E .?73 i Class, "J- Yl-i Book.- T Itr- hi SPEECH OF OF NEW-HAMPSHIRE, OK THE MISSOURI QUESTION, HFLTVEBED IK THE EOUSE OF REPRESEXTATIVES OP THE UNITED STATES, FF.BRlTART 21, 1820. Mr. Chairman : There are many considerations -vhich seem to me not only to justify, but to render ne- cessary the amendment proposed by the gentleman* from New-York, (Mr. Taylor) to the bill now under discussion. Some of the most important of these, I shall endeavor to explain to the committee. It will, I fear, be hardly thought respectful, at this late period of the debate, to enquire what it is that we propose to do, by the bill on your table. Yet, a correct answer to this enquiry would, in my opinion, go far to prove, that very many of the objections made to the amendment proposed by the gentleman from New-York, have little or no bearing on the real merits of the present question. This is by no means an unusual case. It will, I believe, be generallly found that we err in our opinions, principally because we do not understand «urs0iu?.s; and that we differ from othersy principally because we do not under- stand them. What, then, is the real nature of this transaction ? The people of Missouri have applied to Congress for leave to form a constitution, and to be admitted into the Union as an independent state. By the bill now under discussion, we are about to inform them, in answer to their memtyial, what are the terms 1 \:- ( and conditions on which we are williiag, at this time, to grant their request. The first of these conditions is, that the new state shall consist of a certain extent of territory, different from that proposed in their me- morial, and different from that embraced within their present limits, and in both these respects differing from their request : tli^ second is, that their constitu- tion shall be rcpublicair: and the third, which is the object of the present amendment, that they shall prevent the further introduction of slaves, and that the offspring of those already there shall be free — These three conditions are made indispensable to their becoming, at this time, a member of the federal U- nion. Other terms are also proposed ; but these are offered only as the price of certain other stipula- tions, into which it is desired that Missouri should enter. They are, by the same act, authorized to call a convention, to determine whether it is expedient for them, at this time, and upon these conditions, to become a member of the union, If so, they are per- mitted to form- a constitution, and are to be received without delay into our confederacy. This act, then, is simply an answer to the request of Missouri; and, without her consent and acceptance, it can have no binding force or effect on either party. If, when met in convention, her delegates should deem it inexpedient to accept our terms, there is an end at once of our act, 8c of all the measures growing out of it. Either party may propose new terms, or both remain in their present condition. We do not, there- fore, as has been so often asserted in this debate, un- dertake to form a constitution for the people of Mis- souri ; we do not impose upon them terms and con- ditions, which are to bind them without their con- sent ; nor do we, by this act, say that Missouri shall never be admitted, if she does not accept our present offerS: We merely inform her on what conditions we are willing, at this time, to receive her into the Union. If she does not choose to accept them, we cannot, on our part, complain of her, because she has a right to reject our offers, &. to remain a territory if she pleases; nor can she complain of us,because itis univer- sally conceded that we are under no obligation to ad- mit her, at the present session at least, however we maybe under the treaty, (a question which 1 shall presently examine) at some future period. The first enquiry, then, is, can Congress propose this condi- tion, and can Missouri accept it ? The right of Congress to admit new states is deriv- ed from ihe third section of the fourth article of the constitution. " New states may be admitted by the Congress into this Union,'' The first thing to be re- marked in this clause is, that it is a delegation of pow- er merely, and not a duty imposed. It is not said that Congress s/ifl/^, but that they may admit new states. The power to admit is granted, but no right is given by the constitution to any territory to compel Congress, against their will, to exert this power in its favor. It is not said, that, when^any of our ter- ritories shall contain a certain number of inhabitants, 60.000, for example. Congress shall, whether they deem it expedient or not, admit them into the Union; but an authority merely is given, which they are to exert, or not, according to their own sound discre- tion. It is next to be observed, that the power here delegated, is expressed in the broadest possible terms; and, that, so far as this clause is concerned, it is alto- gether without limitation or control. It follows, from this view of the subject, that there are three questions which Congress may discuss, whenever a territory asks admission into our Union as a state. First, is it expedient to admit her at all ? If one of the South American provinces should ask admission, we should probably reject the application as inexpedient ever to be granted. If, however, our decision should be to admit, a second question would arise, as to the time when this should be done, v/hether now, or at some future day ? But, in these two powers, which it is conceded, on all sides, that we possess, is there not involved a third; that of saying on what terms, not inconsistent with other parts of the constitution, this admission shall take place ? It might be expedient to admit, on certain conditions, a state, which we should be bound otherwise finally to reject. It might also be expedient, at the present time, to admit, on certain terms, a stale, which, without this power, we should be obliged to suspend, till, by the influence of our laws, or by other causes, she should become accus- tomed to our manners, and assimilated to our political institutions. This interpretation of the Constitution is, therefore, equally beneficial to the Union, and to the territories applying for admission. But let us look again at this clause. *' New states may be admitted, &;c. ; but no new state shall be formed or erected within the jurisdiction of any other state, &c. without the consent of the legislature of the sev- eral states concerned, as well as of the Congress.** Here then is a limitation on the powers of Congress. When a state is to be admitted, formed within the limits of some other state, as in the case of Kentucky, or the more recent one of Maine, the consent of the parent state, as well as of Congress, is to be ob- tained ; and this consent may be, and in all instances has been, granted upon conditions. In the first clause then the power to admit is given,without limitation,and may therefore be exercised on such terms as the party consen^iw^shallprescribe,&thestatetobeadmittedshall choose to accept ; but in the second this power is lim- ited, by requiring the agreement of a third party, which, like the two former, may insist on its own con- ditions. The limitation in the one case, and not in the other, shows clearly that when the constitution in- tends to restrain a general delegation of power, it does so in express words ; and the inference is irresistible, that where the power is distinctly given, and no limi- tation is expressed, none was intended. The correct- ness of this very obvious rule of construction will not be denied, and it appears to me strictly applicable to the present case. To show this power, if possible, still more clearly, we need only refer to the journal oi the convention that formed the constitution. We there find that this clause, as originally proposed, (p. 80,) stood thus : " The legislature shall have power to admit new states into the Union, on the sarm ternw with the original states.'