f ) 
 

.. 
 

 j 
 

 SPEECH 
 
 O F 
 
 R. E. SCOTT OF FAUQUIER tf ^ 
 
 3Sm 
 
 O N 
 
 CERTAIN RESOLUTIONS 
 
 TOUCHING 
 
 THE ACTION OF CONGRESS 
 
 ON THE 
 
 SUBJECT OF SLAVERY. 
 
 Delivered in the House of Delegates of Virginia, 
 
 ON THE 11th DAY OF JANUARY 1849. 
 
 RICHMOND: 
 
 PRINTED BY SHEPHERD AND COLIN 
 1849. 
 
s 
 
 
 x. 'o^ 
 
 V 6~S~f 3 
 
\ 
 
 td 
 
 SPEECH 
 
 The resolutions reported by the joint committee on the Wilmot pro- 
 viso and other kindred measures, being under consideration, 
 
 Mr. SCOTT said : 
 
 I think I have reason to complain of intolerance towards me on this 
 floor. Scarcely had the gentleman from Spottsylvania, the mover of 
 the resolutions, spoken ten minutes to his subject, when the gentleman 
 from Stafford arrests his remarks, and deprecating discussion, in that 
 solemn manner he so well knows how to assume, declares that he 
 will feel surprise if the resolutions are assailed from any quarter; and 
 this, too, after the determined opposition which in every stage of then- 
 progress I have evinced. I am not blind to the purpose of the move- 
 ment. I know the force of the argument of numbers, potent with all, 
 it is controlling with some, and I feel its effects in the diminished 
 ranks of those with whom I stand on this occasion. 
 
 On a former day I notified the house that when the resolutions re- 
 ported by the committee should be called up, I would move, as a sub- 
 stitute for them, those which I then submitted for their consideration. 
 Both sets of resolutions were printed, and after much time taken for 
 examination, the friends of this action, dissatisfied with their tenor, 
 called together the members of both branches of the assembly in free 
 conference, and another set of resolutions were reported to the house, 
 which, we were told, were to be moved as a substitute for the report 
 of the committee. 
 
 But scarcely had this been done, and a day fixed for the considera- 
 tion of the subject, when the house, dissatisfied still with the manner 
 in which the work was done, raised a second committee to which, in 
 conjunction with a committee of the senate, the whole matter was re- 
 ferred, to be reported upon by this day ; and we have now before us, 
 in the resolutions just read by the clerk, the opinion of the joint com- 
 mittee as to the shape which our action should finally take. 
 
 All these propositions differed very essentially from that which I 
 submitted. And I regret that after the maturest reflection I feel myself 
 unable to yield my approbation to either of the three. Whilst they 
 differ in some respects from each other, and manifest a disposition 
 on the part of the majority to retreat from the extreme ground assumed 
 in the first series, there are, yet, certain vices common to them all, that 
 preclude the possibility of my concurrence in them, and make it my 
 duty, in the discharge of the trust here confided to me, to offer against 
 their adoption the most earnest opposition. 
 
4 
 
 That whatever I may say will prove unavailing I am prepared to ex- 
 pect, for circumstances too clearly indicate a foregone determination on 
 the part of the majority to embrace those vices despite of any warn- 
 ing that can be given of the evil consequences to result from the heed- 
 less course. 
 
 Valiant in the security that numbers afford, gentlemen freely boast 
 of the majority anticipated for the favoured resolutions. The purpose 
 of this boasting was obvious to all ; for one, I freely acknowledge its 
 power ; but when such an appliance was used to force through a fa- 
 vourite measure, we may be exeused a suspicion of its justice and 
 truth. If the intention is to deter me from the opposition which I 
 contemplate, the result will shew how fruitless of its end the attempt 
 will be. Whilst I deeply regret my separation, on this occasion, from 
 other members on this floor, and deplore the necessity of opposition to 
 their wishes, my resolution has never faltered ; the path of duty lies 
 plainly before me, and I will pursue its way if I tread that path alone. 
 I see in the resolutions what I deem vicious, and against its vices I 
 raise my voice. 
 
 I am not much in favour of state action on subjects committed by 
 the constitution to federal authority. The federal and state govern- 
 ments are parts of one system, and it is necessary for the harmonious 
 action of the whole, that the several parts which compose it should 
 revolve strictly within their appropriate orbits; any departure from 
 these will bring about collision, by which the safety of the system 
 must be endangered. It is only by the auxiliary agency of the state 
 governments that it is found practicable for a common government to 
 embrace so wide a space. It is this feature in the system which illus- 
 trates the wisdom of its founders, and most conduces to the success 
 which attends it. 
 
 The constitution is sacredly obligatory upon us all, and respect for 
 its authority is a duty enjoined by the fundamental principle of true 
 liberty. There are occasions, however, when I recognize the ] 
 of state action on subjects which become matter of federal 
 When the common government transcends its authority, and 
 ful of its high trusts, meditates assaults upon rights it was ex 
 protect; and to accomplish its ends either usurps a power no. gn 
 by the constitution, or practises abuse of one entrusted to its exercise, 
 the auxiliary agencies were justified in passing under review the action 
 of the former, pointing out the evils which threaten to ensue from it, 
 and sounding the alarm if the danger seemed imminent. 
 
 The spirit of party is amongst the strongest passions of our nature, 
 and seems to be inseparable from our political relations ; we see it daily 
 controlling the action of individuals and masses: under its influence, 
 men are elevated in total disregard of their fitness, and measures em- 
 braced in opposition to the plainest dictates of policy and interest: its 
 tendency is always to excess; and in its rank growth it will be ever 
 found the worst enemy of free government. "When sectional prejudice 
 shall invigorate its strength., and geographical discriminations denote par- 
 tics, the days of our union will be numbered. The strongest attach- 
 ment for the confederacy will not be proof against a despotism which 
 
will administer the government upon sectional principles. When the 
 accident of birth in a northern or southern clime, and the habits of 
 thought dependent upon it, shall determine the fitness for the honours 
 of office ; when one part of the country shall see itself cut off from 
 participation in the beneficence of a common legislation, and the whole 
 power of government made to subserve the purposes of prejudice and 
 fanaticism ; when through these agencies rights are assailed that our 
 union was designed to protect, and what was intended as a shield 
 against wrong shall be converted into an instrument of aggression 
 against rights, the great purpose of the confederacy will be lost to our 
 hopes. 
 
 I indulge in no vain hope that the spirit of party can ever be banished 
 from the people of this country. It is inseparable from our nature, 
 interwoven with our habits of thought, in one form or another in- 
 fluencing every act of our lives. But I see no reason to doubt that 
 occasions will arise when the good sense of the country will rebuke 
 its excesses. 
 
 It was not to be disguised that there was a strong tendency at the 
 present day to organize parties upon a geographical division. The 
 presidential canvass presented an inviting occasion for the manifesta- 
 tion of that morbid sensibility on the subject of slavery so extensively 
 felt in both sections of the country, and the diversity of opinion and 
 interest touching it, unhappily existing amongst us, furnished an ele- 
 ment too strong to be neglected in the struggle of parties for the suc- 
 cess of their chiefs. The extension of our jurisdiction over the terri- 
 tories conquered from Mexico, naturally directed public attention to this 
 topic, and in the progress of the canvass, every appliance by which 
 misdirected religious zeal, prejudice, fanaticism, or a sense of medita- 
 ted assaults upon vested rights could be inflamed, was used for the tri- 
 umph of party. From the centre to its extremities, in every part of 
 the land, the institution of slavery was canvassed before the public. 
 To the southern states the design was attributed of opening in the 
 conqui ed territories a new mart for their slaves by forcing domestic 
 upon an unwilling people ; and the free states, it was said, were 
 ed as the instruments by which the tyranny was to be accom- 
 The course of some of our southern politicians, unfortunate- 
 ly, gave countenance to the accusation. The two great parties, in the 
 persons of their candidates for the first office in the gift of the people, 
 presented individuals residing in opposing sections, natives of those 
 places, identified with the interests peculiar to their localities, and in- 
 vested with the prejudices which belonged to their birth. The success 
 of the southern candidate was well calculated to arouse into activity 
 the disappointed adherents of the defeated party, and the excited state 
 of the public mind seemed propitious for the formation of new combi- 
 nations whereby future success might be achieved by the prepondera- 
 ting strength of the free states. 
 
