- | 
 pel cotton to grow upon the tops of the Rocky' 
 Mountains and rice upon the summits of the 
 Sierra Nevada, as to compel slavery to exist, by 
 congressional enactment, where neither climate, ' 
 nor health, nor productions, will render it neces- 
 sary and self-sustaining. Yet the desire, on the 
 one hand, for the extension of slavery into re- 
 gions where it is physically impossible to sustain 
 it, and, on the other hand, to abolish and exclude 
 it from those countries wliere the white man can- 
 not endure the climate and cultivate the soil, 
 threatens to keep the agitation of this question 
 perpetually in Congress, until the passions of the 
 people shall become so inflamed that civil war 
 and disunion shall become inevitable. It is the 
 territorial question — whether slavery shall exist 
 in those vast regions, in utter disregard of the 
 wishes and necessities of the people inhabiting 
 them — that is convulsing and dissolving the Re- 
 public; a question in which we have no direct 
 interest, about which we have very little knowl- 
 edge, and which the people of those Territories 
 must and will eventually decide for themselves 
 and to suit themselves, no matter what Congress 
 may do. But for this territorial question there 
 would be very little difRculty in settling the other 
 matters in controversy. The Abolitionists could 
 never endanger the peace of the country or the 
 existence of the Union by the agitation of the 
 slavery question in the District of Columbia by 
 itself, or in the dock-yards, forts, and arsenals in 
 
 the slaveholding States, or upon the fugitive slave 
 law, or upon any minor issue, or upon them all 
 together, if the territorial question could be finally 
 and irrevocably settled. 
 
 I repeat, it was the repudiation of the policy of 
 the Missouri compromise, the refusal to apply it 
 to the territory acquired from Mexico, when of- 
 fered by me, and supported by the whole South, 
 in August, 1848, which reopened the agitation 
 and revived the Missouri controversy. The com- 
 promise of 1820 once repudiated, the policy of an 
 equitable partition of the territory abandoned, the 
 proposition to extend it to the Pacific being re- 
 jected, and the origmal controversy reopened with 
 increased bitterness, each party threw itself back 
 on its original extreme position — the one demand- 
 ing its exclusion everywhere, and the other in- 
 sisting upon its right to go everywhere in the 
 Territories, Tegardless of the wishes of the people 
 inhabiting them. All the arguments,p7-o and con., 
 used in 1819-20 were repeated in 1849-50. The 
 question was the same, and the relative position of 
 the two sections the same. 
 
 Such was the condition of things at the open- 
 ing of the session of 1849-50, when Mr. Clay 
 resumed his seat in this body. 
 
 The purest patriots in tiie land had become 
 alarmed for the fate of the Republic. The im- 
 mortal Clay, whose life had been devoted to the 
 rights, interests, and glory of his country, had 
 retired to the shades of Ashland to prepare for an- 
 other and a better world. When, in his retirement, 
 hearing the harsh and discordant notes of sec- 
 tional strife and disunion, he consented, at the 
 earnest solicitation of his countrymen, to resume 
 his seat in the Senate, the theater of his great 
 deeds, to see if, by his experience, his wisdom, 
 the renown of his great name, and his strong hold 
 upon the confidence and affections of the Ameri- 
 can people, he could not do something to restore 
 peace to a distracted country. From the moment 
 of his arrival among us he became, by common 
 consent, and as a matter of course, the leader of 
 the Union men. His first idea was to revive and 
 extend to the Pacificocean the Missouri compro- 
 mise line, with the same understanding and legal 
 effect in which it had been adopted in 1820, and 
 continued through Texas in 1845. I was one of 
 his humble followers and trusted friends in en- 
 deavoring to carry out that policy, and in connec- 
 tion with others, at his special request, carefully 
 canvassed both Houses of Congress to ascertain 
 whether it was possible to obtain a majority vote 
 in each House for the measure. We found no dif- 
 ficulty with the southern Senators and Repre- 
 sentatives, and could secure the cooperation of a 
 minority from the North; but not enough to give 
 us a majority in both Houses. Hence the Mis- 
 souri compromise was abandoned by its friends, 
 nor from choice, but from ikability to carry it 
 into effect in good faith. It was with extreme re- 
 luctance that Mr. Clay, and those of us who acted 
 with him and shared his confidence, were lirought 
 to the conclusion that v/e must abandon, from in- 
 ability to carry out, the line of policy which had 
 saved the Union in 1820, and given peace to the 
 country for many happy years. 
 
 Finding ourselves unable to maintain that pol- 
 
4 
 
 cy, we yielded to a stern necessity, and turned I to open and proti'Ct tlio nmtes of emigration and 
 ur attention to the discovery of some other plan i travel to California and Oregon could not be de- 
 _y which the existing difficulties could be settled, i nied. The measure could not be postponed longer 
 and future troubles avoided. I need not detail the I without endangering the peace of the frontier set- 
 circumstances under which Mr. Clay brought for- : tlements, and incurring the hazards of an Indian 
 ward his plan of adjustment, which received the ! war, growing out of the constant collisions be- 
 sanction of the two Houses of Congress and the I tween the emigrants and the Indian tribes through 
 approbation of the American people, and is famil- | whose country they were compellc'd to pass, 
 iarly known as the compromise measures of 1850. 1 Early in December, 1853, Senator Dodge, of 
 These measures were designed to accomplish the i Iowa, introduced a bill for the organization of the 
 same results as the act of 182(), but in a different : Territory of Nebraska, which was referred to the 
 mode. The leading feature and chief merit of Committee on Territories, of which I was chair- 
 each was to banish the slavery agitation from the man. The committee did not volunteer their ser- 
 Halls of Congress and the arena of Federal poli- | vices on the occasion. The bill was referred to 
 tics. The act of 1820 was intended to attain this us by the vote of the Senate, and our action was 
 end by an equitable partition of the Territories ; in discharge of a plain duly imposed upon us by 
 between the contending sections. The acts of 1850 ! an express command of the body, 
 were designed to atuiin the same i.nd by remitting The first r|uestion which addressed itself to the 
 the whole question of slavery to the decision of the calm and deliberate consideration of the comtnit- 
 peopleof the Territories,. subject tit the limitations ! tee was: upon what basis shall the organization 
 of the Constitution, and let the Federal courts j of the territory be formed.' Whether upon the 
 determine the validity and constitutionality of the I theory of a geographical line and an equitable par- 
 territorial enactments tVom time to time, as cases I tition of the territory in accordance with the corn- 
 should arise and appeals be taken to the Supreme promise of 1820, which had been abandoned by 
 Court of the United States. The one, proposed to | its supporters not from choice, but from our in-^ 
 settle the question by a geographical line and an ' ability to carry it out: or upon the principle of 
 equitable partition; and the other by the principles non-intervention and popular sovereignty, accord- 
 ofpopularsovereigntyinaccordance with the Con- ) ing to the compromise measures of 1850, which 
 stitution. The object of both being the same, I i had taken the place of the Missouri compromise.' 
 supported each in turn a.s a means of attaining a j The committee, upon mature deliberation, and 
 desirable end. i with great unaiiimity, decided that all future ter- 
 
 After the compromise measures of 1S50 had be- ritorial organizations should be formed upon the 
 come the law of the land, those who had opposed I principles and model of the compromise mea.sures 
 their enactment appealed to their constituents to' of 1850, inasmuch as in the recent presidential 
 sustain them in their opposition, and implored] election (1852) botli of the great political parties 
 them not to acquiesce in the principles upon which of the country, (Whig and Democratic,) of which 
 they were founded, and never to cease to war upon I the Senate was composed, stood pledged to those 
 them until they should be annulled and effaced measures as a substitute for the act of 1620; and 
 from the statute-book. The contest before the ' the committee instructed me, as their organ, to 
 people was fierce and bitter, accompanied some- i prepare a report and draft a substitute for Mr. 
 times with acts of violence and intimidation; but ; Dodge's bill in accordance with these views. I^ 
 fortunately,Mr.Claylivedlongenough lofeeland I will now read from the record, at the hazard of 
 
 know that his last great efforts for the peace of 
 the country and the'perpetuity of the Union — the 
 crowning acts of a brilliant and glorious career in 
 the public service — had met the approval and re- 
 ceived the almost unanimous indorticment of his 
 grateful countrymen. The repose which thecoun- 
 
 try was permitted to enjoy for a brief period 
 
 w../,„^,l t^ K.^ n toniMnrniv iiiice ill the sectional' lion which itasrciit iniimrtiinct! demuiids, and beg leave to 
 pioved to be a tempoiaiy tiucc in the s- ciioiai ^ report it b.-.ck to the .Senaie, with various amendmenis, in 
 conflict, and not a permanent peace upon the sla- » 
 very question. The purpose of reopening the 
 
 being somewhat tedious, in order that the Senate 
 and the country may judge with what fidelity I 
 performed this duty: 
 
 " Jaiinary 4ih, 1654, Mr. IJoi-olas niado tlie fullowing 
 report : "The Coinuiitlec on Tfiritories. to which w.-is re- 
 ferred a hill lor an act to establish the Territorv- of Nebraskn, 
 liavc jivcn the same tliat serious and dcliberair cnnsldera- 
 
 rni ol'a snbsliiute for tiie hill. 
 