* These latter words are not now to be found in the constitution. It was proposed then to limit the power of Congress on this sjubject. That proposition was rejected by the Convention, and the power given in the broadest possible terms. I can hardly conceive a stronger case, and have heard of no answer attempted to this important fact. To Congress, then, is given the power of admission in its full extent, and with all its incidents. What, Mr. chairman, are these incidents? Suppose the states had reserved the right of admitting new members to them- selves, instead of giving it, as they have done, to Con- gress; can it be doubted that they might, in that case, have received into their confederacy new associates, upon such terms and conditions as the contracting parties might see fit mutually to adopt ? They surely might. And why, sir ? Merely because they possess- ed the power of admission. But, instead of retaining this power, they have transferred it to Congress. If we do not possess it, where does it reside ? Not in the states ; for they have nothing to do in the admis- sion of new members : nor in the people, as asserted by the gentleman from S. Carolina, (Mr. Lowndes,} who last addressed you. He did not speak with his usual accuracy when he said that the people, and not Congress, possessed the power to impose conditions on states about to be admitted into the Union. The people, sir, have reserved to themselves no such power, any more than they have reserved the power, for example, of declaring war. Their power to de- clare war they have transferred to Congress. Their power to admit new states they have, in like manner, transferred to Congress, and we have seen that this transfer is entire, with all its incidents, subject only to that general reservation which applies to all delegated power — that it shall be exerted in a manner not re- pugnant to other parts of the constitution. This brings me, sir, to enquire, what are the limi- tations imposed on Congress by the constitution, in the exercise of this power ? And, first, « The Unit- ed States shall guaranty to every state in this Union a republican form of government." They cannot, there- fore, if they were so absurd as to wish it, prescribe to a new state that her form of government should be anti-republican, or monarchical ; because the state, when admitted, would have a right to call on Congress for its gut^ranty of a different form. But this clause is not, as has been argued, an enlargement of the pow- fi.rs of Congress, but a limitation upoj* those powers j a stipulation in favor of the states, and against the general government. " To guaranty" does not mean to create, or cause to be created ; but simply to de- fend that which already exists. Yet Congress, to se- cure the existence of that which, when established, they are bound to defend, have in every case made it a condition, in admitting new states, that their form of government should be republican. In the same clause it is also provided, that Congress " shall pro- tect each of the staies against domestic violence.'* Now^ if their being bound to protect the states in the enjoy- ment of a republican form of government, authorises them to make such a form the condition ot their be- coming states, why may not they, upon the sam.e ground, under the latter clause, prescribe the exclu* sion of slavery, as a condition I Slavery is sure ulti- mately to produce <' domestic violence" wherever it exists. Foreseeing this, might not Congress say to a new state, we will not admit you, if you allow slavery to exist among you ; because we shall be obliged, un- der this clause, at some future period, to protect you against " domestic violence,*'arising from the insurrec- tion and rebellion ofyour slaves? The right to anticipate and prevent an evil which they are bound, when it comes, to remove, is, in both cases, precisely the same; and ot the two evils, " domestic violence" is certainly much more likely to occur from the tolera- tion of slavery, than an anti-republican form of gov- ernment, tor want of an express stipulation to exclude it. Let me not, however, be understood as deriving the power claimed in the present instance, from this clause of the constitution; but to those who think that ihey derive from this section alone, their right to pre- scribe a republican form ot government, this view of the subject cannot surely be without some degree of weight. There is another obvious limitation on the power of Congress in admitting new states, which re- sults from the nature of the compact. New states must be admitted to the enjoyment of all the rights and privileges derived by the original states from the Constitution : otherwise they would not be admits ted into the sameuiiion with the rest. No conditioc can therefore be annexed to the admission of a state, which takes from her any constitutional, or, as it is more frequently called, any federal right; because this would be at variance with the admission itself, and therefore void ; as in any other case of a condi- tion annexed to a grant, inconsisteat with the grant itself. This is a limitation on the powers of Congress in favor of the new states. There is another which may perhaps be inferred in reference to the old. Con- gress can propose no condition to a new state, which, if accepted by her, would transfer to the Union any power to be exercised over other states, which had not been granted by the Constitution to the General Government ; because this would be to effect the political rights of third parties, without their own consent. And here permit me to say, that this limi- tation furnishes, in my view, a conclusive answer to the gentleman from South Carolina, (Mr. Lowndes,) who, if I rightly understood him, founded his chief objection to this measure, on the supposed inability of Congress to acquire, by compact with new states, federal powers not conferred by the constitution on the general government, to be exercised over the other states ; and thus, in effect, to alter the consti- tution in a manner not provided for by that instru- ment. The soundness of this principle it is not ne- cessary here to controvert, or even to examine; since it is totally inapplicable, in my view of the subject, to the present bill. This amendment does not require the people of Missouri to transfer any portion of their sovereignty, or to invest the general government with any new authority, which they did not before possess, applicable to other members of the confederacy ; but only that they should renounce the power claimed for them, ot making slaves of their fellow men. It is the renunciation of a power merely, and not its transfer which is asked in this case. Subject, then, to these just and natural limitations, I can see nothing dangerous or alarming in the power claimed by Congress on this occasion. They can, on the one hand, deprive the new state of no 8 right or privilege conferred by the constitution on the original confederates ; and, on the other, can ac- quire for themselves no new power or authority, to be exerted over the other