 In contemplating this condition of things, he must be blind, indeed, 
 who does not see its principal cause in the overshadowing power of the 
 federal executive. The enormous patronage so long exercised by that 
 department has given to it an influence that is seen and felt in every 
 
extremity of this wide confederacy ; it invades the hustings and con- 
 trols elections: the free bestowal of it upon the representatives in 
 congress has well nigh overpowered the legislature, and aided by the 
 licentious use of the power of the veto, threatens to make the incum- 
 bent of that office master of the country. Congress, to a great extent, 
 has ceased to b.e looked to for measures of legislation ; the opinion of 
 the president of the expediency of this or that measure is every where 
 the absorbing topic of discussion. And so accustomed has the country 
 become to extraordinary acts of executive power, such absolute domi- 
 nion has its influence obtained over the public mind, that opposition is 
 hardly excited at the palpable subversion of the most fundamental 
 principles of the constitution. Every act, however enormous, is sure 
 to find its ready apologist. An honourable senator from our own state, 
 last session, boldly declared in the senate of the United States, that 
 there were two canons of construction by which the meaning of the 
 constitution was to be arrived at — one applicable to the grants of power 
 to the legislative, the other to the executive branch. The former was 
 made to square with the utmost rigour of the strictest construction, 
 whilst the latter contained every element of elasticity that could sa- 
 tiate the desire of the most ardent supporter of executive prerogative. 
 In the necessity that invented the legal anomaly of two rules of con- 
 struction for the same instrument, we can be at no loss to see the ex- 
 traordinary usurpations of the federal executive in the progress of our 
 difficulties with Mexico. 
 
 It ought not therefore to occasion surprise, that the feeling excited 
 by the recent conflict of parties should manifest itself in the halls of 
 legislation. 
 
 It was but the ground swell that followed the storm, indicating a 
 quiet of the elements of strife, and the subsidence of the agitation pro- 
 duced by their rage. Such, unquestionably, it would prove to be, if mo- 
 deration, patriotism and good sense governed our conduct. So many 
 and such strong motives conspired to cement our Union, that it was 
 madness to think of dissolution. 
 
 The effect of a geographical division of parties was so evident that 
 it could not escape the most careless observer, and surely there were 
 sufficient moderation and patriotism in the country to escape its peril. 
 
 For the existence of this peril, candour compelled us to admit the 
 south had its full share of responsibility. The earliest influence of 
 sectional character that invaded the halls of congress, was to be seen 
 in the opposition of the southern states to a system of legislation 
 ■whereby domestic industry was to be fostered in its infancy, and chan- 
 nels of communication opened for trade. This opposition, proceed- 
 ing from the belief that the benefits from the system would mainly 
 accrue to the northern states, was avowedly based upon sectional con- 
 siderations. 
 
 Southi m politicians propagated the opinion that our interests in the 
 n were antagonistic. 
 
 I fpon the subject of slavery, too, a full share of blame will be found 
 at our own door; northern fanaticism has been met by an undue ex- 
 citability at the south — an excitability ever tending to excesses, and 
 
impelling us into disadvantageous and untenable positions. We in- 
 sisted at one time that abolition petitions should not be received ; this 
 was immediately construed into a denial by congress of the sacred 
 right of petition itself, and a subversion of the constitution, which se- 
 cured it to all classes. That great excitement sprung from it, adding 
 large numbers to the misguided petitioners, is in the recollection of us 
 all. Now we are denying the constitutional authority of congress to 
 take cognizance of slavery in the territories — a denial of authority to 
 a municipal legislature, for congress stands in that relation to the ter- 
 ritories, to legislate upon what is at once the most obvious and inte- 
 resting subject of municipal regulation — a denial, too, in the face of 
 an unbroken series of precedents from the earliest days of the repub- 
 lic to the present moment — in the face of repeated and solemn recog- 
 nitions of the power by all the constituted authorities of the govern- 
 ment and the people. Is such a position tenable? Will the free states 
 surrender a power so long exercised, and thus solemnly recognized? 
 With their fixed opinions on the subject of slavery, will they tamely 
 surrender this power when the aggressive spirit of the day, inflamed, . 
 not satisfied, by what it seizes, is seeking boundless expansions of our 
 territorial limits? Will they who regard domestic slavery as an evil, 
 nay as a curse, the greatest perhaps with which a people can be af- 
 flicted, submit to be made the instruments of visiting this curse upon 
 others ? It is in vain to hope it, absurd to believe it, and if the Union 
 be put at hazard upon this, its blessings will be lost. 
 
 The resolutions under consideration rashly proposed this hazard. I 
 object to them for that reason. I cannot say, as they require, that con- 
 gress has no power under the constitution to prohibit the introduction 
 of slavery into the newly acquired territories. Mr. Monroe, it is said, 
 took the opinion of his cabinet on this question, and they unanimous- 
 ly advised that congress possessed the power. The distinguished se- 
 nator from South Carolina, it is known, was a member of that cabinet. 
 They proceed upon an unsound construction of the constitution, 
 and declare a principle impairing its force. Before taking our seats in 
 this assembly we severally took an oath to support the constitution of 
 the United States. We will violate that oath in passing these resolu- 
 tions. 
 
 The second of the series is supposed to contain an unanswerable ar- 
 gument in support of the controverted position. All territories are de- 
 clared to be the "joint and common property of the several states, in 
 which each and all have equal rights." Regarding the territories as 
 properly, if by these expressions it is meant to assert that the several 
 states have equal rights therein, the assertion is untrue. Delaware has 
 not an equal right of property with Virginia. In their separate corpo- 
 rate capacities the states have no rights of property whatever in the 
 territories — they are without the means of enjoying such rights — their 
 jurisdiction and laws extend not beyond their own defined limits. 
 These rights accrue to them as members of the confederacy, and are 
 held by each in subordination to the authority of all. It is by virtue 
 of this authority that territories are acquired, and it belongs to the 
 same authority to dispose of the acquisition, and to define and regulate 
 
8 
 
 the rights of the several members therein. There is no other autho- 
 rity competent to do this; it results from the necessity of the case. 
 
 The power to acquire and dispose of a territory, to define and regu- 
 late the rights of the several parties to the acquisition, involves necessa- 
 rily the power to govern it, for in no other way can the possession and 
 use be enjoyed. Congress is the appointed agent for the exercise of this 
 power; its jurisdiction is exclusive, and, save the prohibitions of the 
 constitution, there is no limit to its extent. That among its powers is 
 that of legislation, all admit. What is the nature of this power? To 
 what subject does it rightly extend, and to what does it not extend? 
 Being the municipal legislature, is it a complete legislature ? Is the 
 introduction or exclusion of domestic slavery into a community a legi- 
 timate subject of legislation ? The advocates of the resolutions will 
 find it impossible to furnish satisfactory answers to these questions. 
 Conceding the power itself, they must concede the question of slavery 
 to fall legitimately within its scope. 
 
 It is immaterial to enquire from what particular source congress de- 
 rives the power, whether from the express authority to dispose of and 
 make needful rules and regulations concerning the territories, or from 
 the war making and treaty powers, or from both — its possession is ad- 
 mitted. The legislative authority of congress in the territories has the 
 same extent that the legislative power of the state legislatures has in 
 the states — each embraces all powers in their nature legislative, not 
 prohibited by the constitution. 
 
 Is there, then, any thing in the constitution which prohibits congress 
 from legislating in the territories on the subject of slavery? If there 
 be, in what article is it contained ? It will puzzle the sagacity of the 
 advocates of this action to point it out. 
 