 JMie principal nnicndnienis which yonr roniinlttoe 
 
 aeitation for a cono-ressional prohibition of sla- i deem It ihi-irduty to commend lo the lavornble notion oi 
 :?ry in all the Territories whenever an opportu- , X^:^:;,^:^:;X^';i!JZ:il;^:^':::::::^o/^^ 
 nity or excuse could be had, seems never to Jiave | far as ihry arc upplioalile lo territorial organlz:iIions, .ye 
 
 been abandoned by those who originated th 
 scheme for partisan pur|ioses, in 1815*, and were 
 baffled in their designs by the adoi)ti()n of the Mi.s- 
 souri compromise in 1820; and who renewed the 
 attempt in 1848, but were again doomed to .•4u(1er 
 a mortifying defeat in the adoption of the compro- 
 mise measures of 1850. Th<! ()p[)orlunity and 
 Eretext for renewing the agitation was discovered 
 y those who had never aliandoned the design, 
 whe 
 
 proposed to lii-nttirmed and carried into practical operation 
 wlthiii the limit." olUie new Territory. 
 
 '• • The wiMlom of iho.ie nieiisures is attested, not less by 
 their salutary and bcnelUial itrecu- in nllayinp sectional ajii- 
 tation and restoring piace and harmony to an irritated and 
 dixlraeted people, ihaii by the cordial and almost nniversal 
 apprubalion witli which they have been received and sanc- 
 tioned by tin' wliole country. In the judRmcnt of your coni- 
 niittee, iUotc meaturcfvcie iii(eiidc<< lo have a firr inorecom- 
 ;irf/i<'7ivirr ami ciirfiiriiif; effect tlutn the mere aitjustmetit of 
 the dijiicultics ariiws out of the recent acqtiisilioti of Mexi- 
 
 'J'llKY WKKE DK8IONKD TO ESTABLISH CBR- 
 
 n it beenniP rieee<jsiirv in ]t^")4 to oass the! ca» tcrritoiy. 'i'liKY wkke dksionkd TO establish CBR- 
 n It t) came necessary, in ^^•^^'Z" P"™ '. j t^in oiiKAi i-r.nci.m.k«, wiiiru won.DNOTOMv hknis.i 
 necessary laws for the organization ol the lerii- 1| ^^^^.^^^, ^.^^ remudiksfok exiutinu evils, bit in all time 
 tories of Kansas and Nebraska. The necessity I ro come avoiu tiik^ perils or a similar agitation, by 
 for the organization of these Territories, in order withdrawino the (juestio.n or slavery from the 
 
 A 
 
Halls of Congrkss and the political arena, and com- 
 mitting IT TO THE ARBITRAMENT OF THOSE WHO WERE 
 IMMEDIATELY INTERESTED IN, AND ALONE RESPONSIBLE 
 
 FOR, ITS CONSEQUENCES. With the view of conforming 
 their action to what tliey regard the settled policy of the 
 Government, sanctioned by the approving voice of the 
 American people, your committee have deemed it their 
 duty to incorporate and perpetuate in their territorial bills 
 the principles and spirit of those measures.' " 
 
 After reviewing tlie provisions of tiie legislation 
 of 1850, the committee conclude ns follows: 
 
 " From these provisions it is apparent tint the compro- 
 mise measures of 1850 atfirm ami rest upon the following 
 propositions : 
 
 "• First, That all questions pertaining to slavery in the 
 Territories, and in the new States to be formed therefrom, 
 are to be left to the decision of the people residing therein, 
 by their appropriate representatives, to be chosen by them 
 for that purpose. 
 
 " Second, That 'all cases involving title to slaves.' and 
 'questions of personal freedom,' are referred to the adjudi- 
 cation of the local tribunals, with the right of ajjpeal to the 
 Supreme Court of the United Stares. 
 
 "Third, That the provision of the Constitution of the 
 United States, in respect to fugitives from service, is to be 
 carried into faithful execution in all ' the organized Terri- 
 tories,' the same as in the States. 
 
 The substitute for the bill which your committee have 
 prepared, and which is commended to the favorable action 
 of the Senate, fn-oposes to carry those propositions and prin- 
 ciples into praclinal operation, m THE PRECISE LANGUAGE 
 OF THE COMPROMISE MEASURES OF 1850." 
 
 No sooner was this report and bill printed and 
 laid upon the tables of Senators, than an address 
 was prepared and issued over the signatures of 
 those party leaders who had always denounced 
 " the Missouri comjjromisc as a crime against 
 freedom, and a compact with infamy," in which 
 the bill was " arraigned as ff gross violation of a 
 sacred pledge;" "as a criminal betrayal of pre- 
 cious rights;" and the report denounced as "a 
 mere invention, designed to cover up from public 
 reprehension meditated bad faith." 
 
 The Missouri compromise was "infamous," 
 in their estimation, so long as it remained upon 
 the statute-book and was carried out in good 
 faith, as a means of preserving the peace of the 
 country and preventing the slavery agitation in 
 Congress. But it suddenly became "a sacred 
 pledge," a " solemn compact for the preservation 
 of precious rights," tlie moment they had suc- 
 ceeded in preventing its faithful execution and in 
 causing it to be abandoned when it ceased to be 
 an impregnable barrier against slavery agitation 
 and sectional strife. The bill against which the 
 liue and cry was raised, and the crusade preached, 
 did not contain a word about the Missouri com- 
 promise, nor in any manner refer to it. It simply 
 allowed the people of the Territory to legislate 
 for themselves on all rightful subjects of legisla- 
 tion, and left them free to form and regulate their 
 domestic institutions in their own way, subject 
 only to the Constitution. So far as the Missouri 
 act, or any other statute, might be supposed to 
 conflict with this right of self-government in the 
 Territories, it was, by inference, rendered null 
 and void to that extent, and for no other purpose. 
 Several weeks afterwards, when a doubt was sug- 
 gested whether, under the bill as it stood, the 
 people of the Territory would be authorized to 
 exercise this right of self-government upon the 
 slavery question, during the existence of the terri- 
 torial gover7unent, an amendment was adopted, on 
 
 my motion, for the sole and avowed purpose of 
 removing that doubt and securing that right, in 
 accordance whh the compromise measures of 
 1850, as stated by me and reported in the debates 
 at the time. The amendment will be found in the 
 fourteenth section of the act, and is as follows: 
 
 "That the Constitution and all laws of the United States 
 which are not locally inapplicable, shall have the same 
 force and efl'ect within the said Territory of Nebraska as 
 elsewhere within the United States, except the eighth sec- 
 tion of the act preparatory to the admission of Missouri 
 into the Union, approved March 6, 1830, which, being incon- 
 sistent mlh the principle of nonintervention hy Congress with 
 slavery in the Stales and Territories, as reco(3nized by the 
 LEGISLATION OF 1850, comiuonly called the compromise 
 measures, is hereby declared inoperative and void ; it being 
 the true intent and meaning of this act not to legislate sla- 
 very into anj' Territory or State, nor to exclude it there- 
 from, but to leave the people thereof perfectly free to form 
 and regulate their domestic institutions in their own way, sub- 
 ject only to the Constitution of the United States." 
 
 In my opinion this amendment did not change 
 the legal effect of the bill as reported by the com- 
 mittee. Its object was to render its meaningcer- 
 tain, by removing all doubts in regard to the 
 right of the people to exercise the privileges of 
 self-govern ipent on the slavery question, as well 
 as all others consistent with the Constitution, dur- 
 ing their territorial condition, as well as when 
 they should become a State. From that day to 
 this, there has been a fierce and desperate struggle 
 between the supporters and opponents of the ter- 
 ritorial policy inaugurated under the auspices of 
 Mr. Clay, in 1850, and affirmed in the Kansas- 
 Nebraska act in 1854 — the one to maintain and 
 the other to overthrow the principle of non-inter- 
 vention and popular sovereignty, as the settled 
 policy of the government in reference to the or- 
 ganization of Territories, and the admission of 
 new States. This sketch of the origin and prog- 
 ress of the slavery agitation as an element of polit- 
 ical power and partisan warfare, covers the entire 
 period from the organization of the Federal Gov- 
 ernment under the Constitution, in 1789, to the 
 present, and is naturally divided into three parts: 
 
 First. From 1789, when the Constitution went 
 into operation, to 1819-20, when the Missouri 
 controversy arose, the Territories were all organ- 
 ized upon the basis of non-intervention by Con- 
 gress with the domestic affairs of the people, and 
 especially upon the question of African slavery. 
 During the whole of this period, domestic tran- 
 quillity and fraternal feeling prevailed. 
 
 Second. From 1820, when the Missouri com- 
 promise was adopted, to 1848 and 1850, when it 
 was repudiated and finally abandoned, all theTer-- 
 ritories were organized with reference to the policy 
 of an equitable partition between the two sections 
 upon the line of 36° 30'. During this period 
 there was no serious difficulty upon the territorial 
 question, so long as the Mis.souri compromise 
 was adhered to, and carried out in good faith. 
 
 Third. From 1850, when the original doctrine 
 of non-intervention, asit prevailed during the first 
 thirty years, was reestablished as the policy of 
 the Governmentinthe organization of Territories, 
 and the admission of new States, to the present 
 time, there has been a constant struggle, except 
 for a short interval, to overthrow atid repudiate 
 the policy and principles of the compromise meas- 
 
6 
 
 ures of 1850, for the purpose of returning to the 
 old doctrine of congressional intervention for the 
 prohibition of slavery in all the Territories, south 
 as well as north of the Missouri line, regardless 
 of the wishes and condition of the people inhab- 
 iting the country. 
 