states, without their consent. When to this we add, that the terms proposed must in all cases be accepted by the new state, before they have any binding force ; and that the supreme Legis- lature of the Union acts for, and represents the only other party in interest, the people of the United States, I can perceive no weight whatever in the argument, so earnestly pressed upon us from the oth- er side, that this is a great and indefinite power, lia- ble to abuse, and therefore not to be presumed to ex- ist. Sir, an argument from the abuse of power is to- tally inapplicable, when the question is, whether we possess the power or not. What powers are more liable to abuse, than those, for instance, of making war and imposing taxes ? Yet no one will deny that, under the Constitution, we possess both these danger- ous and indefinite powers. I have endeavored to show that the right here claimed, is neither danger- ous nor indefinite; yet if it were both of these, this would be no proof that it was not conferred upon us by the Constitution ; though it might have been an argument with thetramers of that instrument for with- holding it from us. They did not see fit, however, so to do, and for leaving this discretion in Congress, limited, as I have shown it to be, many good reasons might, I apprehend, be given. There is nothing, surely, in the nature of a confed- erated republic which renders it necessary for each member of the confederacy to possess the same state or municipal rights, any more than the same extent of territory, wealth, or population. Nor is it true, in point of fact, thai they all enjoy the same privileges, or derive equal advantages, from the Union. Who does not see that Delaware and Rhode Island, for in- stance, gain more from their connexion with the U- nion, compared with what they contribute to its safe- ty or defence, than Massachusetts or New York ? But neither the large states, nor the small, have any just reason to complain, if they enjoy all the rights and immunities for which they stipulated on their ad- mission into the Union. It is the same with Missouri. Acting for herself, by her own free will and choice, she will either accept or reject the terms we pro- pose. If she accepts, and thus makes them her own, she thereby becomes a member of our Union^' she acquires rights which she did not before possess ; ob- tains privileges which we are not at this time obliged to grant ; and if, with good faith and fidelity, the U- nited States perform towards her all the stipulations of the contract, of what can she complain ? Whom has she to condemn ? What right of hers has been violated ? What privilege withdrawn ? What im- munity withheld ? It is, then, the utmost perversion of language to say, as the Honorable Speaker, (Mr. Clay,) does, that, if she accepts these terms, she will become a vassal and a slave ; or to argue, as he has, that this restriction is unjust, because it deprives her of the rights of self government and internal police. For where is the state, in this Union, which possesses these rights in their full extent ? When we are told that Missouri will not have the rights of self govern- ment, if she renounces the power claimed for her of depriving others of their right to freedom — not to ani- madvert here on the odious nature of the claim — is it not equally true, that all the other states are also deprived of the rights of self government ? Is it no^ an attribute of sovereignty, a right of self government, to declare war, to enter into treaty or alliance with other states, grant letters of marque and reprisal, coin money, emit bills of credit, and pass bills of attain- der ? Yet no state in the Union can do any of these things. Are they, therefore, degraded to the rank of vassals and slaves, and deprived of the rights of self government ? Surely not. And why not, sir ? Be- cause they voluntarily surrendered these and other rights to the Union. The original states became members of the confederacy, after mature delibera- tion, not because any one of them approved of every part of the constitution, but because they thought the advantages to be derived from the Union greater, on the whole, than the sacrifices, (and no two made the same,) which that Union required of them. Let Missouri do the same ; and whether she determines 10 at this time lo become a state, or remain a territory for the present, the act will be her own, and perform- ed with quite as much freedom of choice, as the other states enjoyed when the same question was put to th8% Having thus, Mr. Chairman, proved, as I trust, that Congress has by the constitution a right to pro- pose terms and conditions to territories applying for admission, I ask the attention of the committee, while I pass briefly in review the several states admitted into the Union, since the present form of government was adopted, and enquire whether the conclusions which I have thus drawn from the constitution itself, are confirmed, or contradicted, by the practice and the de- clarations of those who have gone before us on this- subject. Tfcis field has been already explored by o- thers, but it is still rich in matter, most pertinent to this occasion. If, from this examination, it should ap- pear that the new states have uniformly been admit- ted, upon terms and conditions, many of them effect- ing the highest attributes of sovereignty, and none of them applicable to the original states, it will not be easy to persuade me, that the present Congress has less power and less authority in this respect, than its predecessors. The first state admittcd,was Kentucky. It was origin- ally a part of Virginia, and was allowed by her to be- come an independent state upon certain <' terms and conditions." By the fourth of these conditions, Ken- lucky was required to stipulate, that she would never tax the lands of non-residents, higher than those of residents. By the seventh, she was required to leave the navigation of the Ohio free to all citizens of the United Stales. If these, and other terms were accept- ed by Kentucky, they were *' to become a solemw compacty mutually binding on the parties, and unalterable by either without the consent of the other." These conditions were accepted by Kentucky, and she was admitted into the Union in 1791, subject to these restrictions. Such is the history of the first state formed under the present constitution. But, how does this agree, sir, with the doctrine maintained on the other side ? Every new state, says the gentle- n man (Mr. Lowndes,) fi-om South Carolina, must have the same sta e rights, the same authority.and the same junsdxcuon mall cases whatever, within its ownHm! us, as the origmal thirteen. The very word sfafe sav, the Speaker, (Mr. Clay,) implies a 'political commt city, possessmg exactly the same rights and powers, and m all respects resembling the parties to the S tTe^lf /Si*'' « "f "y '^^ ^'"^"'^ ^'SU-^ont of the gen- tieman (Mr. Barbour) from Virginia, against this a mendment rests. But, will this^efinitfon fp'w Tj Kentucky ? No matter by whom these restrictions his saEn'.'r''"'''' '^ ^'"■S'"i='' <"• by the Union U is sufficient for my argument, that Kentucky does no possess the same state rights which belonJto the tax TT , '" New-Hampshire, for example, Ve ran tax the lands of non-residents higher than those of 're" sidents. In Kentucky, they cannot. Kentucky then does „ot possess all the attributes of sovereigMy of self-government and internal police, which bdong °o m:d SS •, r,- ^ ^'- .^-^-f''-. degr^le'd: floor, the most disti^g^^ed of^^^.