 They say it is a constructive prohibition, arising from the nature of 
 the trust which the power involves. The states are " cestuis que 
 trust" and congress their trustee, and in the condition of the " cestuis 
 que trust" is supposed to be found the limitation on the power of 
 the trustee. If slavery be prohibited, it is said, the citizens of the 
 slave states will be excluded from the territories, and thus a portion of 
 the states will be deprived of the benefit of the trust. This depriva- 
 tion is contrary to the purposes of the trust, in derogation from the 
 rights of the beneficiaries under it, and in violation of the authority of 
 the trustee, and so, it is argued, an act of congress having this effect 
 would be unconstitutional. 
 
 But suppose the condition of the " cestuis que trust'' be changed, 
 what will then become of the limitation on the power? If the south- 
 ern states emancipate their slaves, the condition out of which the limi- 
 tation springs will no longer exist, and " cessante rationc cessat el issa 
 lex." It would then result that the constitutional power of congress 
 would be directly affected by local legislation, and the constitution be 
 made to confer or prohibit the power according to the discretion of 
 particular states, which is absurd. 
 
 Again, a limitation implied for the benefit of a portion of the Ci ces- 
 tuis que trust" and arising upon a supposed detriment to their in- 
 terests flowing from the exclusion, would certainly be defeated if these 
 
interests were to be promoted by the exclusion. It would be absurd 
 to give effect to a limitation to the prejudice of parties, when the be- 
 nefit of those parties is the sole ground for implying it. It would then 
 result, that the limitation would exist or not, according to the opinion 
 entertained of the effect of the exclusion, and the constitution would 
 be dependent upon what a day or an hour might produce. 
 
 But who is to judge of the case? What authority is to determine 
 the policy which is best calculated to promote the interests of the. par- 
 ties? Certainly not each one for itself, but all together; and do not 
 all come together in congress, each having a voice in exact proportion 
 to their respective interests, and is not the true policy to be determined 
 by the collective judgment of the whole? Can any thing, therefore, 
 be more uncertain than such a limitation, and can any construction of 
 the constitution be more latitudinous than that which would lead to 
 such a result ? 
 
 But I agree that congress cannot discriminate between the citizens 
 of the several states ; it is prohibited from so doing expressly by the 
 constitution. But does the exclusion of slavery from a territory involve 
 such discrimination ? The exclusion extends alike to all persons, to the 
 citizens of the free as well as the slave states — all are prohibited from 
 introducing slaves. If the prohibition of slavery excludes the citizens 
 of the states that tolerate its existence, the admission of it would 
 equally exclude the citizens of the other states, and the result would 
 be that the only constitutional mode of settling the question is by a 
 partition of the territory between them. This may be an equal basis 
 of settlement, but what provision can be found in the constitution li- 
 miting congress to such an act ? None is pretended. It is said, a citi- 
 zen of a free state may emigrate to a territory with his property, of 
 whatever kind, whilst a citizen of a slave state is debarred from this 
 privilege. But is this so ? May not a citizen of a free state own 
 slaves, and in such case would he not be subject to the same pro- 
 hibition ? What species of property can a citizen of a free state carry 
 with him into a territory which is not permitted to the citizen of a 
 slave state ? Certainly there is none. Then how can it be said that 
 the law discriminates, when the citizens of all the states are placed 
 upon the same footing, both in respect of privileges and prohibitions? 
 
 The effect of the law may be to obstruct emigration from the slave 
 states — the slaveholder may not emigrate if he cannot carry with him 
 his slave. But this does not prove that the law discriminates, but that 
 its operation is unjust. If it gave to the slaveholder the right to emi- 
 grate with every species of property permitted to the citizen of the 
 free state, and with his slaves in addition, we would not object to the 
 law ; the discrimination would make it equal. 
 
 It is not, then, really because the law discriminates that we object 
 to it, but because it does not discriminate in our favour. 
 
 The unequal operation of a law is a fair objection to it, but this by 
 no means proves its unconstitutionality; what law of perfect equality 
 did human wisdom ever design ? 
 
 Take your tax laws. Slaves are taxed in classes according to their 
 ages, horses by the head, without regard to their respective values. 
 2 
 
 
10 
 
 What equality is there in this? Examples may be multiplied. Con- 
 cress has the power to erect forts and improve harbours, at least on the 
 Atlantic board ; if it exercises this power in the erection of forts in 
 New York, and improving its harbour, and omits to erect a fort in 
 South Carolina, and improve the harbour of that state, the legislation 
 would be unjust ; but would you say that congress did not possess the 
 power to erect the fort in New York ? 
 
 Gentlemen must discriminate between considerations that belong to 
 the equity and expediency of legislation, and such as belong to the 
 power to exercise it. It is in the failure to make this discrimination 
 that consists the great vice of the argument I am combatting. 
 
 After stating that the territories are the "joint and common proper- 
 ty'' of the several states "in which each and all have equal rights," 
 the resolution declares that any law which, directly or by its effects, 
 shall prevent the citizens of any state from emigrating into a territory 
 with their property, of whatever kind, would make a discrimination in 
 violation of the constitution. Strictly speaking, there may be little 
 ground of objection against this assertion, if congress declare that the 
 citizens of a particular state shall not enjoy this privilege, and impose 
 not the same restriction upon the citizens of the other states, there 
 would be discrimination inhibited by the constitution. But this is not 
 what the resolution was intended to declare ; the criticism is due to the 
 unskilful terms in which its meaning is expressed. What it was de- 
 signed to declare is that the exclusion of slavery " propria vigore," 
 operates the exclusion of the citizens of the slave states, and thereby 
 effects the discrimination which is denounced. I trust I have fully 
 exposed the fallacy of this idea, and placed the argument on this point 
 upon impregnable ground. 
 
 The true doctrine may be stated in few words. Congress is the 
 municipal legislature of the territories ; it is a complete legislature, pos- 
 sessing over the subject exclusive jurisdiction — its power extends to 
 every act in its nature legislative, not prohibited by the constitution, 
 and it may do in respect of the institution of slavery whatever the le- 
 gislature of our own state may lawfully do. This has been so ad- 
 judged, repeatedly, by the supreme court of the United States. 
 
 Story, Kent and Sergeant, learned commentators on the constitution, 
 so expound its meaning; the precedents in congress are to the same 
 extent, and those who advocate these resolutions are unable to bring to 
 their aid a single authority in opposition to this unbroken series from 
 the earliest days of the government to the present time. Are we then, 
 the legislature of Virginia, not selected I apprehend with any particu- 
 lar regard to our proficiency in constitutional lore; are we, I say, to 
 pronounce that Marshall, Story, Kent, and their learned associates, were 
 ignorant of the true meaning of the constitution ; to set our judgments 
 in opposition to theirs, and upon our oaths make proclamation of it to 
 the public. 
 
 Others, more confident in their ability and learning, may do this; I 
 will not. 
 
 Much has been said of the importance of unanimity in the action 
 we are about to take, and the misfortune of any division amongst us 
 is most feelingly deplored. Who is responsible for this division ? You 
 
11 
 
 desire to condemn certain meditated legislation of congress. I go with 
 you in the condemnation. No one here condemns it more strongly 
 than I do. You cannot express your opinion in terms too strong for 
 my approval. 
 
 Why am I not permitted to unite in the action ? You disclaim all 
 purpose of party advantage, and protest that you are influenced solely 
 by patriotic devotion. I am not insensible to all this profession, but I 
 demand substantial evidence of its sincerity. Surely to attain so great 
 an object as perfect unanimity in our deliberations — an object to which 
 you attach such primary importance, a little deference might be mani- 
 fested for the opinions of others. Why insist upon mooting the ques- 
 tion of constitutional power? It is not necessary for the end you aim 
 at. A difference of opinion upon it — an honest, conscientious differ- 
 ence is known to exist amongst us, and the sanction of the great 
 names to which I have referred, must protect the dissenters from the 
 imputation of presumption. You may yield this point without the 
 sacrifice of principle or propriety, and without weakening the force of 
 the condemnation you may express ; we cannot — the sanctity of an 
 oath forbids it. 
 