 In view of these facts, I feel autliorized to re- 
 affirm the proposition with whicli I commenced 
 my remarks, that wheni;ver the Federal Govern- 
 ment lias attempted to control the slavery ques- 
 tion in our newly-acquired Territories, alienation 
 of feeling, discord, and sectional strife, have en- 
 sued; and whenever Congress has refrained from 
 such interference, peace, harmony, and good will, 
 have returned. The conclusion I draw from these 
 
 E remises is, that the slavery question should be 
 anished forever from the IJalls of Congress and 
 the arena of Federal politics by an irrepealable 
 constitutional provision. I have deemed this ex- 
 position of the origin and progress of the slavery 
 agitjition essential to a full comprehension of the 
 difficulties with which wc are surrounded, and the 
 remedi(,'S for the evils which threaten the disrup- 
 tion of the Republic. The immediate causes 
 which have precipitated the southern country into 
 revolution, although inseparably connected with, 
 and flowing from, the slavery agitation, whose 
 history I have portrayed, are to be found in the 
 result of the recent presidential election. I hold 
 that the election of any man, no matter who, by 
 the American people, according to the Constitu- 
 tion, furnishes no cause, no justification, for the dis- 
 solution of the Union. But we can not close our eyes 
 to the fact that the southern people have received 
 the result of that election as Uirnisliing conclusive 
 evidence that the dominant party of the North, 
 which is soon to take possession of the Federal 
 Government under that election, are determined to 
 invade and destroy their constitutional rights. Be- 
 lie ving that their domes tic institutions, their hearth- 
 stones, and theirfamily altars, areall to be assailed, 
 at least by indirect means, and that the Federal 
 Government is to be used for the inauguration of 
 aline of policy which shall have for its object the 
 ultimate extinction of slavery in all the States, old 
 as well as new, south as well as north, the south- 
 ern people are prepared to rush wildly, madly, as 
 I think, into revolution, disunion, war, and defy 
 the consequences, whatever they may be, rather 
 than to wait for the develojiment of events, or sub- 
 mit tami ly to what they think is a fatal blow im- 
 pending over them and over all they hold dear on 
 earth. It matters not, so far as We and the peace 
 of the country and the fate of the Union are con- 
 cerned, whether these apprehensions of the south- 
 ern people are real or imaginary, wlnjther they 
 arc well founded or wholly without foundation, 
 80 long as they believe them and arc determined 
 \toa<-,tupon them. The Si'iiator from Ohio, [Mr. 
 Wadk,] whose speech was reciivid witli so much 
 vorby his political friends the othi.-rday, referred 
 ',hese s<'rious apprehensions, and acknowledged 
 belief that the southern peoph; were laboring 
 ^^ the conviction that they wtTi; well founded. 
 \as kind enough to add that he did not blame 
 \uthern )ieople much lor what they were 
 yider this fatal misapprehi.'nsion-, but cast 
 Je blame upon the northern Democracy; 
 
 and referred especially to his colleague and my- 
 self, for having misrepresented and falsified the 
 purposes and policy of the Republican party, and 
 for having made the southern people believe our 
 misrepresentations ! He does not blame the south- 
 ern people for acting on their honest convictions 
 in resorting to revolution to avert an impending 
 but imaginary calamity. No; he does not blame 
 thorn, because they believe in the existence of the 
 danger; yet he will do no act to undeceive them; 
 will take no step to relieve their painful apprehen- 
 sions; and will furnish no guarantees, no security 
 against the dangers which they believe to exist, 
 and the existence of which he denies; but, on the 
 contrary, he demands unconditional submission, 
 threatens war, and talks about armies, navies, and 
 military force, for the purpose of preserving the 
 Union and enforcing the laws ! I submit whether 
 this modeof treating the question is not calculated 
 to confirm the worst apprehensions of the south- 
 ern people, and force tiiem into the most extreme 
 measures of resistance ! 
 
 I regret that the Senator from Ohio, or any 
 other Senator, should have deemed it consistent 
 with his duty, under present circumstances, to 
 introduce partisan politics, and attempt to man- 
 ufacture partisan cajiital out of a question involv- 
 ing the peace and safety of the country. I re- 
 peat what I have said on another occasion, that, 
 if I know myself, my action will be influenced 
 by no partisan considerations, until we shall have 
 rescued the country from the perils which envi- 
 ron it. But since the Senator has attempted to 
 throw the whole responsibility of the presenldif- 
 ficulties upon the northern Democracy, and has 
 charged us with misrepresenting and falsifying 
 the purposes and policy of the Republican party, 
 and thereby deceiving the southern people, 1 feel 
 called upon to repel the charge, and snow that itis 
 without a shadow of foundation. No man living 
 would rejoice more than myself in the convic- 
 tion, if I could only be convinced of the fact, that 
 1 have misunderstood, and consequently misrep- 
 resented, the policy and designs of the Repub- 
 lican party. Produce the evidence and convince 
 me of my error, and I will take more pleasure in 
 making the correction and repairing the injustice, 
 than I ever have taken in denouncing what I 
 believed to be an unjust and ruinous policy. 
 
 With the view of ascertaining whether I have 
 tnisappreliended or misrepresented the policy and 
 purposes of the Republican party, I will now in- 
 quire of the Senator, and yield the floor for an 
 answer: whether il is not the policy of his party 
 to confine slavery within its present limits by the 
 action ofthe Federal Government? Wheiherthey 
 do not intend to abolish and prohibit .slavery by 
 act of Congress, notwithstanuing the decision of 
 the Supreme Court to the contrary, in all the Ter- 
 ritories we now possess, or may hereafter acquire.' 
 Whether he and his party are in favor of return- 
 ing to their master the fugitive slaves that may 
 I scape.- In short, I will give the Senator an op- 
 iiortuniiv now to say 
 
 Mr. WADE. Mr. President 
 
 Mr. DOUGLAS. One other question, and 1 
 will give way. 
 
 Mr. WADE. Very well. 
 
Mr. DOUGLAS. I will give the Senator an 
 opportunity of saying now whether it is not the 
 policy of his party to exert all the powers of the 
 Federal Government under the Constitution, ac- 
 cording to their interpretation of the instrument, 
 to restrain and cripple the institution of slavery, 
 with a view to its ultimate extinction in all the 
 States, old as well as new, south as well as 
 north. 
 
 Are not these the views and purposes of the 
 party, as proclaimed by their leaders, and under- 
 stood by the people, in speeches, addresses, ser- 
 mons, newspapers, and public meetings? Now, 
 I will hear his answer. 
 
 Mr. WADE. Mr. President, all these ques- 
 tions are most pertinently answered in the speech 
 the Senator is professing to answer. I have noth- 
 ing to add to it. If he will read my speech, he 
 will find my sentiments upon all those questions. 
 
 Mr. DOUGLAS. Mr. President, 1 did not 
 expect an unequivocal answer. I know too well 
 that the Senator will not deny that each of these 
 interrogatories do express his individual policy 
 and the policy of the Republican party as he un- 
 derstands it. 1 should not have propounded the 
 interrogatories to him if he had not accused me 
 and the northern Democracy of having misrepre- 
 sented the policy of the Republican party, and 
 with having deceived the southern people by such 
 misrepresentations. The most obnoxious senti- 
 ments I ever attributed to the Republican party, 
 and that not in the South, but in northern Illi- 
 nois and in the strongholds of Abolitionism, was 
 that they intended to exercise the powers of the i 
 Federal Government with a view to the ultimate ' 
 extinction of slavery in tlie southern States. I ] 
 have expressed my belief, and would be glad to j 
 be corrected if I am in error, that it is the policy | 
 of that party to exclude slavery from all the Ter- | 
 ritories we now possess or may acquire, with a j 
 view of surrounding the slave States with aj 
 cordon of abolition States, and thus confine the j 
 institution within such narrow limits that, when ! 
 the number increases beyond the capacity of the 
 soil to I'aise food for their subsistence, the insti- 
 tution must end in starvation, colonization, or 
 servile insurrection. I have often exposed the 
 enormities of this policy, and appealed to the 
 people of Illinois to know whether this mode of 
 getting rid of the evils of slavery could be justi- 
 fied in the name of civilization, humanity, and 
 Christianity.' I have often used these arguments 
 in the strongest abolition portions of the North; 
 but never in the South. The truth is, I have al- 
 ways been very mild and gentle upon the Repub- 
 cans when addressing a southern audience; for it 
 seemed ungenerous to say behind their backs, 
 and where they dare not go to reply to me, those 
 things which 1 was in the habit of saying to their 
 faces, and in the presence of their leaders, where 
 they were in the majority. 
 
 But inasmuch as I do not get a direct answer 
 from the Senator who makes this charge against 
 the northern Democracy, as to the purposes of 
 that party to use the power of the Federal Gov- 
 ernment under their construction of the Consti- 
 tution, with a view to the ultimate extinction of 
 slavery in the States, I will turn to the record of 
 
 their President elect, and see what he says on that 
 subject. The Republicans have gone to the trouble 
 to collect and publish in pamphlet form, under the 
 sanction of Mr. Lincoln, the debates which took 
 place between him and myself in the senatorial 
 canvass of 1858. It may not he improper here 
 to remark that this publication is unfair towards 
 me, for the reason that Mr. Lincoln personally 
 revised and corrected his own speeches, without 
 giving me an opportunity to correct the numerous 
 errors in mine. Inasmuch as the publication is 
 made under the sa)iction of Mr. Lincoln himself, 
 accompanied by a letter from him that he has 
 revised the speeches by verbal corrections, and 
 thereby approved them, it becomes important to 
 show what his views are, since he is in the daily 
 habit of referring to those speeches for his present 
 opinions. 
 