^trfr I", J^ AnA I ' ■ ?" respects, unincumbered and erect And why, sir, is she not degraded by these .!.^,r" tions? The answer is obvious; because Ih.. '' ed to ,bem freely ; because she ^rt:"' 1 n a rTyhh =r^'^tr:-?^t^L:^--^3 stitmi:n tcS :atrfr:r it^^, »- — annexed by CongreLTheradmSor"'""" ''"' bate, shouirbfextend d° "t^heTeS tt'^'^'f" ->atmg to slavery. Another wl-s.^thaTtU'l^dTof 12 non-resident proprietors should not be taxed higher than those of residents. In 1796, she was admitted into the Union " on an equal footing tvith the original states, in all respects whatsoever.'* As this expression here first occurs, in admitting a new state, it may not be improper to enquire into its meaning as applied to this subject. We have ah^eady seen that the United States acquired this territory on certain ^'express con- ditions,*' on which alone they could hold it; that one of these (not to mention others,) deprived the future state of a right — that of taxing non residents higher than residents— which belonged clearly to the ori- ginal thirteen states. This expression could not then mean that Tennessee should possess all the state rights enjoyed by any other state in the Union ; for this would have been to violate the contract with North Carolina. Nor did'Tennessee so understand it; for she incorporated the provisions of the deed of ces* sion into her constitution, and thus in express term* became a party to the compact. The " equal footing" here spoken of, is, then, an equality of federal rights merely; and in no other sense is the expression appli- cable to any of the new states, except Verment. The next state admitted was Ohio — the fairest, the brightest, the most vigorous of all your offspring. That she is so, that she has increased with a rapidity surpassing all example in the history of mankind, till within the short space of a single generation (for the first settlers are still alive) she has filled her capa- cious border?, so that they already overflow, with a race of hardy, intelligent, and virtuous cultivators of the soil, is confessedly owing to its being made a con- dition of her existence, both as a territory, and as a state, that she should exclude, what we now require Missouri to exclude, the foul plague of Slavery from her bosom. With such an example before us, it seems almost impossible to hesitate, as to the course we ought now to pursue. The north-western territory, out of which Ohio was formed, was ceded to the Uni- ted States principally by Virginia. In 1787, an ordi- nance was passed by the old Congress for its tempo- rary government, and for its final disposition. This celebrated ordinance contained various " articles of compact, between Ihe original states,and the people and states in the said territory/* which were *< forever to remain unalterable, unless by common consent." I shall have occasion hereafter to advert more par- ticularly to these articles ; I will here only add, that the sixth provided, that there should be neither slave- ry nor involuntary servitude in the said territory, otherwise than in the punishment of crimes. The proposed restriction on Missouri is copied verbatim from this article. In 1802. Congress authorized the people of Ohio to form a constitution, « provided that the same, when formed, shall be Republican, and not repugnant to the ordinance of July 13th, 1787." The act also contained other conditions, one of which was, that the United States should be at liberty, at any future j^eriod, to extend the limits of Ohio, by adding to it certain other territory therein described These terms, together with those contained in the ordinance, were accepted by Ohio ; and she was admitted into the Union, « upon an equal footing,** so says the law, *5 with the original states, in all respects whatever.** Here then is a third state, with the same federal rights, but with state rights inferior to those of the original thirteen. The next state admitted was Louisiana. By the treaty of April 30th, 1803, the province of Louisiana was ceded to the United States, " in full sovereignty,'* by the French Republic. By this treaty the United States acquired an extent of territory greater than all iheir former possessions. The first question natu- rally suggested by this important fact, is, whether the President and Senate had authority ,under the con- stitution, to make this acquisition; to purchase, for the general government, without the consent of the se- veral state5,a tcrritory,out of which twenty new states, may be formed ? whether, in short, they could law- fully acquire, found, and govern an empire, without their original limits, of such vast extent that it may in time become more powerful than the parent coun- try itself, and eventually hold all the original members of the republic in complete subjection ? If we look to the constitution for an answer to these enquiries. 14 we shall find there no express authority git en to any branch of the government to purchase foreign territo- ry. Do we know, sir, what are to be the effects of this mighty cession ? Have we sufficiently reflected on the entire change, the total revolution, which this purchase has made, or will make, in all our relations, foreign and domestic, internal and exterior ? To those who know the care and anxiety with which the delicate balance of the constitution was adjusted, it will not seem probable, that either the south or the north, jealous as they were of each other's influence, intended, incidentally, and without express terms, to confer on Congress a power to throw into the scales— not indeed the sword of the Gaul — but a territory lar- ger than the Gaul ever conquered, or the Roman, in the height and arrogance of power, ever added to his empire. But, if it be thus doubtful whether the general go- vernment posS^s.es, under the constitution, a right, not expressly ^^gated, to add indefinitely to our empire, it is not in my mind at all doubtful, whe- ther the President and Senate, under the treaty-mak- ing power, can purchase territory, with a stipulation compelling Congress (as it is contended we are now compelled) to admit that territory into the Union, whether they will or not. The power to admit new States is given exclu- sively to Congress ; but this would be virtually to transfer it to the President and Senate alone. The authors of this treaty did not so understand it. I have the best authority for saying that one president at least, (Mr. Madison) was of opinion, (and so expressed himself at the time,) that this part of the treaty could not be executed, without an amendment of the Con- stitution. This was, indeed, the general opinion of the best informed statesmen at that period. I will mention only two, both of them of the highest stand- ing in the parts of the country to which they belonged, ''lam free to confess,'* said the present $,ecretary of State (Mr. Adams) when this treaty came before the Senate in 1 804, "that the third article contains engage- ments, placing us in a dilemma from which I see no possible mode of extricating ourselves, but by an 15 amendment, or rather an addition to tlie Constitution." This was said in answer to the objection, that the treaty provided for the admission of the territory, as a state, into the Union, and was therefore unconstitu- ttonal. He admitted the objection, and proposed to avoid it, by an amendment of the Constitution. Mr. Taylor of Virginia, on the contrary, denied that the treaty contained any such stipulation. "The words of the treaty are," said he, "literally satisfied by