 Not satisfied with declaring an opinion on the controverted question 
 of constitutional law, you propose to erect the standard of revolt, if 
 the power be exercised to the exclusion of slavery from the conquered 
 territories. You proclaim against it "determined resistance" — "at all 
 hazards and to the last extremity," and commit the commonwealth to 
 its fulfilment; and this you do not only without the authority of the 
 people for whom you act, but in profound ignorance of their wishes 
 on the subject ; and not only this, but, as if to fill the measure of pre- 
 sumption, you arrogate the power to determine " the mode and mea- 
 sure of redress." Without consulting your constituents — in ignorance 
 of their wishes ; without authority from them, you undertake to de- 
 termine the " casus belW and to set on foot the measures of resistance. 
 In my judgment, a more glaring usurpation of power, or grosser out- 
 rage on the elective franchise, could not be practised. The annals of 
 legislation in free governments will be searched in vain for an example. 
 I cannot concur in such a proceeding. 
 
 Let us express our opinions — if the occasion be deemed proper, sub- 
 mit them to the public and the approval of our constituents; we abuse 
 our power in forestalling their judgment, and violate the first duty that 
 the representative owes to his constituents. 
 
 Is the propriety of resistance so clear of doubt, or the emergency so 
 pressing as to justify or excuse this precipitate course? That there is 
 no pressing emergency, the least candid will admit, and that the resis- 
 tance proposed is of doubtful expediency can hardly be controverted. 
 It is no light matter to array this commonwealth in hostile opposition 
 to the federal authority : fearful consequences must flow from a colli- 
 sion, and I cannot but think that Virginia will deliberate long before 
 she assumes such an attitude ; and when she does so resolve, the wis- 
 dom of her land will be invoked to her aid, and these seats will be 
 filled by others than ourselves. 
 
 But to what end is this resistance to be made ? To enable us to 
 emigrate with our slaves to New Mexico and California? That would 
 
12 
 
 require legislation of congress; for without such legislation, the emi- 
 grant could not hold a property in his slave. The laws of the coun- 
 tries now forbid it, and until changed by the conquering power, will 
 continue to give rule to the subject. 
 
 But no one claims or expects the active aid of congressional legisla- 
 tion ; forbearance to legislate at all, is what is demanded. The idea 
 that the constitution carries slavery into the territory, springs from one 
 of those vagaries with which excessive subtleties sometimes bewilder 
 the brain, but which can have no lasting place in any tolerably well 
 ordered intellect. The relation of master and slave is due to positive 
 law, and cannot exist without its sanction. The constitution recog- 
 nizes and protects it where it exists, but creates it nowhere. The end, 
 therefore, of the threatened resistance, is not to enable us to carry our 
 slaves to a new mart, but to prevent congress from prohibiting their in- 
 troduction into places from which they are already excluded. Will 
 the success of the enterprise, supposing we are to be successful, justify 
 the hazard to our peaceful relations, from the means we are to employ 
 to accomplish it ? All you promise yourselves, is to deter congress from 
 the offensive exercise of a doubtful power, and to keep from the statute 
 book an useless act; no practical good is to come of it. Can such an 
 end justify the hazardous means ? Is it wise, is it statesmanlike, upon 
 such an issue, to stake the peace of society and woes unnumbered of 
 civil strife ? 
 
 That it is impracticable to introduce domestic slavery into New 
 Mexico and California, must be manifest to every one. Besides the 
 considerations already urged, neither the climate nor the soil is propi- 
 tious for its introduction. Once existing in those territories, by the free 
 act of their inhabitants, it has long since been expelled; and such is 
 the existing prejudice against it, that were it possible to secure for it 
 a temporary revival, its immediate extinction would be the first exercise 
 of power upon their admission as states. 
 
 Under such discouraging circumstances, even with the sanction of 
 law, no slaveowner would venture there with his property. 
 
 To these views I will shew the dominant party in this house to be 
 fully committed. They so committed themselves in the late presi- 
 dential canvass. 
 
 It is no part of my purpose to introduce party feeling into this dis- 
 cussion ; the questions we are considering concern the Union, its peace, 
 its tranquility ; the dearest interests of all classes are involved in them, 
 and they rise superior to party. But in the legitimate pursuit of the 
 argument, I may call the attention of the majority here, and the public, 
 to the principles upon which the late canvass was conducted by them 
 in this state ; remind them of the immaterial position to which they then 
 consigned this question, and caution them lest in their attempt now to 
 advance it into prominence, they may lay themselves open to the charge 
 of insincerity, and the suspicion of seeking political advantage. If it 
 be true that you heretofore treated this question in the manner I have 
 stated ; if to achieve the success of your party, and promote the elec- 
 tion of a favourite chief, you inculcated the belief that the introduc- 
 tion of slavery into New Mexico and California, was an immaterial 
 question; which settled, in whatever manner, could lead to no practi- 
 
13 
 
 cal result, with what consistency can you now claim for it an im- 
 portance justifying you in staking upon it the fate of the Union ? If it 
 was immaterial when you were seeking the election of Mr. Cass, it is 
 immaterial now that he is defeated. If it could lead to no practical 
 result, with that gentleman in the executive chair, it can lead to no 
 greater result when Get]. Taylor fills that chair. Do you not see that 
 you are involving yourselves in the horns of a dilemma, upon the 
 one or the other of which, by persisting in this course, you must ine- 
 vitably hang? You cheated and deceived the people when, in the 
 recent canvass, you inculcated the belief of the immateriality of this 
 question, or you do so now when you thus magnify its importance. 
 And can you expect to obtain credit for your assertions when the very 
 credit you demand involves a confession of the cheat you practised in 
 managing the canvass ? 
 
 Are you justly obnoxious to this criticism ? That the resolutions 
 give a vital prominence to the question, must be conceded ; state re- 
 sistance is proclaimed against the federal authority, and the Union it- 
 self is staked upon the issue. But how was it formerly ? Mr. Bu- 
 chanan and Mr. Walker, gentlemen of high distinction in your party, 
 both members of the present democratic administration, and both as- 
 pirants for presidential honours, in letters addressed by them to the 
 public, had taken occasion to discuss the question of the introduction 
 of slavery into New Mexico and California. The former gentleman 
 said, "Neither the soil, the climate, nor the productions of California, 
 south of 36 deg. 30 min., nor indeed any portion of it, north or south, 
 is adapted to slave labour, and besides, every facility would be there 
 afforded for the slave to escape from his master. Such property would 
 be entirely insecure in any part of California. It is morally impossi- 
 ble, therefore, that a majority of the emigrants to that portion of the 
 territory south of 36 deg. 30 min., which will be chiefly composed of 
 our citizens, will ever re-establish slavery within its limits. In regard 
 to New Mexico, east of the Rio Grande, the question has already been 
 settled by the admission of Texas into the Union. Should we ac- 
 quire territory beyond the Rio Grande and east of the Rocky moun- 
 tains, it is still more impossible that a majority of the people would 
 consent to re-establish slavery. They are themselves a coloured popu- 
 lation, and among them the negro does not belong, socially, to a de- 
 graded race." 
 
 Mr. Walker said : " Beyond the Del Norte slavery will not pass ; 
 not only because it is forbidden by law, but because the coloured race 
 there preponderates, in the ratio of ten to one, over the whites; and 
 holding, as they do, the government and most of the offices in their 
 possession, they will not permit the enslavement of any portion of the 
 coloured race which makes and executes the laws of the country." 
 