 Mr. Lincoln was nominated for United States 
 Senator by a Republican State convention at 
 Springfield in June, 1858. Anticipating the nom- 
 ination, he had carefully prepared a written 
 speech, which he delivered on the occasion, and 
 which, bv order of the convention, was published 
 among the proceedings as containing the platform 
 of principles upon which the canvass was to be 
 conducted. More importance is due to this speech 
 than to those delivered under the excitement of 
 debate in joint discussions by the e. " -'^'■ies of 
 the contest. The first te./ '-agraphs wnicn 1 
 will now read, may be taken ^ i fair statement 
 of his opinion and feelings upon the slaV y ques- 
 tion. Mr. Lincoln said: / ' 
 
 " Mr. President and Gentlemen of the Con- jntion, if we 
 could first know where we are and whither we arc tend- 
 ing, we could better judge what to do and how to do it. 
 We are now far into the tiftli year since a policy was initi- 
 ated with the avowed object and confident promise of put- 
 ting an end to slavery agitation. Under the operation of 
 that policy, that agitation ha.< not only not ceased, but has 
 constantly augmented. It my opinion, it will not cease 
 until a crisis siiall have been reached and passed. A house 
 divided against itself cannot stand ! I believe this Govern- 
 ment cannot endure permanently half slave and half free. 
 I do not expect the Union to be dissolved — 1 do not expect 
 the house to fall— but I do expect it will cease to be divided. 
 It will become all one thing or all the other. Either the 
 opponents of slavery will arrest the further spread of it, and 
 place it where the public mind shall rest in the belief that it 
 I is in the course of ultimate extinction, or its advocates will 
 I push it forward, till it shall alike become lawful in all the 
 States, old as well as new, North as well as South." 
 
 There you are told by the President elect that 
 this Union cannot permanently endure divided 
 into free and slave States; that these States must 
 all become free or all slave, all become one thing 
 or all become the other; that this agitation will 
 never cease until the opponents of slavery have 
 restrained its expansion, and have placed it where 
 the public mind will be satisfied that it will be in 
 the course of ultimate extinction. Mark the lan- 
 guage: 
 
 " Either the opponents of slavery will arrest tlie further 
 spread of it .•"' 
 
 We are now told that the object of the Repub- 
 lican party is to prevent the extension of slavery. 
 What did Mr. Lincoln say ? That the opponents 
 of slavery must first prevent the further spread 
 of it. But that is not all. What else must they 
 do.' 
 
 " And place it where the public mind can rest in the be- 
 lief that it is in the course of ultimate extinction." 
 
 1 
 
8 
 
 The ultimate extinction of slavery, of which 
 Mr. Lincoln was then speaking, related to the 
 States of this Union. He had reference to the 
 southern States of this Confederacy; for, in the 
 next sentence, he says that the States must all 
 become one thing or all the other — " old as well 
 as new, north as well as south" — showing that 
 he meant that the policy of the Republican party 
 was to keep up this agitation in the Federal Gov- 
 ernment until slavery in the States was placed in 
 the process of ultimate extinction. Now, sir, 
 when the Republican committee liave published 
 an edition of Mr. Lincoln's speeches containing 
 sentiments like these, and circulated it as a cam- 
 paign document, is it surprising that the people 
 of the South should suppose that he was in earn- 
 est, and intended to carry out the policy which 
 he had announced.' 
 
 I regret the necessity which has made it my 
 duty to reproduce these dangerous and revolu- 
 tionary opinions of the President elect. No con- 
 sideration could have induced me to have done 
 so but the attempt of his friends to denounce the 
 policy which Mr. Lincoln has boldly advocated, 
 as gross calumnies upon the Republican party, 
 antl as base inventions by the northern Democ- 
 racy to excite rebellion in the southern country. 
 I should like to find one Senator on that side of 
 the Chamber, in the confidence of the President 
 elect, who will liave the hardihood to deny that 
 Mr. Lincoln stands pledged by his public speeches, 
 to which he now refers constantly as containing 
 his present opinions, to carry out the policy indi- 
 cated in the speech from which I have read. I 
 take great pleasure in saying, however, that I do 
 not believe the rights of the South will mate- 
 rially suffer under the administration of Mr. Lin- 
 coln. I repeat what I have said on another oc- 
 casion, that neither he nor his party will have 
 the power to do any act prejudicial to southern 
 rights and interests, if the Union shall be pre- 
 served, and the southern States shall retain a full 
 delegation in both Houses of Congress. With a 
 ma jorityagainst them in this body an din the House 
 of Iloprcsentatives, they can do no act, except to 
 enforce the laws, without the consent of those to 
 whom the South has confided her interests, and 
 even his appointments for that purpose are subject 
 to our advice and confirmation. Besides, I still in- 
 dulge the hope that when Mr. Lincoln shall as- 
 sume thchigli respoMsil)ilities which will soon de- 
 volve upon him, he will be fully impressed with the 
 necessity of sinking the politician in the states- 
 man, the partisan in the patriot, and regard the 
 obligations which he owes to his country as para- 
 mount to those of his party. In view of these 
 Vconsidcrations, I had indulged the fond hope that 
 people'of the southern States would have been 
 pntent to remain in the Union and defend their 
 
 i^hts under the Constitution, instead of rushing 
 
 lly into revolution and disunion, as a refuge 
 
 apprehended dangers which may not exist. 
 
 \t this apprehension has berome wide-spread 
 
 Xeep-seuteil in the southern ]>eon|e. It has 
 
 Viossession of the southern mind, sunk deep 
 
 southern heart, and filled them with the 
 
 that their firesides, their family altars, 
 
 lomestic institutions, are to be ruthlessly 
 
 assailed through the machinery of the Federal 
 Government. The Senator from Ohio says he 
 does not blame you, southern Senators, nor the 
 ; southern people, for believing those things; and 
 yet, instead of doing those acts which will relieve 
 your ap])rehensions, and render it impossible that 
 your rights should be invaded by Federal power 
 under any Administration, he threatens you with 
 : war, armies, military force, linder pretext of en- 
 ' forcing the laws and preserving the Union. We 
 are told that the authority of the Government must 
 be vindicated; that the Union must be j^reserved; 
 that rebellion must be put down; that insurrec- 
 tions must be suppressed, and the laws must 
 be enforced. I agree to all this. I am in favor 
 of doing all these things according to the Consti- 
 ' tution and laws. No man will go further than I 
 ! to maintain the jiist authority of the Government, 
 ; to preserve the Union, to put down rebellion, to 
 ' suppress insurrection, and to enforce the laws. I 
 ■ would use all the powers conferred by the Con- 
 stitution for this purpose. But, in the perform- 
 ance of these importantand delicate duties, it must 
 be borne in mind that those powers only must be 
 used, and such measures employed, as are au- 
 thorized by the Constitution and laws. Things 
 should be called by the right names; and facts, 
 whose existence can no longer be denied, should 
 ' be acknowledged. 
 
 Insurrections and. rebellions, although unlaw- 
 ful and criminal, Irequently become successful 
 revolutions. The strongest Governments and 
 proudest nionarchs on earth have often been re- 
 duced to the humiliating necessity of recognizing 
 the existence of Governments </e facto, although 
 not </e jure, in their rtlVolted Stales and provinces, 
 when rebellion has ripened into successful revo- 
 lution, and the national authorities have been ex- 
 pelled from their limits. In such cases the right 
 to regain possession and exact obedience to the 
 laws remains; but the exercise of that right is 
 war, and must be governed by the laws of weir. 
 Such was the relative condition of Great Britain 
 and the American colonies for seven years after 
 the Declaration of Independence. The rebellion 
 had progressed and matured into revolution, with 
 a Government de facto, and an army and navy to 
 defend it. Great Britain, regarding the complaints 
 of thecolonies unfounded, refused to yield to their 
 demands, and proceeded to reduce them to obe- 
 dience; not by the enforcement of the laws, but 
 by military force, armies and navies, according 
 to the rules and laws of war. Captives taken in 
 battle with arms in their hands, fighting against 
 Great Britain, were not executed as traitors, but 
 held as prisoners of war, and exchanged accord- 
 ing to the usages of civilized nations. The laws 
 of nations, the principles of humanity, of civiliza- 
 tion, and Chrislianily.demanded that the Govern- 
 ment de facto should he acknowledged and treated 
 as such. While the right to pro.secnte war for the 
 purpose of reducing the revolted jirovinccs to obe- 
 dience still remained, yet it was a military remedy, 
 and ciiiild only be exercised according to the es- 
 tablished principles of war. 
 
 It is said that, after one of the earliest engagc- 
 mints, the British general threateiiid to execute 
 as traitors all the prisoners he had u-iken in bat- 
 
 r 
 
9 
 
 tie; and tlmt General "Washington replied that he, 
 too, had taken some prisoners, and would shoot 
 two for one until the British general should re- 
 spect the laws of war, and treat his prisoners ac- 
 cordingly. May Divine Providence, in His in- 
 finite wisdom and mercy, save our country from 
 the humiliation and calamities which now seem 
 almost inevitable! South Carolina has already 
 declared her independence of the United States; 
 has expelled the Federal authorities from her 
 limits, and established a Government de facto, 
 with a military force to sustain it. The revolu- 
 tion is complete, there being no man within her 
 limits who denies the authority of her govern- 
 ment or acknowledges allegiance to that of the 
 United States. There is every reason to believe 
 that seven other States will soon follow her ex- 
 ample; and much ground to apprehend that the 
 other slaveholding States will follow them. 
 
 How are we going to prevent an alliance be- 
 tween these seceding States by which they may 
 establish a Federal Government, at least de facto, 
 for themselves.' If they shall do so, and expel 
 the authorities of the United States from their 
 limits, as South Carolina has done, and others 
 are about to do, so that there shall be no human 
 being within their boundaries who acknowledges 
 allegiance to the United States, how are we going 
 to enforce the laws ? Armies and navies can make 
 w^ar, but cannot enforce laws in this country. 
 The laws can be enforced only by the civil author- 
 ities, assisted by the military as a posse cmnitatus, 
 when resisted in executingjudicial process. Who 
 is to issue the judicial process in a State where there 
 is no judge, no court, no judicial functionary .' 
 Who is to perform the duties of marshal in execut- 
 ing the process where no man will or dare accept 
 office .' Who are to serve on juries while every 
 citizen is particeps criminis with the accused .' How- 
 are you going to comply with the Constitution in 
 respect to a jury trial, where there are no men qual- 
 ified to serve on the jury -^ I agree that the laws 
 should be enforced. 1 hold that our Government is 
 clothed with the power and duty of using all the 
 means necessary to the enforcement of the laws, 
 according to the Constitution and lau's. The Presi- 
 dent is sworn to the faithful performance of this 
 duty. 1 do not propose to inquire, at this time, how 
 far, and with what fidelity, the President has per- 
 formed that duty. His conduct and duty in this 
 regard, including acts of commission and omis- 
 sion, while the rebellion was in its incipient stages, 
 and when confined to a few individuals, present 
 a very different question from that which we are 
 now discussing — after the revolution has become 
 complete, and the Federal authorities have been 
 expelled, and the Governments dc facto put into 
 practical operation, and in the unrestrained and 
 unresisted exercise of all the powers and functions 
 of Government, local and national. 
 