in- corporating them (the inhabitants) into the Union, as a Territory, and not as a State. The citizens of the Territories arc citizens of the United States, and have all the rights of citizenship — but, these do not include those political rights which arise from state govern- ments, and which are dissimilar in different states." If it had been then urged, as it nov/ is, that Congress were bound to admit Louisiana, or Missouri, without delay, and without conditions, into the Union as a state, and that whatever might be our rights, under the constitu- tion, they were taken away by the treaty; Mr. Adams would have answered, *' you have no right to admit them at all, till you have amended the constitution :** and Mr. Taylor would have said, that ^'admission as a territory, was all that the treaty required." The same opinions were, on that occasion, even more strongly expressed in the House of Representatives, i refqr to these high authorities, Mr. Chairman, merely to show that, in the opinion of those who ne- gotiated, and those who ratified, this treaty, it could not have been intended to confer on the people of Missouri any peculiar rights, not possessed by other territories of the United States, and consequently that they stand on no better footing in this respect, than other territories applying for admission. Other considerations lead us to the same conclusion. Treaties are declared by the constitution to be f< the supreme law of the land ;" but they are supreme on- ly within the limits assigned them by that instrument. There may be an unconstitutional treaty, though re- gularly formed and ratified, as well as an unconstitu- tional law, though regularly introduced and enacted ; and both vould be equally void, and of no binding 16 force or effect. The power to admit new states is given, with all its incidents, to Congress, and not to the President and Senate merely. If, therefore, Lou- isiana was acquired on conditions which operated in the smallest degree to lessen, to abridge, or to vary the constitutional rights of Congress, with respect to her admission or rejection, with respect to the time when, or the terms upon which, she should be admit- ted ; the treaty, so far as it attempted to interfere with the constitutional powers of Congress on this sub- ject, was void in itself, and could, of course, confer no new rights on Missouri. This, however, is going upon the supposition, that the treaty is inconsistent '\vith the propp^.ed restriction. But, if we turn to that instrument, nas^^35^inconsistency will be found. "The inhabitants of the ceded tcrritory"says the third article, which alone relates to this subject, ^'shall be incorpo- rated in the Union of the United States, and admit- ted, as soon as possible, according io the pi inciples of ihe federal constitution, to the enjoyment of all the rights, advantages, and immunities, of citizens of the United States.'* The inhabitants, then, are to be ad- mitted " according to the principles of the federal constitution." If, therefore, by the constitution, wc have the right here claimed, it was not the intention of the treaty, any more than it would have been in the power of its authors, to deprive us of it. And in this point of view, also, we may lay the treaty altogether out of sight, in deciding the present question. But let us look again, sir, to the provisions of this treaty. The inhabitants are to be admitted, to all ' the rights, advantages and immunities, of citizens of the United States.' Now, sir, the power to hold slaves is fortunately not one of these rights, advantages, or im- munities. No man can hold another in perpetual bondage, by any authority derived from the constitu- tion of the United States. For, if he could, then might slaves be held in New-Hampshire, for exam- ple, or in any of the other free states; because * the rights, advantages, and immunities, of citizens of the United States,' conferred by the constitution, are the same in every part of the Union. But, none will pre- 17 lend that slaves can beheld in New-HampsMre, or in the other free states. It is only in consequence of an authority derived from the laws of particular states that slaves can be held in any part of the Union. There is nothing, then, in the treaty, inconsistent with the proposed re- striction, because the treaty confers only federal rights, and the power to hold slaves is confessedly not one of these lights. In consequence of the nature of our government, every man in this country has a double relation and character to sustain; first, as a citizen of the United States, and, secondly, as a citizen of some particular state. In each of these characters he enjoys rights which, in the other, do not belong to him, and has duties to perform which the other does not impose. It is federal rights only which the general government can confer; and, by adverting to this obvious distinction, we perceive at once that the proposed restriction on slavery leaves the people of Missouri in '' the full enjoyment of all the rights, ad- vantages, and immunities of cidzens of the United States.*' Here, then, is a literal compliance with the terms of the treaty. Its intention is equally obvious. The United States could not have intended to bind themselves to any thing inconsistent with the consti- tution, for tiiey refer expressly to it for their meaning. ISor could France have intended to secure for these people any privileges not enjoyed by other territories of the United States, or to obtain for them an admis' sion into the Union on terms more favorable than had been granted to other territories. Now, the only ter= ritory admitted before the purchase of Louisiana, was Ohio ; and, in that case, this very prohibition of sla- very had been imposed. France, then, if she had looked to the terms on which territories had been, and were to be, admitted, must have expected that this very measure would be adopted which we nov/ propose. I am justified, therefore, in saying that it^ violates neither the terms of the treaty nor the inten» tion of the parties. In 1804, the province of Louisiana was divided into two territorial governments. In 1811, Congress pass- ed an act to enable the people of the Orleans territory.) 18 now the state of Louisiana, to form a constitution « upon xhe conditions hereinafter mentioned." These conditions were numerous and important. Among other things, it was provided that their constitution should contain the fundamental principles of civil and religious liberty j that their laws, records, and legislative and judicial proceedings, should be kept in the English langiaage ; that lands belonging to citizens of the United States residing without the said state should never be taxed higher than those of residents. These and other conditions were accepted by the people of Louisiana, and by them incorporated in their constitution and in an ordinance, which they declared irrevocable without the consent of Congress. In 1812, they were <« admitted into the Union, on an equal footing with the original states, in all respects whatever, provided,** says the act, " that all the con- ditions and terms contained in the third section of the act of February 20th, 1811, shall be considered, deemed, and taken fundamental conditions and terms, upon which the said state is incorporated in the Union.