 These letters were extensively read throughout the country, and en- 
 dorsed by your party presses, they were widely circulated in this state ; 
 not even a whisper was muttered against the sentiments they contained. 
 On the contrary your general convention nominated, and your party 
 supported as their candidate for the presidency, a gentleman, who, in 
 his famous Nicholson letter, had extracted with approbation these very 
 passages from the letters of Buchanan and Walker, and enforced their 
 
14 
 
 truth by suggestions of his own. In addition to this, from the plat- 
 form constructed for your party, intended to put forth the leading te- 
 nets of your political faith, every thing was carefully excluded calcu- 
 lated to bear upon the question of slavery in the territories. Mr. Yan- 
 cey's amendment, intended to bring the body to a vote on the question, 
 was negatived without a division, and the convention contented itself 
 with a solitary resolution concerning slavery in the states, couched in 
 terms to allow the slaveowner and freesoiler to unite in its support, 
 and to furnish a common plank upon which both could stand in doing 
 battle for the candidates then presented to the public. I know that 
 Mr. Cass expressed a doubt whether congress possessed the power to 
 legislate for the territories, and inclined to the opinion, that after es- 
 tablishing the governments, its authority over the subject ceased, and 
 thence was implied a promise to put the veto on any act of congress 
 directed to the exclusion of slavery from the territories. But he main- 
 tained, at the same time, that the power over the subject belonged to 
 the people of the territories, to be exercised, without the hindrance of 
 congress, by the territorial legislatures, according to their absolute dis- 
 cretion ; transferring, thus, the power from congress, in which we are 
 represented and have a voice, effectual heretofore to the protection of 
 our interests, to a body in which we have no voice, and by which, in 
 his judgment and that of Buchanan and Walker, founded upon a 
 knowledge of the climate of the country, its soil and productions, the 
 character, condition and prejudices of its inhabitants, the institution 
 was certain of exclusion. Of what practical interest can it be to the 
 slaveholder, if this species of property is to be excluded from the ter- 
 ritories, whether the exclusion be effected by federal or local authority ? 
 I know that the democratic state convention, assembled in this city 
 on the 29th of February last, solemnly protested against the " Win- 
 tlirop and Wilmot provisoes, as wanton violations of the constitution, 
 and wilful assaults on the rights and interests of one portion of the 
 confederacy," and did "most solemnly declare, that there is no power 
 in congress, or a territorial legislature, which is its creature, or any 
 where else, save only in the people of a territory, in the adoption of a 
 state constitution, preparatory to admission into the Union, to prevent 
 the migration of any citizen of any state with his property, whether 
 it be slaves or any thing else, to any domain which may be acquired 
 by the common blood and treasure of the people of the states." I 
 know that the same convention "heartily responded to the noble re- 
 solutions of the Alabama state democratic convention," and declared 
 that they would, " under no political necessity whatever, support, 
 either for the presidency or vice-presidency, any person who would not 
 be the firm and avowed opponent of any plan or doctrine which in any 
 way interfered with the right of citizens of any one state to possess 
 and enjoy all their property in any territory which may be acquired by 
 the Union, as fully, completely and securely as citizens of any other 
 state shall enjoy theirs," except that, being unwilling to disturb the 
 Missouri compromise, they were content with adherence to its princi- 
 ples. Notwithstanding which, we have seen the Virginia delegates to 
 the national convention contented with a declaration in their creed of 
 faith, disavowing the power of congress to interfere with slavery in 
 
15 
 
 the states, and support a nominee for the presidency, who asserted the 
 ri°ht for a territorial legislature, without the hindrance of congress, 
 "to prevent the migration of any citizen of any state with his pro- 
 perty, if it be a slave, to any domain which may be acquired by the 
 common blood and treasure of the people of the states ;" thus mani- 
 festing that, under a certain political necessity, they would support a 
 candidate entertaining opinions which, in the language of the " noble 
 resolutions of Alabama," they had declared, " under no political ne- 
 cessity whatever" could they be induced to do ; and the party through- 
 out the state approved their course. 
 
 We all know that the selection of the candidate was influenced by 
 his supposed ability to attract the free soil vote of the whig state of 
 Ohio, an expectation in which they were not disappointed. We fur- 
 ther know, for it is matter of history, that the entire democratic party 
 approved of the compromise proposed by the senate's resolutions; a 
 compromise by which, whilst congress was to abstain from the exer- 
 cise of the disputed power in the organization of the territorial govern- 
 ments, a prohibition was to be inserted against the enactment by those 
 governments of any law on the subject of slavery at all, thus produ- 
 cing a condition of things whereby the institution of slavery would 
 forever remain during the existence of those governments, subject to 
 the present law, which wholly excludes it ; a compromise by which 
 slavery would be more effectually excluded than by the proviso itself. 
 
 If further evidence be wanting of the late opinion of the party as to 
 the immateriality of the question, I beg leave to refer to the speech of 
 Mr. Buchanan, made on the eve of the election, when that gentleman 
 was called from the business of his department to coax back, if possi- 
 ble, the cheated and indignant people of his own state — a speech ap- 
 plauded by the great executive organ at Washington, whose laudatory 
 strains were echoed upon every key by its affiliated dependents through- 
 out the land. That gentleman said : " The question of slavery in 
 California and New Mexico is merely transient in its nature, and no 
 matter how decided by congress, can never produce any practical ef- 
 fect ; those territories were free when acquired, and so, according to 
 every reasonable probability, must remain ; congress cannot legislate 
 slavery into practical existence within their limits, and it is matter of 
 indifFerence, so far as its existence there is concerned, whether con- 
 gress engraft into their forms of government what is known as the 
 Wilmot proviso, the Missouri compromise, or the senate's resolutions." 
 
 In the resolutions which I had the honour to submit, this part of 
 Mr. Buchanan's speech was extracted, and constitutes the fifth of the 
 series ; in presenting it I thought I was catering for democratic appe- 
 tite, but it seems I was mistaken ; that appetite has changed ; the dain- 
 ties upon which, but lately, it so greedily fed, have become revolting 
 to its taste. 
 
 But there is yet further evidence on this point which I desire to ad- 
 duce : it will be found in the last annual message of the present chief 
 magistrate, and must commend itself to every true democrat. You 
 set the president up as the great overseer of the nation ; not to manage 
 only its executive affairs, and restrain congress within the proper limits 
 of its constitutional powers, but to supervise all its proceedings, and 
 
16 
 
 force its action in matters of general expediency to bend to his will. 
 Conferring honours, bestowing rewards and dispensing punishments, 
 according to his sovereign pleasure, he is regarded by the faithful as 
 the impersonation of all that is democratic. 
 
 During the eventful period of this administration, when greater 
 powers have been exercised by the executive than have fallen to the 
 lot of many mortals; when a supervision and control over general le- 
 gislation have been practised, never before experienced in our history, 
 and which in other countries would have proved incompatible with the 
 safety of the sceptered hand, not one murmur of complaint has been 
 uttered by the party press, nor one word of dissatisfaction uttered by 
 any supporter in the national councils. Every voice is attuned to 
 praise, every arm extended to aid, and every knee bent in submission. 
 
 The Baltimore convention, composed of the elite of the faithful 
 from every part of the country, gave one sweeping endorsement of every 
 thing the favourite had done. I claim, therefore, for this evidence the 
 same credence and implicit submission which has heretofore been ac- 
 corded to the firmans of your chief. It cannot be that it will be less 
 respected, because the day is at hand when the ordinances of the con- 
 stitution will strip the purple from his shoulders. 
 
 In his late message, Mr. Polk says, "The question is believed to be 
 rather abstract than practical, whether slavery ever can or would exist 
 in any portion of the acquired territory, even if it were left to the op- 
 tion of the slaveholding states themselves. From theJjStureof the 
 climate and productions in much the larger portion of it, it is certain 
 it could never exist, and in the remainder the probabilities are, it 
 would not." What was a mere abstraction, of no practical importance, 
 when the inculcation of that belief was deemed conducive to party 
 success, has become, since the defeat, of vital importance, and worth 
 the hazard of civil broil. If congress enact the Wilmot proviso, this 
 commonwealth is to be pledged to resistance to the " last extremity, 
 and by every means which she can command." What authority 
 has this general assembly to give this pledge? What evidence has 
 any member upon this floor, that his vote for these resolutions will 
 meet the approval of his constituents? Have the principles which 
 they involve ever been discussed before the people? 
 
 We are to resist; the commonwealth is to be pledged to it; re- 
 sist to the last extremity, and by every means. What is to be re- 
 sisted? A law of congress? If that body is without the constitutional 
 authority to enact the prohibition, as the resolutions declare, their act 
 will be of no validity, and the proper tribunals of the country will so 
 adjudge it. If it be valid, we arc to resist the execution of a law en- 
 acted by the constituted authorities, obedience to which is enjoined 
 upon all by the highest duty, and in our particular case, enforced by 
 the religious sanction of the oath under which we exercise the powers 
 which belong to this body. 
 