 Bat we are told that secession is wrong, and 
 that South Carolina had no right to secede. I 
 agree that it is wrong, unlawful, unconstitutional, 
 criminal. In my opinion. South Carolina had no 
 right to secede; but she has done it. She has 
 declared her independence of us, effaced the last 
 vestige of our civil authority, established a for- 
 eign Government, and is now engaged in the 
 
 preliminary steps to open diplomatic intercourse 
 with the great Powers of the world. What next .' 
 If her act was illegal, unconstitutional, and wrong, 
 have we no remedy.' Unquestionably we have 
 the right to use all the power and force necessary 
 to regain possession of that portion of the United 
 States, in order that we may again enforce our 
 Constitution and laws upon the inhabitants. We 
 can enforce our laws in those States, Territories, 
 and places only which are within our possession. 
 It often happens that the territorial rights of a 
 country extend beyond the limits of their actual 
 possessions. That is our case at present in re- 
 spect to South Carolina. Our right of jurisdic- 
 tion over that State for Federal purposes, accord- 
 ing to the Constitution, has not been destroyed or 
 impaired by the ordinance of secession, or any 
 act of the convention, or of the de facto govern- 
 ment. The right remains; but the possession is 
 lost, for the time being. " How shall we regain 
 the possession .'" is the pertinent inquiry. It may 
 be done by arms, or by a peaceable adjustment 
 of the matters in controversy. 
 
 Arc xce prepared for ivar ? I do not mean that 
 kind of preparation which consists of armies and 
 navies, and supplies, and munitions of war; but 
 are we prepared in our hearts for war with our 
 own brethren and kindred.' I confess I am not. 
 While I affirm that the Constitution is, and was 
 intended to be, a bond of perpetual Union; while 
 I can do no act and utter no word that will ac- 
 knowledge or countenance the right of secession; 
 while I affirm the right and duty of the Federal 
 Government to use all legitimate means to enforce 
 the laws, put down rebellion, and suppress in- 
 surrection, I will not meditate war, nor tolerate 
 the idea, until every eftort at peaceful adjustment 
 shall have been exhausted, and the last ray of 
 hope shall have deserted the patriot's heart. Then, 
 and not till then, will I consider and determine 
 what course my duty to my country may require 
 me to pursue in such an emergency. In my opin- 
 ion, war is disunion, certain, inevitable, irrevoca^ 
 ble. I am for peace to save the Union. 
 
 I have said that I cannot recognize nor counte- 
 nance the right of secession. Illinois, situated in 
 the interior of the continent, can never acknowl- 
 edge the right of the States bordering on the seas 
 to withdraw from the Union at pleasure, and form 
 alliances among themselves and with other coun- 
 tries, by which we shall be excluded from all access 
 to the ocean, from all intercourse and commerce 
 with foreign nations. We can never consent to be 
 shut up within the circle of a Chinese wall, erected 
 and controlled by others without our permission; 
 or to any other system of isolation by which we 
 shall be deprived of any communication with the 
 rest of the civilized world. Those States which 
 are situated in the interior of the continent can 
 never assent to any such doctrine. .Our rights, 
 our interests, our safety, our existence as a free 
 people, forbid it! The northwestern States were 
 ceded to the United States before the Constitution 
 was made, on condition of perpetual union with 
 the other States. The Territories were organ- 
 ized, settlers invited, lands purchased, and homes 
 made, on the pledge of your plighted faith of per- 
 petual union. 
 
10 
 
 When there were but two hundred thousand I 
 
 inhabitants scattered over tliat vast region, the 
 navigation of the Mississippi was deemed by Mr. 
 Ji.'fferson so important and i>sseiuial to their in-! 
 terests and prosperity, that he did not hesitate to i 
 declare that if Spain or France insisted upon re- 
 tainins; possession of the mouth of that river, it 
 would become the duty of the United States to take 
 it by arms, if they failed to acquire it by treaty. 
 If the possession of that river, with jurisdiction j 
 over its mouth and channel, was indispensable to | 
 the people of the Northwest when we luid two j 
 hundred thousand inhabitants, is it reasonable to , 
 suppose that we will voluntarily surrender it now j 
 when we have ten million people r Louisiana was 
 not purchased for the exclusive benefit of the few 
 Spanish and French residents in the territory, 
 nor for those who might become residents. These 
 considerations did not enter into the negotiations 
 and formed no inducement to the acquisition. 
 Louisiana was purchased with tlie national treas- 
 ure, for the common benefit of the whole Union 
 in general, and for the safety, convenience, and 
 prosperity of the Northwest in particular. We 
 paid $15,000,000 for the territory. We have ex- 
 pended much more than that sum in the extin- 
 guishment of Indian titles, the removal of Indians, 
 tliesurveyof lands, the erection of custom-houses, 
 light-houses, forts, and arsenals. We admitted 
 the inhabitants into the Union on an equal foot- 
 ing with oursi.lvcs. Now we are called upon to 
 aaknowledge the moral and constitutional right 
 of those people to dissolve the Union without the 
 consent of the other States; to seize the forts, 
 arsenals, and other public properly, and appro- 
 priate them to their own use; to take possession 
 of the Mi.ssissippi river, and exercise jurisdiction 
 over the same, and to reannex herself to France, 
 or remain an independent nation, or to form alli- 
 ances with such other foreign Powers as she, in 
 the plenitude of her sovereign will and pleasure, 
 may see fit. If this thing is to be done — peaceably, 
 if you can; and forcibly, if you must — all I pro- 
 pose to say at this time is, that you cainiot exj)eot 
 us of the Northwest to yield our assent to it, nor 
 to acknowledge your right to do it, or the pro- 
 priety and justice of the act. 
 
 The respectful attention with which my friend 
 from Florida [Mr. Yulee] is listening to me, re- 
 minds nil' that his State furnishes an apt illustra- 
 tion of this modern doctrine of secession. We 
 paid five million for the Territory. We expended 
 marvelous sums in subduing the Indians, extin- 
 guishing Indian titles, removal of Indians beyond 
 her borders, surveying the lands, building light- 
 houses, navy-yards, forts, and arsenals, wiili un- 
 told millions fortlie never-ending Florida claims. 
 I assure my friend that I do not refer to these 
 things in an offensive sense, for he knows how 
 much respect I have for him, anil has not forgot- 
 ten my elforts in tlie House many years ago, to 
 secure the admission of his State into the Union, 
 in order that he miglit represent her, as he has 
 since done with so much ability and fidelity, in 
 this body. But 1 will say that it never occurred 
 to me at that time that the SuUe whosi; admission 
 into th<; Union 1 was advocating would be one of 
 the first to join in a scheme to break up the Union. 
 
 I submit it to him whether it is not an extraordi- 
 nary spectacle to see that Siiite, which has cost us 
 so much blood and treasure, turn her back on the 
 Union which has fostered and protected her when 
 she was too feeble to protect her.self, and seize 
 the light-houses, navy-yards, forts, and arsenals, 
 I which, although within her boundaries, were 
 erected with national funds, for the benefit and 
 defense of the whole Union. 
 
 I do not know that I can find a more striking 
 , illustration of this doctrine of secession than was 
 suggested to my mind when reading the Presi- 
 dent's last annual message. My attention was 
 first arrested by the remarkable passage, that the 
 I Federal Government had no power to coerce a 
 State back into the Union if she did secede; and 
 my admiration was unbounded when I found, a 
 few lines afterwards, a recommendation to appro- 
 priate money to purchase the island of Cuba. It 
 occurred tome instantly, whata brilliantachieve- 
 ment it would be to pay Spain <POO,000,000 for 
 Cuba, and immediately admit the island into the 
 , Union as a Stiite, and let iK'r secede and reannex 
 herself to Spain the next day, when the Spanish 
 Q.ueen would be ready to sell the island again for 
 half price, or double price, according to the gul- 
 I libility of the purchaser! [Laughter.] 
 
 During my service in Congress it was one of 
 
 my pleasant duties to take an active part in the 
 
 annexation of Texas; and at a subsequent session 
 
 ' to write and introduce the bill which made Trxas 
 
 one of the States of the Union. Out of that an- 
 
 ; nexation grew the war with Mexico, in whicli we 
 
 expended $100,000,000; and were left to mourn the 
 
 , loss of about ten thou.sand as gallant men as ever 
 
 ■ died upon a battle-field for the honor and glory of 
 
 j their country I We have since spent nullions of 
 
 money to protect Texas airainst her own Indians, 
 
 i to establisit forts and t'ortifications to protect her 
 
 I frontier settlements, and to defend her against the 
 
 assaults of all enemies until she became strong 
 
 enough to protect herself We are now called 
 
 upon to acknowledge that Texas has a moral, 
 
 just, and constitutituial right to rescind the act of 
 
 I admission into the Union; repudiate her ratifica- 
 
 ; tion of the resolutions of annexatitni; seize the 
 
 forts and public buildings which w<^re constructed 
 
 j with our money; appropriate the same to her own 
 
 ; use, and leave us to pay $100,000,000 and mourn 
 
 ', the death of the brave men who sacrificed their lives 
 
 ! in defending the integrity of her soil. In the name 
 
 1 of Hardin, and Bissell, and Harris, and of the 
 
 seven thousand gallant .spirits from Illinois, who 
 
 tought bravely upon every battlt^-field of Mexico, 
 
 I protest against the right of Texas to separate 
 
 herself from this Union without our consent. 
 