*' It is impossible to believe that the " equal footing** here spoken of, could be any other than an equality of federal rights. An equality of state rights Louisiana could not possess, consistently with this act ; for its conditions, which are irrevocable without the consent of Congress, must for ever prevent her from legislating on various important subjects, over which the original states have complete jurisdiction. Some of these conditions are sufficiently remarkable, and, in my opinion, such as no ingenuity can derive from any express powers given to Congress by the constitution in relation to these particular objects. Where, for instance, are the express clause* author- izing you to make it a condition of admitting a state, that she shall establish religious freedom ; that she shall use the English language in all her official acts ; or that she shall not tax the lands of non residents higher than those ot residents ? I know of no such clauses; none such have been pointed out. No, sir; these conditions can be defended only on the ground which I have taken ; namely, that Congress may ad- mit new states upon such terms as the parties see fit 19 mutually to adopt, provided that they leave the states, so admitted, in possession of all federal rights per- taining to the old states, and do not acquire for them- selves any new power to be exerted over other mem- bers of the confederacy without their consent. I have already, Mr. Chairman, occupied so much of your time with this branch of the enquiry, that I will only add, with respect to the remaining states, that Indiana and Illineis were admitted on conditions similar to those of Ohio ; and that Mississippi and Alabama came in on the same terms, except with re- spect to slavery, which was unfortunately fixed on them, by the deed of cession from Georgia to the United States. Such, sir, is the history of the formation and ad- mission of all our new states from Kentueky to Ala- bama. To each of them, the first question put was, whether they chose at that time to become a state, on the terms then proposed ; which terms, if accepted, were to be irrevocable without the consent of both parties. With respect to three of these states, Ohio, Indiana, and Illinois, the very same restriction on slavery, proposed in this amendment, was made the condition of their being admitted. There is one condition (not to mention others) running through all the new states, which is too remarkable to be here omitted. It was made a condition with all of them, that they should stipulate never to tax the lands of non-residents higher than those of residents. Sir, the right possessed by governments to impose taxes, and to proportion those taxes, according to their own sense of justice or of policy, among the individuals upon whom they are to operate, is among the high- est and most undoubted rights of slate sovereignty. All the original states possess the right (and some of them have exercised it) of taxing the lands of non- residents higher than those of residents. Yet, eight of the new states have expressly renounced this right for ever, as the condition of their being admitted into the Union, Nay, sir, the same condition is to be found in the present bill with respect to Missouri. All these states, then, have been admitted with rights in- ferior to those of the origiRal thirteen. With these 20 undeniable faets beiore us, we shall be at no loss what to think of the position, assumed by gentlemen on the other side, and which, in fact, lies at the foundation of all their arguments, that new states, when admitted into the Union, become at once possessed of all the local or municipal rights of the original states, and are, by the act of admission, placed necessarily on an equality, in all respects, both as to state and federal rights, with the original members. Sir, such a doc- trine finds no support whatever in the past history of our government. It takes, too, for its basis, this strangest of all positions, that the act of admitting a state absolves her from all former obligations, and even from the conditions on which alone she becomes a member of our confederacy. So true is even this last inference, that it has been actually adopted on this floor; and we have been repeatedly told that this restriction, if accepted by Miis^ouri, will not bind her; and that, by altering her constitution, she can at any time evade its force ; in other words, that she may accept a grant upon conditions which she expressly stipulates to perform, and yet, at the same moment, may disregard or violate those conditions I If this be law or justice, if it be good faith, or sound reason- ing, I know not to what conduct, or to what fallacy, these terms do not equally apply. Having thus, Mr. Chairman, established, as I con- ceive, the constitutional power of Congress to impose this restriction, the only remaining enquiry is, as to the expediency of exerting that power on this occa- sion. If it were not known v/ith what ingenuity men support opinions, however extravagant, which, from interest, from prejudice, or from other motives, they may have imbibed, it would seem utterly incredible to an indifferent spectator that the expediency of ex- tending slavery over half a continent should ever come seriously to be debated in an assembly of free- men. But such is the fact ; and the policy of this measure, as well as its constitutionality, is denied. And here, sir, in the very front ground of this en- quiry, as to the expediency of tiiis restriction, i place at once the injustice of slavery ; and, in reply to all that can be said in favor of its extension, I find ^n un- 1^1 answerable argument in tllat great maxim of universal morality, that ivhat is morally wrong can never be po- litically right. We talk of slavery, sir, as if it were an evil merely, and seem almost to forget that it is also a crime ; that it outrages every principle of justice and of humanity, and can rest for its defence on no grounds which do not equally support the tyrant on his throne, and the despot in his most wanton abuse of power. For what can the tyrant do more than make slaves of men ? And what can the despot wish more abject than the submission of hereditary bonds- men ? When I am told then that it is expedient to extend slavery to Missouri, I answer, that slavery is in itself, by the lawj of God and of nature, a moral of- fence ; an act cf tyrasny and of injustice, and there- fore that it cannot be wise or expedient ; because sound policy and true wisdom are never inconsistent with the just and equal rights of man. On this sub- ject, sir, let me not be misunderstood. Though sla- very is in itself unjust, I do not thence accuse all slave-holders of injustice. I am willing to believe that the toleration of slavery in the southern stales, where it has already taken deep root, is not unjust with respect to them ; because it is not in their power at once to remove or avoid this great moral evil. I am willing to believe, with the gentleman from Pennsylva- nia, (Mr. Hemphill,) that a present qualified right may, in this instance, have grown out of an original wrong. The stream, dark and turbid in its fountain, may yet run clear as it v/anders down the valley. But what is it, sir, that can thus purify even slavery from its ori- ginal isjustice ? I answer, 'ffte necessity of the case. It is not, however, interest, convenience, ease, or com- fort, under the name of necessity ; but a real, dir*, uncontrolable, and most fatal necessity, which can alone render it just for one man to deprive another, by the strong arm of power, of the unalienable right of freedom. I am willing to believe that this necessity exists in the present slave-holding states : at any rate, t have no inclination, as I have no