 But if we are to resist, how are we to set about it? The law is to 
 take effect in the distant regions of New Mexico and California. Are 
 we to visit those wilds to set on foot the resistance ? Are we to beat up 
 volunteers for the adventure? Are the drum and fife again to disturb 
 the peaceful retreats of our people, and the appetite for blood and pil- 
 
17 
 
 lage engendered by the recent war, to be fed by intestine slaughter? 
 If this is not to be done, how are we to proceed? Will some advo- 
 cate of the resolutions inform me. If the thing is to be done, there 
 must be a way for it to be done ; what is it ? Are we to secede from 
 the confederacy, and set up a little sovereignty of our own? Or are 
 we to confederate with disloyal South Carolina, dissolve the Union 
 and plunge the sword of civil strife into the bowels of our brothers? 
 This would be indeed a last extremity ; one that violated rights and 
 tyrannous oppression might move to, but which nothing would justify, 
 short of that condition which would make submission criminal. 
 
 I claim no more of animal courage than falls to the lot of other 
 persons, but I doubt not that in a good cause, in resistance of substan- 
 tial oppression, I should stand forth against an arrogant foe as boldly as 
 those who boast most vauntingly of their readiness. But, when you 
 commit the sword to me, and in such a cause as now proposed, bid me 
 strike the Union, I fear that revolutionary recollections would over- 
 power me; the struggles our fathers sustained, the hardships they en- 
 dured, in achieving our independence, the blood with which they ce- 
 mented our Union, would rush full upon my memory; the shade of 
 Washington would rise up before me, and interpose his majestic form ; 
 the parricidal steel would drop from my hand, and falling upon my 
 knees, I would bless God that he saved me from such iniquity. 
 
 In the language of the farewell address of that great man, I regard 
 the Union as "a main pillar in the edifice of our real independence, 
 the support 6*f our tranquillity at home, our peace abroad ; of our 
 safety ; of our prosperity ; of that very liberty which we so highly 
 prize." Every affection of my heart clings round it, every instinct of 
 my nature endears it to me, and I earnestly pray that the day may 
 never come, when the wrath of an offended Deity will visit the calamity 
 of a dissolution upon the sins of a misguided people. 
 
 Politicians, in the prosecution of their petty strife, for selfish party ends, 
 may, at times, lash excitement into a seeming tempest, but in the deep 
 attachment that the masses have for that unity which constitutes us 
 one people, be assured, there will ever be found a moral force to calm 
 the vexed wave into quiet. The benefits we daily derive from the 
 union, the great interests dependent upon its continuance, will not per- 
 mit us to fly to arms and dissolve it on a difference of opinion on a 
 mere abstract question of constitutional law. 
 
 But if it be not seriously intended to push the quarrel to extremity, 
 if when you speak of " resistance to the last extremity" and " by 
 every means you can command" nothing is intended but bluster and 
 bravado, and if these prove ineffectual to frighten our adversaries, the 
 foregone determination is adopted to submit to the exigency, to say 
 nothing of the character in which we shall present ourselves before 
 the public, I submit whether the chances of success justify the hazard 
 of the humiliation which must attend defeat. At the session before 
 the last, the general assembly adopted resolutions, now to be reaffirmed, 
 declaring the Wilmot proviso a gross and palpable violation of the con- 
 stitution, and pledged the commonwealth, as it is proposed to do again, 
 to resist it to the last extremity. Yet this proviso was engrafted upon 
 3 
 
18 
 
 the Oregon bill, passed through all the forms of legislation, was sanc- 
 tioned by the president, and is now in full force as a law of the land, 
 and not a whisper is heard from the heroes of that session, or the peo- 
 ple, who you say were committed to them, of disobedience to its au- 
 thority. Is it not time to drop this braggart strain, to put off this Hot- 
 spur character, and deal in soberness with grave matters of state? To 
 the genial taste of South Carolina let all this affectation of chivalry be 
 freely abandoned. 
 
 Of the propriety of forcing domestic slavery upon the territories con- 
 quered by our arms, against the wishes of their inhabitants, I have ever 
 entertained a fixed opinion. 
 
 In the war with Mexico a new capacity has been given to our fede- 
 ral authority. Extensive provinces forcibly wrested from a neighbour- 
 ing nation are now held as our own. Organized communities living 
 under established government, invested with all the rights of civiliza- 
 tion, have been torn from their proper allegiance and subjected to the 
 yoke of our own. What principle of the constitution imparts this ca- 
 pacity ? What individual who participated in its formation, or assented 
 to its adoption, ever dreamed that the powers created by it could be 
 used for such a purpose ? The corner stone of the fabric, the principle 
 that lies at the foundation of all our institutions, the feature that dis- 
 tinguishes free government, is the right of civilized communities to 
 choose, according to their own views of their interests, the form of 
 government best adapted to their necessities. The contrary principle 
 characterizes absolute governments, and is the support of the monar- 
 chies of the old world. That a monarch should invade a nation, over- 
 run it with his arms, and reduce its inhabitants to the condition of 
 subjects, would not furnish matter of surprise. It is one of the legiti- 
 mate fruits of that form of government. 
 
 In our dealings, therefore, with Mexico, we have departed from the 
 principles of our own, and proceeded upon those of other governments. 
 Ought we now to force upon this people domestic slavery against their 
 consent? An institution reprobated by the world ; acknowledged to 
 be a social and political evil ; once existing amongst them, but by their 
 own free act, long since repudiated. Would it not be to aggravate the 
 wounds inflicted by war and conquest, and sow the seeds of disaffec- 
 tion and revolt ? 
 
 No community is more deeply committed against such an exercise of 
 power than this ancient commonwealth. 
 
 Foremost amongst the colonies, she bent her efforts to the exclusion 
 of slavery from her soil. Her laws for that purpose were annulled by 
 the crown, and in the preamble of her constitution, wherein are set 
 forth the prominent causes which justified her revolt, this annulment 
 by the king is denounced as an "inhuman use of his negative" 
 
 Foremost amongst the states, when the confederacy was formed, she 
 stood forth the advocate for the suppression of the slave trade, and 
 when the New England states, for the protection of the large tonnage 
 they had embarked in the traffic, opposed the suppression, voted to de- 
 clare it piracy. 
 
 It is useful to recur to these reminiscences of the past; they shew 
 this commonwealth in proud contrast with her sisters, now lending 
 
19 
 
 themselves to a war upon her rights. Contrary to her wishes, in op- 
 position to her efforts, domestic slavery was forced upon her, and now, 
 when it is part of her system, so interwoven with the whole that the 
 disruption would prostrate every interest which she possesses, because 
 she does not incur this ruin, is made grave matter of reproach by those 
 who made profit of the oppression that subjected her to the condition, 
 and now make it matter of conscience to rob her of the property for 
 which she paid them the price. 
 
 In contemplating our condition, we may have the courage to ac- 
 knowledge the disadvantages which flow from the institution; there 
 are few amongst us who would not hail with satisfaction the period 
 that would put an end to it forever, if at the same time we could be 
 relieved from the presence of the unfortunate race. But its extinction, 
 if it ever occur, must be the work of time, and proceed from the vo- 
 luntary exercise of our own free will. Any attempt to precipitate it, 
 or to constrain our choice, must end in disappointment, and rivet more 
 strongly the chains which are sought to be broken. 
 
 Whilst we may hold these opinions among ourselves, and speak thus 
 freely of our domestic relations, we may nevertheless entertain a just 
 sense of our rights, and declare our determination to defend them 
 against aggression. 
 
 We ought not to quarrel about an abstraction ; we ought not to dis- 
 turb the confederacy about a measure of legislation that can lead to 
 no practical result. I think the exercise of the disputed power in the 
 cases of New Mexico and California, under the circumstances, wholly- 
 unnecessary, and can but regard it as insulting to the south, and mani- 
 festing a disregard of that brotherly feeling which ought to characte- 
 rize the people of this Union. Still I would not fly to arms for it. 
 But let a practical aggression be made upon important rights; let the 
 powers of government be abused to our prejudice, under circumstances 
 to shew deliberate and premeditated wrong, and there will not be found 
 amongst us one animated being who will not be ready to vindicate those 
 rights to the last extremity. 
 