 Mr. HEMPHILL. Mr. President, if the Sen- 
 ator from Illinois will allow me, I will inquire 
 whether there were no other causes assigned by 
 the United Stjites for the war with Mexico than 
 simply the defense of Texas ? 
 
 Mr. DOU(jL.\S. I will answer the question. 
 Wc undoubtedly did assign other acts as being 
 causes for war, which had existed for years, if 
 we had chosen to treat them so; but we did not 
 go to war for any othercause than the annexation 
 of Texas, as is shown in the act of Congress rec- 
 ognizing the existence of war with Mexico, in 
 
 jL^ 
 
11 
 
 which it is declared that " war exists by tiie act 
 of the Republic of Mexico." The sole cause of 
 grievance which Mexico had against us, and for 
 which she commenced the war, was our annexa- 
 tion of Texas. Hence, none can deny that the 
 Mexican war was solely and exclusively the re- 
 sult of the annexation of Texas. 
 
 Mr. HEMPHILL. I will inquire further, 
 whether the United States paid anything to Texas 
 for the annexation of her three hundred and sev- 
 enty thousand square miles of territory, and 
 whether the United States has not got |,500,y00,000 
 by the acquisition of California through thai war 
 with Mexico. 
 
 Mr. DOUGLAS. Sir, we did not pay any- 
 thing for bringing Texas into the Union; for we 
 did not get any of her lands, except that we pur- 
 chased from her some poor lands afterwards, 
 which she did not own, and paid her ^10,000,000 
 for them. [Laughter.] But we did spend blood 
 and treasure in the acquisition and subsequent de- 
 fense of Texas. 
 
 Now, sir, I will answer his question in respect 
 to California The treaty of peace brought Cal- 
 ifornia and New Mexico into the Union. Our 
 people moved there, took possession of the lands, 
 settled up the country, and erected a State of 
 which the United Slates have a right to be proud. 
 We have expended millions upon millions for 
 fortifications in California, and for navy-yards, 
 and mints, and public buildings, and land sur- 
 veys, and feeding the Indians, and protecting her 
 people. I believe the public land sales do not 
 amount to more than one tenth of the cost of the 
 surveys, according to the returns that have been 
 made. It is true that the people of California 
 have dug a large amount of gold (principally out 
 of the lands belonging to the United States) and 
 sold it to us; but I am not aware that we are un- 
 der any more obligations to them for selling it to 
 us, than they are to us for buying it of them. 
 The people of Texas, during the same time, have 
 probably made cotton and agricultural produc- 
 tions to a much larger value, and sold some of it 
 to New England, and some to Old England. I 
 suppose the benefits of the bargain were recip- 
 rocal, and the one was under just as much obli- 
 gation as the other for the mutual benefits of the 
 sale and purchase. 
 
 The question remains, whether, after paying 
 $15,000,000 for California — as the Senator from 
 Texas has called my attention to that State — and 
 perhaps as much more in protecting and defend- 
 ing her, she has any moral, constitutional right to 
 annul the compact between her and the Union, 
 and form alliances with foreign Powers, and leave 
 us to pay the cost and expenses? I cannot rec- 
 ognize any such doctrine. In my opinion, the 
 Constitution was intended to be a bond of perpet- 
 ual Union. It begins with the declaration in the 
 preamble, thalit is made in order " to form a more 
 perfect Union," and every section and paragraph 
 in the instrument implies perpetuity. It was in- 
 tended to last for ever, and was so understood 
 when ratified by the people of the several States. 
 New York and Virginia have been referred to a.s 
 having ratified with the reserved right to withdraw 
 or secede at pleasure. This is a mistake. The 
 
 correspondence between General Hamilton and 
 Mr. Madison, at the time, is conclusive on this 
 point. After Virginia had ratified the Constitu- 
 tion, General Hamilton, who was a member of 
 the New York convention, wrote to Mr. Madison 
 that New York would probably ratify the Con- 
 stitution for a term of years, and reserve the right 
 to withdraw after that lime, if certain amendments 
 were not sooner adopted; to which Mr. Madison 
 replied that such a ratification would not make 
 New York a member of the Union; that the rat- 
 ification must be unconditional, t?i toto and forever, 
 or not at all; that the same question was consid- 
 ered at Richmond, and abandoned when Virginia 
 ratified the Constitution . Hence, the declaration of 
 Virginia and New York, that they had not sur- 
 rendered the right to resume the delegated pow- 
 ers, must be understood as referring to the right 
 of revolution, which nobody acknowledges more 
 freely than I do, and not to the right of secession. 
 j The Constitution being made as a bond of per- 
 petual Union; its framers proceeded to provide 
 against the necessfties of revolution , by prescribing 
 the mode in which it might be amended; so that 
 if, in the course of time, the condition of the coun- 
 try should so change as to require a different 
 fundamental law, amendments might be made 
 peaceably, in the manner prescribed in the instru- 
 ment; and thus avoid the necessity of ever resort- 
 ingto revolution. Having provided for a perpetual 
 Union, and for amendments to the Constitution, 
 they next inserted a clause for admitting new 
 States, but no provision for the urithdrawal of 
 any of the other States. I will not argue the 
 question of the right of secession any further than 
 to enter my protest against the whole doctrine. 
 I deny that there is any foundation for it in the 
 Constitution, in tlie nature of the compact, in the 
 principles of the Government, or in justice, or in 
 good faith. 
 
 Nor do I sympathize at all in the apprehensions 
 and misgivings I hear expressed about coercion. 
 We are told thai inasmuch as our Governmentis 
 founded upon the will of the people, or the consent 
 of the governed, therefore coercion is incompatible 
 with republicanism. Sir, the word government 
 means coercion. There can be no Government 
 without coercion. Coercion is the vital principle 
 upon v/hich all Governments rest. Withdraw the 
 right of coercion, and you dissolve your Govern- 
 ment. If every man would perform his duty and 
 respect the rights of his neighbors voluntarily, 
 there would be no necessity for any Government 
 on earth. The necessity of government is found 
 to consist in the fact that some men will not do 
 right unless coerced to do so. The object of all 
 government is to coerce and compel every man 
 to do his duty, who would not otherwise perform 
 it. Hence I do not subscribe at all to this doc- 
 trine that coercion is not to be used in a free Gov- 
 ernment. It must be used in all Governments, no 
 matter what their form or what their principles. 
 
 But coercion must always be used in the mode 
 prescribed in the Constitution and laws. I hold 
 that the Federal Government is, and ought to be, 
 clothed with the power and duty to use all the 
 means necessary to coerce obedience to all laws 
 made in pursuance of the Constitution. But the 
 
12 
 
 proposition to subvert the de facto government restored, tlie rio;hts of the States maintained, and 
 of South Carolina, and to reduce the people of tlie Union rendered secure. One of them — one to 
 that State into subjection to our Federal author- ■ which I can cordially assent — has been presented 
 ity, no longer involves the question of enforcing ; by the venerable Senator from Kentucky, [Mr. 
 the laws in a country within our possession; but Crittenden.] The journal of the committee of 
 
 it does involve the question whether we will make 
 war on a State which has withdrawn her alle-' 
 giance and expelled our authorities, with a view 
 of subjecting her to our possession for the pur- 
 pose of enforcing our laws within her limits. [ 
 We are bound, by the usages of nations, by the 
 laws of civilization, by the uniform practice of i 
 our own Government, to acknowledge the ex- 
 istence of a Government de facto, so long as it 
 maintains its undivided authority. When Louis 
 Philippe fled from the throne of France, and 
 
 thirteen shows that I voted for it in committee. 
 I am prepared to vote for it again. I shall not oc- 
 cupy time now in discussing the question whether 
 my vote to make a partition between the two sec- 
 tions, instead of referring the question to the peo- 
 ple, mnII be consistent with my previous record 
 or not. The country has no very great interest 
 in my consistency. The preservation of tliis 
 Union, the integrity of this Republic, is of more 
 importance than party platforms or individual 
 records. Hence I have no hesitation in sayin 
 
 Lamartine suddenly one morning found himself i to Senators on all sides of this Chamber, that 
 
 ! 
 
 the head of a provisional Government, I believe 
 it was but three days until the American minister 
 recognized the Government de facto. Texas was 
 a Government dc facto, not recognized by Mexico, 
 when we annexed her; and Mexico was a Gov- 
 ernment de facto, not recognized by Spain, when 
 Texas revolted. The laws of nations recognize 
 Governments de facto where they exercise and 
 
 am prepared to act on this question with reference 
 to the present exigencies of the case, as if I had 
 never given a vote, or uttered a word, or had an 
 opinion upon the subject. 
 
 Why cannot you Republicans accede to the 
 reestablishment and extension of the Alissouri 
 compromise line .' You have sung peans enough 
 In its ])raise, and uttered imprecations and curses 
 
 maintain undivided sway, leaving the question of | enough on my head for its repeal, one would 
 their autiiority de jure to be determined by the ' think, to justify you now in claiming a triumph 
 people interested in the Government. Now, as ] by its reestablishment. If you are willing to give 
 a man who loves the Union, and desires to see j up your party feelings — to sink the partisan in 
 it maintained forever, and to see the laws enforced, ; the patriot — and help me to reestablish and ex- 
 and rebellion put down, and insurrection sup- ! tend thatline.asaperpetual bondof peace between 
 pressed, 'and order maintained, I desire to know the North and the South, I will promise you never 
 of my Union-loving friends on the other side of to remind you in the future of your denunciations 
 the Chamber how they intend to enforce the laws of the Missouri compromise so long as I was 
 in the seceding Sti\tes, except by making war, | supporting it, and of your praises of the same 
 conquering them first, and administering the laws j measure when we removed it from the statute- 
 in them afterwards. | book, after you had caused it to be abandoned, 
 
 In my opinion, we have reached a point where j by rendering it impossible for us to carry it out. 1 
 disunion is inevitable, unless some compromise, seek no partisan advantage; I desire no personal tri- 
 founded upon mutual concession, can be made. I i umph. 1 am willing to let by-gones be bygones 
 prefer compromise to war. I prefer concession | with every man who, in this exigency, will show 
 to a dissolution of the Union. When I avow my- I by his vote that he loves liis country more than 
 self. in favor of compromise, I do not mean that his party. 
 
 one side should give up all that it has claimed, 
 nor that the other side should give up everything 
 for wlWch it has contended. Nor do I ask any 
 man to come to my standard; but I simply say , 
 that I will meet every one halfway who is will- 
 
 I presented to the committee of thirteen, and 
 also introduced into the Senate, another plan by 
 which the slavery question may be taken out of 
 Congress and the peace of the country maintained. 
 It is, that Congress shall make no law on the sub- 
 
 ing to preserve the peace of the country, and save 'ject of slavery in tlie Territories, and that the 
 
 the Union from disruption upon principles of | existing status of each Territory on that subject, 
 
 compromise and concession. | as it now stands by law, shall remain unchanged 
 
 In my jiulgmi'nt, no system of compromise can j until it lias fifty thousand inhabitants, when it 
 
 be etTectualand permanent which does not banish shall have the right of self-government as to its 
 
 the slavery question from the Halls of Congress domestic policy; but with only a Delegate in each 
 
 and the arena of Federal politics, by irrepealable House of Congress until it has the population 
 
 constitutional provision. We have tried com- ! required by the Federal ratio for a Rtpresenta- 
 
 promises by law, compromises by act of Con- ' tive in Congress, when it shall be admitted into 
 
 gress; and now we are engagi'd in the small busi- the Union on an equal footing with the original 
 
 ness of crimination and recrimination, as to who States. I put the number of inhabitants at fifty 
 
 is responsible for not having lived up to them in ] thousand before the people of the Territory shall 
 
 good faith, and for having broken faith. I want ! change the status in respect to slavery as a fair 
 
 whatevi?r compromise is agreed to, placed lieyond com|iromise between the conflictingopinionsupon 
 
 the reach of party politics and partisan policy, thissubject. The Iwooxtremes, North and South, 
 
 by being made irrevocable in the Constitution unite in condemning the doctrine of po]Hilar sov- 
 
 itself, so that every man that liolds ofiice will be I ereignty in the Territories upon the ground that 
 
 bound by his oath to support it. ! the first few settlers ought not to be permitted to 
 
 There are several modes in which this irritating decide so important a question for those who are 
 
 question may be withdrawn from Congress, pence to come after them. 1 have never considered that 
 
13 
 
 objection well taken, for the reason that no Terri- 
 tory should be organized with the right to elect a 
 Legislature and make its own laws upon all right- 
 ful subjects of legislation, until it contained a suf- 
 ficient population to constitute a political com- 
 munity; and whenever Congress should decide 
 that there was a suificient population, capable of 
 self-government, by organizing the Territory, to 
 govern themselves upon all other subjects, I could 
 never perceive any good reason why the same 
 political community should not be permitted to 
 decide the slavery question for themselves. 
 
 But, since we are now trying to compromise 
 our difficulties upon the basis of mutual conces- 
 sions,! propose to meet both extremes halfway, 
 by fixing the number at fifty thousand. This 
 number, certainly, ought to be satisfactory to 
 those States which have been admitted into the 
 Union with less than fifty thousand inhabitants. 
 Oregon, Florida, Arkansas, Mississippi, Alaba- 
 ma, Ohio, Indiana, and Illinois, were each admit- 
 ted into the Union, I believe, with less than that 
 number of inhabitants. Surely the Senators and 
 Representatives from those States do not doubt 
 that fifty thousand peo]ile were enough to consti- 
 tute apolitical community capable of deciding the 
 slavery question for themselves. I now invite 
 attention to the next proposition. i 
 
 In order to allay all apprehension, North or i 
 South, that territory would be acquired in the 
 future for sectional or partis£in purposes, by adding 
 a large number of free States on the North, or j 
 slave States on the South, with the view of giving j 
 the one section or the other a dangerous political 
 ascendency, I have inserted the provision that 
 " No more territory shall be acquired by the 
 United States, except by treaty or the concurrent \ 
 vote of two thirds in each House of Congress." 
 If this provision should be incorporated into the [ 
 Constitution, it would be impossible for either 
 section to annex any territory without the con- 
 currence of a large portion of the other section; 
 and hence there need be no apprehension that any 
 territory would hereafter be acquired for any 
 other than such national considerations as would ! 
 commend the subject to the approbation of both j 
 sections. j 
 
 I have also inserted a provision confining the 
 right of suffrage and of holding office to white | 
 men, excluding the African race. I have also ; 
 inserted a provision for the colonization of fi'ee i 
 negroes from such States as may desire to have ' 
 them removed, to districts of country to be ac- ; 
 quired in Africa and South America. In addition 
 to these, I have adopted the various provisions ' 
 contained in the proposition of the Senator from ', 
 Kentucky, in reference to fugitive slaves, the i 
 abolition of slavery in the forts, arsenals, and 
 dock-yards in the slave States and in the District 
 of Columbia, and the other provisions for the ■ 
 safety of the South. I believe this to be a fair: 
 basis of amicable adjustment. If you of the Re- j 
 publican side are not willing to accept this, nor 
 the proposition of the Senator from Kentucky, I 
 [Mr. Crittenden,] pray tell us what you are 
 willing to do.' I address the inquiry to the Re- 1 
 publicans alone, for the reason that in-tlie com- 
 mittee of thirteen, a few days ago, every member [ 
 
 from the South, including those from the cotton 
 States, [Messrs. Toombs and Davis,] expressed 
 their readiness to accept the proposition of my 
 venerable friend from Kentucky [Mr. Critten- 
 den] as a final settlement of the controversy, if 
 tendered and sustained by the Republican mem- 
 bers. Hence, the sole responsibility of our dis- 
 agreement, and the only difficulty in the way of 
 an amicable adjustment, is with the Republican 
 party. 
 
 At first, I thought your reason for declining to 
 adjust this question amicably, was that the Con- 
 stitution, as it stands, was good enough, and that 
 you would make no amendment to it. That po- 
 sition has already been waived. The great leader 
 of the Republican party, [Mr. Seward,] by the 
 unanimous concurrence of his friends, brought 
 into the committee of thirteen a proposition to 
 amend the Constitution. Inasmuch, therefore, 
 as you are willing to amend the instrument, and 
 to entertain propositions of adjustment, why not 
 go further, and relieve the apprehensions of the 
 southern people on all points where you do not 
 intend to operate aggressively.' You ofter to 
 amend the Constitution, by declaring that no fu- 
 ture amendments shall be made which shall em- 
 power Congress to interfere with slavery in the 
 States .' 
 
 Now, if you do not intend to do any other act 
 prejudicial to thcirconstitutional rightsand safely, 
 why not relieve their^apprehensions by inserting, 
 in your own proposed amendment to the Consti- 
 tution, such further provisions as will, in like 
 manner, render it impossible for you to do that 
 which they apprehend you intend to do, and 
 which you have no purpose of doing, if it be true 
 that you have no such purpose .' For the purpose 
 of removing the apprehensions of the southern 
 people, and for no other purpose, you propose to 
 amend the Constitution, so as to render it impos- 
 sible, in all future time, for Congress to interfere 
 with slavery in the States where it may exist 
 under the laws thereof. Why not insert a similar 
 amendment in respect to slavery in the District 
 of Columbia, and in the navy-yards, forts, arse- 
 nals, and other places within the limits of the 
 slaveholding Stales, over which Congress has 
 exclusive jurisdiction.' Why not insert a similar 
 provision in respect to the slave trade between 
 the slaveholding States .' The southern people 
 have more serious apprehensions on these points 
 than they have of your direct interference with 
 slavery in the States. 
 
 If their apprehensions on these several points 
 are groundless, is it not a duty you owe to God 
 and your country to relieve their anxiety and re- 
 move all causes of discontent.' Is. there not quite 
 as much i-eason for relieving their apprehensions 
 upon these points, in regard to which they are 
 much more sensitive, as in respect to your direct 
 interference in the Slates, where they know and 
 you acknowledge that you have no power to in- 
 terfere as the Constitution now stands.' The fact 
 tiiat you propose to give the assurance on the one 
 point and peremptorily refuse to give it on the 
 others, seems to authorize the presumption that 
 you do intend to use the powers of the Federal 
 Government for tlie purpose of direct interference 
 
14 
 
 with slavery and the slave trade every wliere else, 
 with the view to its indirecteffects upon slavery in 
 the Slates; or, in liie lang;uage of Mr. Lincoln, 
 with the view of its " ultimate extinction in all the 
 States,oldas well as new, north as well as south." 
 
 If you had exhausted your ingenuity in devis- 
 ing a plan for the express purpose of increasing 
 the apprehensions and inflaming the passions of 
 thesouthern people, with the view of driving them 
 into revolution and disunion, none could have 
 been contrived better calculated to accomplish the 
 object than the offering of that one amendment to 
 the Constitution, and rejecting all others which 
 are infinitely more important to the safety and 
 domestic tranquillity of the slaveholding States. 
 