 The question of slavery in the territories, which I have been consi- 
 dering, is very different from the question of slavery in the District of 
 Columbia. The latter is a practical question. It is not a question of 
 establishing slavery where it never before existed, nor of re-establish- 
 ing it where it has once been repudiated. It is whether, whilst Mary- 
 land and Virginia continue slave states, a depot for vagabonds shall be 
 established in their midst, by the instrumentality of whom organized 
 processes may be conducted of perpetual warfare upon that species of 
 property ? Whether a municipal legislature, under the form of law, 
 shall pirate upon rights, the preservation of which is the chief purpose 
 of its trust ? It is a question whether municipal government shall sub- 
 serve the wishes and interests of the people of the municipality. It 
 is, in fine, the great question whether the principle of free government, 
 the vital energy of the representative system, shall be subversed in the 
 case of the district. It is a maxim of government, adopted in all Ame- 
 rican constitutions, that those who exercise the powers of government 
 should, at stated intervals, return to the body of the people, and their 
 places be supplied by other elections. It is by means of frequent elec- 
 
20 
 
 tions that the public authorities are made to conform their measures to 
 the popular wishes ; and it is this conformity to the popular wishes 
 which constitutes the conservative principle of representative govern- 
 ment, and distinguishes it from all other forms. 
 
 Any government, administered without regard to the opinions and 
 wishes of those subject to its control, whatever be its form, and how- 
 ever designated, is a tyranny. There can be no question of this. Here 
 at least none will be found to dispute its truth. The threatened action 
 of congress in the case of the district, presents a striking exemplification 
 of it ; all see it, feel it ; it is palpable to our senses, and comes directly 
 home to our sympathies. It appeals to our interests, because in the 
 threatened action their security is assailed. Hence, it maybe, the sen- 
 sitiveness of our feelings, and the vividness of our perceptions. But we 
 are not singular in these respects ; the same quick feeling and keen per- 
 ception of tyrannous power excites in the bosoms of others, equal sense 
 of wrong and oppression. What is true of the district and its inhabi- 
 tants, is also true of the Mexican territories and their inhabitants. 
 
 The federal government exercises municipal authority over both ; it 
 is charged with the same trust in respect of both, and is bound to con- 
 sult the wishes and interests of the beneficiaries for whom the trust is 
 confided. Consider the two cases together : we are at no loss to dis- 
 cover the true principle in the one, and detect any aberration from it ; 
 let our vision be as lynx-eyed in the other, and our justice as even- 
 handed. " Therefore, all things whatsoever you would that men 
 should do to you, do you even so to them." If in this consists the 
 whole law and prophets of Holy Writ, in it also consists the great mo- 
 ral rule of human action : for the parables and precepts of the Gospel, 
 though delivered to the poor fishermen of Judea, contain rules of con- 
 duct for the government of the world to the remotest generations. It 
 would ill become one like me to undertake to enforce religious duties, 
 which, by so many considerations, commend themselves to our obser- 
 vance ; but in respect of those duties which are enjoined by the moral 
 law, believing that they are of universal application, the same diffi- 
 culty does not occur. Observance of the moral law is a duty enjoined 
 on all mankind; however exalted or humble, no station is exempt 
 from it ; individuals, masses, organized assemblies, all are bound to its 
 observance. In no condition of life can it be disregarded with impu- 
 nity ; sooner or later, as sure as a superintending Providence directs the 
 affairs of this world, the violation of this duty, in some form, will be 
 visited in punishment upon the offender. I pray heaven, that in the 
 spirit of sectional animosity, and disloyalty to our institutions, posses- 
 sing the people, we are not to behold the verification of the truth 1 
 have uttered ; that these are not the visitations for the offence against 
 this law in the war of conquest and spoliation, out of which these 
 questions spring. 
 
 In demanding justice for ourselves, let us not be unmindful of the 
 justice due to others. In resisting usurpation, or abuse of power, when 
 exerted to our prejudice, let us not become a party to its practice upon 
 others. Suspended before our view is the full length portrait of the 
 great Lord Chatham. What obtained for the noble Lord this testimo- 
 nial to his worth, an honoured place in the legislative hall of this free 
 
21 
 
 commonwealth? He is represented by the artist as delivering his 
 memorable speech in the British parliament on American taxation, and 
 this testimonial is the offering to the noble sentiments that immortal- 
 ized that speech. " / rejoice that America has resisted; three mil- 
 lions of people, so dead to all the feelings of liberty as voluntarily to 
 submit to be slaves, would have been fit instruments to make slaves of 
 the rest." 
 
 These words were once traced in letters of gold upon the canvass ; 
 they deserve to be placed there again. In the presence of this memo- 
 rial of the dead, recalling our memories to days that are past, I need 
 not, before this assembly, trace the parallel between the colonies and 
 the mother country in the time of Chatham, and ourselves and these 
 Mexican provinces at the present day. Every gentleman will do this 
 for himself. 
 
 Some pampered minion of the crown taunted the great patriot in his 
 noble effort in the cause of freedom, with giving birth to sedition in 
 America. I would that gentlemen may read the rebuke, which, in the 
 imperial parliament of haughty England, was administered to that 
 taunt: I would especially that those gentlemen may read it, who 
 catching from the party prints the court phrase of the day, have dared 
 to insinuate, that in the free expression of my sentiments on this floor. 
 lam giving "aid and comfort to the enemy." They will there see 
 the meed bestowed upon the calumniator of the liberty of speech, and 
 may make profit of the lesson. 
 
 I am aware, Mr. Speaker, that I have trespassed a long time on the 
 patience of the house, but I desire, before resuming my seat, to recall 
 to the recollection of gentlemen the resistance which South Carolina 
 once set up against the federal authority, and remind them, since their 
 memories seem treacherous, of the fearful condition to which affairs 
 obtained in that state, and the deep anxiety occasioned in all parts of 
 the Union ; for it is that example you propose to follow, and that con- 
 dition to bring about here. Dissatisfied with the provisions of a com- 
 mon revenue law, South Carolina undertook to nullify its force within 
 her limits. Refusing an appeal to the judiciary, the great umpire ap- 
 pointed to expound the constitution in the last resort, she arrogated to 
 herself the prerogative of judge, and claimed to declare the law in 
 violation of that instrument, and defeat its operation. The extraordi- 
 nary pretension attracted universal attention, for every one saw in its 
 successful assertion the death wound of the Union. A few adhe- 
 rents to her cause were found in other states ; some, I believe, among 
 ourselves ; but distraction arose within herself. The cause could not 
 commend itself to general approbation, and there sprung up an Union- 
 party, not numerous as the agitators, but respectable in force, intelli- 
 gent, patriotic and brave, who stood forth in determined opposition to 
 the destructive scheme of nullification. 
 
 Of the bitter feeling engendered between the two parties, I need not 
 speak. Father was arrayed against son, brother against brother, kin- 
 dred against kind. The state was pushed on to the verge of a preci- 
 pice, and hung so lightly upon the awful brink, that an infant's strength 
 seemed to suffice to hurl her headlong into the deep abyss. To the 
 
 
 
iron nerve of the hand that then held executive power, the country is 
 indebted for the safety of its institutions from that fierce assault. 
 
 We all remember the solemn warnings of the timely proclamation, 
 and the stern approval of a patriotic people. I beseech you to pause 
 ere you subject Virginia to the dreadful danger from which Carolina so 
 narrowly escaped. Like that misguided state, you base resistance upon 
 a cause which, when the day of strife shall come, as come it will, if 
 the principles of these resolutions be acted out, will breed dissention 
 in our homes. Is it wise to do this? Is it just to our common mo- 
 ther, thus to hazard her safety and her peace ? Better far to abandon 
 all extreme pretension, and stake the issue upon a cause which will 
 rally to her aid the united strength of all her sons : a cause whose jus- 
 tice will command the approval of a candid world, and raise up friends 
 in the patriot bosoms of her sister states. 
 