 In my opinion, we have now reached a point 
 where this agitation must close, and all the mat- 
 ters in controversy be finally determined by con- 
 stitutional amendments, or civil war and tiio dis- 
 ruption of the Union are inevitable. My friend 
 from Oregon, [Mr. Baker,] who has addressed 
 the Senate for the last two days, will fail in his 
 avowed purpose to " evade" the question. He 
 claims to he liberal and conservative; and I must 
 confess that he seems the most liberal of any 
 gentleman on that side of the Chamber, always 
 excepting the noble and patriotic speech of liie 
 Senator from Connecticut, [Mr. Dixos-;] and the 
 utmost extent to which the Senator from Oregon 
 would consent to go, was to devise a scheme 
 by which the real question at issue could be 
 evaded. 
 
 1 regret the determination, to which I appre- 
 liend the Republican Senators have come, to make 
 no adjustment, entertain no proposition, and 
 listen to no compromise of the matters in contro- 
 versy. 
 
 I fear, from all the indications, that thry are dis- 
 
 Eosed to treat the matter as a parly qui'slion, to 
 e determined in caucus with reference to its 
 effects upon the prospects of their parly, rather 
 than upon the peace of the country and the safety 
 of the Union. I invoke their delibi.-rale judgnniii 
 whether it is not a dangerous experiment for any 
 political party to demonstrate to the American 
 people that the unity of their party is dearer to 
 them than the Union of these States. The argu- 
 ment is, that the Chicago platform having been 
 ratified by the people in a majority of the Slates 
 must be maintained at all hazards, no matter what 
 the consequences to the country. I insist that i 
 they are mistaken in the fact when they assert ' 
 that this question was decided by the American ! 
 people in the late election. The American [nople ' 
 have not decided that they preferred the disruption ' 
 of this Government, and civil war with all its hor- 
 rors and miseries, to surrendering one iola of the j 
 Chicago platform. If you believe that the people [ 
 are with you on this issue, let the rjuestion be sub- 
 mitted to the people on the proposition offered by i 
 the Senator from Keniucky, or mine, or any other 
 fair compromise, and I will venture the prediction 
 that j'oiir own people will ratify the proposed 
 amendments to the Constitution, in order to take | 
 this shivery agitation out of Congress, and re-' 
 store peace. to the country, and insure the pcrpo-! 
 tuily of the Union. 
 
 Why not give the people a chance.' It is an ' 
 
 ' important crisis. There is now a different issue 
 ' presented from that in the presidential election. I 
 have no doubt that the people of Mas.sachusetts, 
 by an overwhelming mnjoriiv, are in favor of a 
 prohibition of slavery in the Territories by an act 
 of Congress. An overwhelming majority of the 
 same peo[)le were in favor of the in.siani prohibi- 
 tion of the African slave trade, on moral and re- 
 ligious grounds, when the Constitution was made. 
 When ihey found that the Constitution could not 
 be adopted and the Union preserved, withoutsur- 
 rendeniig their objections on the slavery question, 
 they, in the spirit of patriotism and of Christian 
 feeliiiir, preferred the lesser evil to the greater, and 
 ratified the Constitution without their favorite pro- 
 vision in regard to slavery. Give them a chance 
 to decide now between the ratification of these 
 proposed amendments to the Constitution and the 
 consequences which your policy will inevitably 
 produce. 
 
 Why not allow the people to pass on these ques- 
 tions .' All we have to tlo is to submit them to 
 the States. If the people reject them, theirs will 
 be the responsibility, and no harm will have been 
 done by tlie reference. If they accept them, the 
 country will be safe, and at peae.e. The political 
 [larty which shall refuse to allow the people to 
 determine for themselves at the ballot-box the 
 issue between revolution and war on the one side, 
 and obstinate adherence to a party platform on the 
 other, will assume a fearful responsibiliij'. A 
 war upon a politicjil issue, wageil by the people 
 of eighteen Stales against the p<ople and domestic 
 institutions of fifteen sister States, is a fearful and 
 revolting thought. The South will bi- a unit, and 
 desperate, under the belief that your object in 
 waging war is their destructiim, and not the pres- 
 ervation of the Union; that you meditale servile 
 insurrection, and the abolition of slavery in the 
 southern Stales, by fire and sword, in the name 
 and under pretext of enforcing the laws and vin- 
 dicating the authority of the Government. You 
 know thai such is the prevailing, and, I may aay. 
 unanimous opinion at the South; and that ten 
 million |)eo[di' arc preparing for the terrible con- 
 llict under ihat conviction. 
 
 When there is such an irrepressible discontent 
 jierxading ten million people, jienetrating the 
 bosom of every man, wt)man, and child, and, in 
 their estimation, involvingeverylhing that is val- 
 uable and dear on earth, is it not time to pause 
 and reflect whether there is not some cause, real 
 or imaginary, for apprehension.-' If there be a 
 just cause for it, in God's name, in the name of 
 huinanity and civilization, h-t it be removed. 
 Will we not be guilty, in the sight of Heaven 
 and of posterity, if we do not remova all just 
 cause before proceeding to extremities? If, on 
 the contrary, there bv no real fouiulation for 
 these apprehensions; if it be all a mistake, and 
 yet they, believing it to be a solemn reality, are 
 determined to act on that belief, is it not equally 
 our duly to ri'movi- the misapprehension ? Henc<; 
 the obligation to remove tin; causes of discontent, 
 whethtu- real or iuitiginary, is alike imperative 
 upon us, if we wish to preserve the peace of the 
 couiitiy and the Union of the Slates. 
 
 It matters not, so far as the peace of the cotm- 
 
 V 
 
15 
 
 try and the preservation of the Union are con- 
 cerned, whether the apprehensions of the soutlicrn 
 people are well founded or not, so long as they 
 believe them, and arc determined tO act upon that 
 belief. If war comes, it must have an end at some 
 time; and that termination, I apprehend, will be 
 a final separation. _ Whether the war last one year, 
 seven years, or thirty years, the result must be 
 the same — a cessation of hostilities when the 
 parties become exhausted, and a treaty of peace 
 recognizing the separate independence of each 
 section. The history of the world does not fur- 
 nish an instance, where war has raged for a series 
 of years between two classes of States, divided by 
 a geographical line under the same national Gov- 
 ernment, which has ended in reconciliation and 
 reunion. Extermination, subjugation, or separa- 
 tion, one of the three, must be the result of war 
 between the northern and southern States. Surely, 
 you do not expect to exterminate or subjugate 
 ten million people, the entire population of one 
 section, as a means of preserving amicable rela- 
 tions between the two sections ! 
 
 I repeat, then, my solemn conviction, that war 
 means disunion — final, irrevocable, eternal sepa- 
 ration. I see no alternative, therefore, but a fair 
 compromise, founded on the basis of mutual con- 
 cessions, alike honorable, just, and beneficial to 
 all parties, or civil war and disunion. Is there 
 anything humiliating in a fair compromise of 
 conflicting interests, opinions, and tlieories, for 
 the sake of peace, union, and safety? Read the 
 debates of the Federal convention, which formed 
 our glorious Constitution, and you will find noble 
 examples, worthy of imitation; instances where 
 sages and patriots were willing to surrender cher- 
 ished theories and principles of government, be- 
 lieved to be essential to the best form of society, 
 for the sake of peace and unity. 
 
 I never understood that wise and good men 
 ever regarded mutual concessions by such men 
 as Washington, Madison, Franklin, and Hamil- 
 ton, as evidences of weakness, cowardice, or want 
 of patriotism. On the contrary, this spirit of 
 
 conciliation and compromise has ever been con- 
 sidered, and will in all time be regarded as the 
 highest evidence which their great deeds and im- 
 mortal services ever furnished of their patriotism, 
 wisdom, foresight, and devotion to their country 
 and their race. Can we notafford to imitate their 
 example in this momentous crisis ? Are we to be 
 told that we must not do our duty to our country 
 lest we injure the party; tliat no compromise can 
 be eflfectcd without violating the party platform 
 upon which we were elected r Better that all party 
 platforms be scattered to the winds; better that 
 all political organizations be broken up; better 
 that every public man and politician in America be 
 consigned to political martyrdom, than that the 
 Union be destroyed and the country plunged into 
 civil war. 
 
 It seems that party platforms, pride of opinion, 
 personal consistency, fear of political martyrdom, 
 are the only obstacles to a satisfactory adjustment. 
 Have we nothing else to live for but political po- 
 sition? Have we no other inducement, no-other 
 incentive to our efiorts, our toils, and our sacri- 
 fices? Most of us have children, the objects of 
 our tenderest affections and deepest solicitude, 
 whom we hope to leave behind us to enjoy the 
 rewards of our labors in a happy, prosperous, 
 and united country, under the best Government 
 the wisdom of man ever devised or the sun of 
 heaven ever shone upon. Can we make no con- 
 cessions, no sacrifices, for the sake of our children , 
 that they may have a country to live in, and a 
 Go vernment to protect them, when party platforms 
 and political honors shall avail us nothing in the 
 day of final reckoning? 
 
 In conclusion, I have only to renew the assur- 
 ance that I am prepared to cooperate cordially 
 with the friends of a fair, just, and honorable 
 compromise, in securing such amendments to the 
 Constitution as will expel the slavery agitation 
 from Congress and the arena of Federal politics 
 forever, and restore peace to the country, and pre- 
 serve our liberties and Union as the most precious 
 legacy we can transmit to our posterity. 
 
 Printed at the oflice of the Con^ressiona] Globe. 
 
 n f 
 
LIBRftRY OF CONGRESS 
 
 001 441 618 3