 You complain of a contemplated infraction of the constitution by 
 congress, and in the redress proposed, become guilty yourself of the 
 same offence. 
 
 Gentlemen have said, that if a direct adjudication of the federal ju- 
 diciary, on the precise point in dispute, can be found, they will surren- 
 der their opinions. They repudiate the instructions of learned com- 
 mentators, and strangely disregard adjudications settling principles de- 
 cisive of the question, but will bow to the authority of a direct adju- 
 dication. Do they not thereby surrender the principle upon which the 
 resolutions proceed? Why not first submit the question to the judi- 
 ciary, and test in that form the validity of the law? The senate's 
 compromise proposed this alternative, and of that you approved. Will 
 it not be time enough for the dread extremity when peaceful and con- 
 stitutional means shall prove fruitless of redress? You say the law 
 will be unconstitutional, in your judgment palpably so; then the judi- 
 ciary will annul its force. Why not try this expedient ? 
 
 Gentlemen talk of being committed to the resolutions ; they say the 
 state was committed to them in 1847, and argue that we have no right 
 now to retract. But when did the state become thus committed ? I 
 deny that the general assembly has the right to commit the state by 
 any resolves it may choose to entertain. 
 
 How many of the people knew of the adoption of the resolutions? 
 When were they discussed before them, and when have they obtained 
 their sanction? How many members of this present assembly were 
 ignorant of their existence before this proceeding brought them to 
 their notice? Without previous notice, without the intervention of a 
 committee, at the end of a discussion on a railroad bill, an individual 
 member, upon his single responsibility, suddenly presented resolutions 
 to the house. Being read at the clerk's table, they were ascertained 
 to relate to the question of slavery. No one examined them ; the 
 question was put ; the ayes and noes were not even called : and pass- 
 ing by a silent vote, some gentleman proposed to insert the word 
 "unanimously," which was not objected lo, and in the usual way 
 they were sent to the senate. In that body they remained for some 
 time on the table, when, on the motion of some member, a modifica- 
 tion was agreed lo, and they came back to this house. Coming up as 
 the morning business, at a time when these seals are but scantily filled. 
 
23 
 
 on motion of the original mover of them, apart of the senate's modifi- 
 cation was disagreed to, and the fact communicated to that body. They 
 slept again in the senate until the 8th of March, when the exception- 
 able modification was receded from, and thus the matter ended. Al- 
 though then a member of this body, I was not present when the reso- 
 lutions were acted on. So little interest did they excite, that not more 
 than a passing notice was taken of them in the public prints; and 
 now taxing my memory to the. uttermost, I cannot recall a single cir- 
 cumstance connected with their adoption, but furnish this history from 
 the information of others. That they passed this body without conside- 
 ration, is manifest from the fact that, as originally presented, they declar- 
 ed " it to be the natural and indefeasible right of each and every citi- 
 zen &c. to reside with his property, of whatever description, in any terri- 
 tory," &c, an outright absurdity that could hardly have escaped correc- 
 tion had a very slight examination been bestowed upon the production, 
 but from which, nevertheless, they were only relieved by the modifi- 
 cations engrafted by the senate. How idle is it, then, to seek a justi- 
 fication for this action upon the idea of a committal. 
 
 If gentlemen are really desirous of preserving consistency, and feel 
 estopped from receding from ground deliberately taken by the state, I 
 beg to refer them to the report and resolutions of IS 10. These refer- 
 red to matters of great interest at the time, formally communicated by 
 the governor in his message, and were the deliberate work of a special 
 committee. After due consideration, they passed both branches of the 
 assembly unanimously, and were deemed of sufficient general impor- 
 tance to be published and preserved in the edition of the Revised Code, 
 published at that time. They are entitled "Resolutions disapproving 
 the amendment proposed by the legislature of Pennsylvania, to the 
 constitution of the United States." 
 
 I beg leave to read an extract. "The committee to whom was re- 
 ferred the communication of the governor of Pennsylvania, covering 
 certain resolutions of the legislature of that state, proposing an amend- 
 ment to the constitution of the United States, by the appointment of 
 an impartial tribunal to decide disputes between the state and federal 
 judiciary, have had the same under consideration, and are of opinion, 
 that a tribunal is already provided by the constitution of the United 
 States, to wit, the supreme court, more eminently qualified, from their 
 habits and duties, from the mode of their selection, and from the te- 
 nure of their offices, to decide the disputes aforesaid in an enlightened 
 and impartial manner, than any other tribunal which could be created. 
 The members of the supreme court are selected from those in the 
 United States who are most celebrated for virtue and legal learning; 
 not at the will of a single individual, but by the concurrent wishes of 
 the president and senate of the United States: they will, therefore, 
 have no local prejudices and partialities. 
 
 " The duties they have to perform lead them necessarily to the most 
 enlarged and accurate acquaintance with the jurisdiction of the federal 
 and several state courts together, and with the admirable symmetry of 
 our government. The tenure of their offices enables them to pronounce 
 the sound and correct opinions they may have formed, without fear, 
 favour, or partiality." 
 
24 
 
 T have authority for saying that when Mr. Madison's correspondence 
 shall be given to the public, in his letters to Judge Roane, he will be 
 found fully to have approved the principles of this report. 
 
 I submit, then, if by legislative action the state can be committed to 
 any thing, it is committed to this report. The principle of it is sound 
 and constitutional, and were so conceded by the state of Pennsylvania, 
 for the concession was involved in the proposition of amendment. 
 But the resolutions under consideration repudiate this principle; they 
 spurn the jurisdiction of the supreme court, and arrogate to the legis- 
 lature judicial powers. They involve directly an infraction of the 
 constitution, and commit thereby, without qualification, the very of- 
 fence which they charge against congress. If we are to resist the ex- 
 ercise of the disputed power, will it not be wise to seek redress first 
 by constitutional means ; and when these fail, will it not be time 
 enough to resort to force ? In seeking to restrain others within proper 
 limits, and to read lectures on the sin of violating the compromises of 
 the constitution, will we not better entitle our suggestions to conside- 
 ration, when we manifest a regard for those compromises ourselves ? 
 
 Mr. Speaker, I deplore the agitation of these questions in the fede- 
 ral legislature ; I deplore the sectional jealousies to which the agita- 
 tion gives rise ; I deeply deplore the spirit of opposition to the Union, 
 and blindness to its blessings, manifested upon this floor; and I still 
 more deeply deplore the fatal tendencies which these resolutions evince. 
 
 I know that I stand here with a small minority, and in making op- 
 position to this measure, I go counter to public prejudices, and subject 
 myself to animadversion and reproach. My arguments are misrepre- 
 sented, my motives assailed, and every influence that party intolerance 
 can command, is employed to my prejudice. However I may lament 
 this condition, my purpose is unshaken. 
 
 1 love this Union, I love its peace, I love its blessings, and I but dis- 
 charge a duty when I proclaim its danger. My voice will be unheeded 
 in this hall, it may be unheeded out of it, but if the doctrine contained 
 in these resolutions be followed to its consequences, and the time come 
 when the people of this state, upon the issue now presented, shall 
 choose between the blessings of our glorious Union and the horrors of 
 a dissolution, believe me, the sentiments I have given utterance to will 
 then find a response. 
 
 In this question of slavery I see the only danger to the perpetuity 
 of our Union, the only obstacle in the way of that march to greatness 
 on which Providence seems willing to direct our people. It is a ques- 
 tion so easy of adjustment upon terms satisfactory to all parties, that 
 nothing short of the most criminal intemperance can press it to a rup- 
 ture. I have an abiding confidence in the good sense, soberness and 
 patriotism of the country. I have confidence in the man whom the 
 nation has called, in this day of peril, to preside over her destinies. 
 Happily exempted by his past position from all prejudices and resent- 
 ments of party, holding fixed conservative opinions, with moderation, 
 firmness and dignity, standing upon the elevated platform of Washing- 
 ton, with the blessing of Providence, I look to him to effect the deli- 
 verance of the country from the imminent dangers which surround it.