right, to enquire whether it does or not. But I cannot believe, because it is Rot even pretended, that this ne- cessity exists in Missouri. Slavery has hardly yet ta- 22 1 ken root in that fruitful soil ; and therefore what is to be tolerated in the old states, only because it cannot there be avoided, is unnecessary, and of course criin- Inal, in Missouri; criminal alike in those who estab- nsh it, and in those who, having the power to prevent, vet suffer it to be established there. I should enlarge, lir upon tiis topic , but 1 perceive that it is one which excites no very pleasant feelings m our southern breth- ren and I am'driven from it by the stern tones and *e renulsive gesture with which the honorable '^V^f^l (^?r Clay) has warned us not to ottrurfe upo" him lith our I^ew England notions. Sir, v|;hat are these Ttls ! Liberty, equality, the "gWs oj man The e are the notions which, if we cherish, ^e roust eneusi Vn secret— which, if we entertain, we must entertain bv ourselver These are the notions which we must cast aside when we leave our own happy homes, and whch?f by chance they find their way Jto this ha , are to'be -P'=»^\-^!^*^Srr Iffh^^ebeirmld^nes^ mfatuation of those who are ^fli^S ,f Jf ';' UV Union, rather than not extend this pe^ '" '";^,, tution beyond the Mississippi.. «"* V^'^^i^^'.^^from further this branch of the enquiry, and witharaw u three great sources of national wealtn. i-^ .^ to manufactures, they can *'*'^^^')',„^„^^'"es,t extent, countries where slavery P-^^f' ^.'° ^«"y f^ti. coun- The great manufacturing «^'^^''^„^^",^X no"-»l^^^- try are almost exclusive y '^°P'^"^^^*° of slavery on holding states. Of the >"J"™us f «^'„<, ever heard commerce, not a word need be sam. > ^rsuits of of a mercantile people, «nf g'"f, 'Lnds ? We ac commerce, with the labor of senile ban .urdingly find that the commerce and navigation of the United States belong principally to the non-slave- holdin^ states; and that the hardy seamen who have borne your naval thunders in triumph over every sea, and planted the stars of your union in a sphere of glory, whence no earthly power can ever pluck them down, wore net only freemen themselves, but born and nurtured in a land where slavery is unknown. It is indeed conceded on all hands that the slave- holding states are not extensively engaged in com- merce or manufactures ; but it is said they are an a- gricultural people, and that to this their whole atten- tion is directed. But, sir, with what success ? The labor of slaves, though it costs nothing beyond their subsistence, is in effect the dearest and least profitable of all kmdsot labor. Feeling no other motive than thetear of punishment, they labor slowly, and with re- luctance ; and seek only how they may escape with :he least possible exertion from their daily, and to them unprofitable tasks. That strongest of all prin- cipics implanted in the breast of man, the desire and the hope of improving his condition, lightens care, and renders toil sweet to him who is cheered with the constant reflection that he labors for himself, and not for a master. Give such a man the fee-simple of a parren rock, and he will cover it with verdure ; plant lum m a desert, and fertility will spring around him. Convenience and content are the companions of his loil, and weath follows in the train of industrious free- dom. On the contrary, the slave and his task-mas- cer, placed m a land flowing with milk and honey, would convert even the garden of Eden into a deser and a waste. Whether this be truth or fiction, I ap. peal to those to say who have surveyed and comp:.red ,hevarymgaspectsofour common country,from Maine to Georgia, m reference to this particular subject? It would be easy for me to produce the highest authori- lies in support of my opinion, from among the first men m the slave-holding states. The sentiments of ^Llf'^'T ^'J T'" ^"^"^ ^^^^ ^^^^^ ^^«" ^i^-eady read t /if '^''' ^'^*'"- ^^^^^ ^^^^^^^ I ^ni about to 1 ead to the committee, are from another distinguished slaveholder, who states, in language stronger^hanl £4 siioulcl have dared to use, facts which no one has dt- nied, and which I may therefore be pardoned for re- peating after him. <' No person" says General Har- per, "who has seen the slave-holding states, and those where slavery does not exist, and has compared ever so slightly their condition and situation, can have fail- ed to be struck with the vast difference in favor of the latter.*' " In population ; in the general diffusion of wealth and comfort ; in public and private irrjprove- ments ; in the education, manners, and mode of life, of the middle and laboring classes ; in the face of the country ; in roads, bridges, and inns ; in schools and churches ; m the general advancement of improve- ment and prosperity, there is no comparison. The change is seen the instant you cross the line which se- parates the country where there are slaves from that where there are none. Whence does this arise ? I answer, from this— that in one division of the country the land is cultivated by freemen, for their own bene- fit ; and in the other almost entirely by slaves, for the benefit of their masters.'* Sir, this is the testimony of a slave-holder, who states, not opinions which he may entertain, hut facts which have forced themselves upon his observation ; facts which you and I, and every member ot this house, have equally witnessed, if then such are the acknowledged effects of slavery ■wherever it exists, can it be expedient to extend these evils to the people of Missouri ? No, sir : with the economy, the industry, the equal distribution of pro- perty, which prevails in the free states, the South would present an aspect altogether different, and would become in every respect more prosperous, and more powertul, than it can ever hope to be, while its generous soil yields its produce only to the reluctant and unhallowed labor of servile hands. If, from the cultivation of the soil, we turn our at- tention to its means of defence, we shall find slavery equally unfavorable to the military sti-ength, as to the wealth and improvement of the country. The space which should be occupied by freemen, is filled with slaves, and from them your armies draw no recruits. But this is not all: these slaves are "^ an oppressed race, ever ready to break out in open rebellion 25 against their masters, and most ready, and most like- ly to do so, when a foreign enemy presses hardest upon the country — so that when our whole military strength is required for defence against a foreign in- vader, no inconsiderable portion of your most effec- tive fjrce must be employed against this domestic foe, to awe into subjection the slaves within your bor- ders. This source of weakness must increase as slavery ext6nds,and become more dangerous in every succced- ingwar. Itisafact,wellestablished,thatthe greaterpart of our regular troops, during the revolution, were drawn from the non-slave-holding states. If any fur- ther proof were required of this, we need only refer to the statement of the number of revolutionary pen- sioners, laid this morning upon our tables. They amount to something more than sixteen thousand ; and of these, nearly thirteen thousand are from states where slavery is not established. If they are to be taken as any criterion of the whole number in service from different parts of the country, the free states must have furnished by far the greatest number of regular troops during that eventful period. I have been told by the venerable gentleman from Pennsyl- vania (Mr. Forrest) who was himself an actor in the scene, that at the seige of York, in the heart of Vir- t;inia, there were not four hundred Virginia troops, exclusive of militia, present at the surrender of Corn- wailis. Sir, the history of the late war brings us to the same conclusion. With more than one half the people of New England opposed to that war, we, sir, the Republicans of the north — furnished more re- cruits to your regular army than any other portion of the country of equal extent. For the truth of this statement I refer you to the returns in the War Office. I shall ever be the first to acknowledge that the sol- diers of the south and the v/est are as brave, as gen- cr )us, and as patriotic, as those of any other portion ot the Union. But the experience of all our wars proves, that, though capable of great exertions as volunteers and militia men, when employed for a ihort time, on a particular service, the inhabitants j26 of the slave-holding states, do not furnish the coQHtrv, either in war or in peace, with many regular soldiers. lam aware, sir, that the topics to which I have here alluded are of a delicate nature ; and I should not have adverted to this view oi the subject, conclu- sive as it is against the extension of slavery, but to repel an assertion, often made in this debate, that whatever may be the evils of slavery, they are confin- ed exclusively to the slave-holding states, and are therefore no concern of ours. Sir, it is a concern of ours. Is it nothing to us, that, in more than half the Union, a state of things exists unfavorable to com« merce, to manufactures, to agricultural improve- ments, and which abstracts materially from the mili- tary strength and defence of our common country ? And is it nothing to us, whether our new confeder- ates bring freedom or slavery, strength or weakness, with them into our Union ? This then is the inter- est, deep and lasting, which we have in the present question ; and this the motive, just and honorable, which we feel, in urging with ardour the adoption of a measure calculated, as we believe, to promote all the great objects for which the government itself was at first established. A gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Randolph) has told us that all the misfortunes of his life (they have, he says, been neither few nor inconsiderable) are light in the balance, when compared with the single mis- fortune of having been born the master of slaves. Sir, of the truth of this remark, I have not the slight- est doubt. It is one of the peculiar evils of this con- nexion that it is alike injurious to the master and to the slave — that the one can no more avoid, than the other dares avow, or avenge, the mutual misfortune and injustice of their several lots. Knowing this, and feeling daily the misery and the dangers of slavery, it is surely something more than strange — it is all but incredible — that the slave-holding states should yet wish to entail on the country west of the Mississippi this tremendous calamity. Such was not formerly the state of public feeling on this subr tr .lect ; on the contrary, the deshe to contract the lim^ its withm which slavery might exist, was the predo- minant sentiment with the fathers of the revolution, whether from the north or from the south. The ordi- nanccofirsrreceivedthesupportofthesouthernstates: and the restriction on slavery, contained in its bixth nrtic e, was introduced on the motion of Virginia. vve iiave now acquired another territory, even more extensive than the north west. We wish to pursue toward It the same policy, and impose upon it the same restriction. But we find no longer a like sup- por from the slave-holdiiig states. The Jeffersons ot the present day, if any such there be, are no Ion- ger heard to describe slavery as a crime ; there is no longer a Patrick Henry in the south to denounce it as inconsistent with Christianity ; no Tucker to refute with irrefragable arguments the miserable sophistry of Its advocates^and as for the Grayson of our times, it er nf?,^- "'"^ ^"^ ^"^" ^^^^ ^^'' Taylor> the mov- fif ?M- ^ amendment, and not to any son of the south, that this honorable cognomen must now be applied. All we ask of the south is that they would do for Mis. arrrn • '^X^t^""^ ^^^eady done for Ohio, Indiana, sl^l. ?""''• ^^^ ^^^ '° ^^^^' i^ y^"" cannot remove Slavery from among yourselves, do not extend it to Wn'r. "'''^" ^^" y^^^ justification, that you ament Its existence, that you load with execrations ton T?a'^ °^ i^°'^ ^y ^^'^°^ '^ ^vas fixed upon you; but do not subject yourselves to the same censure liom the people of Missouri in every succeeding aire V our condemnation will indeed be greater that that of your fathers. To them the possession of slaves might perhaps have appeared an advantage- delu^on ^''"' ^""^^ ^''^^ '^' '^^'^ '^" ^^ "° ^^^^ And who, sir, is to suffer by this measure ? Not L A K ^ . K-""'^' ^^ ^' ^ P^^"^ conceded, that thev will gam by this restriction. Will the people of Missouri, hen, be injured by it ? The Speaker (Mr. Clay) has told us that, If asked his opinion by the peopfe o Missouri, he would advise them not to establish sU very amon^ them. The same has been said by o he- 28 opposed to this restriction. The question of expedi- ency, then, is abandoned, as to the free states, and as to the people of Missouri. They will both gain by this restriction But it is said that the old slave-hold- ing states will be injured by it ; and that the country west of the Mississippi is necessary as an outlet for their redundant slave population. Slavery, it is said, becomes less dangerous by being more widely dif- fused. It is, we are told, a poison which, though deadly in itself, may be weakened, and diluted, and rendered less fatal, by dividing it amongst a number, and giving to each a smaller portion. If this were, indeed, the case, it would even then be ungenerous and unjust in us to seek relief in our sufferings at the expense of others, or to extend to our brethren (though they may be willing to share with us) the bitter ingre- dients of our own poisoned chalice. But, sir, this me- taphor is inapplicable to the present case ; and, if we must indulge in comparisons, I would rather liken slavery to some noxious plant — to some poison tree — the Bohan-Upas, if you will. And what are we now called upon to do ? To lay the axe to the root of this deadly tree ? No, sir, but to lop its excrescences merely, to prune its too exuberant growth, and to transfer, to the fertile regions of the west, new scions from the parent stock ; there to flourish and increase in rank luxuriance, till their fatal branches shall over- shadow and darken all the land. Never was hope more fallacious than that of lessening permanently the evils of slavery in the old states, by extending them to the new. The evil is, that we have already a million and a half of slaves; and the remedy proposed is, to double their number. Our precent misfortune is, that we have eleven slave-holding states; and we hope to alleviate this misfortune by creating as many more ! It is, indeed, the hope of desperation ; it is drinking for the dropsy; it is the relief, short and fatal, which the involved debtor finds in new loans, upon usurious interest, which remove misfortunes for a lime, that they may return again, as they are sure to do, with accumulated force, upon their unhappy victim. S9 But, we are told, if this restriction is imposed, it will not lessen the number of slaves in the United States, and that this is not, therefore, a question res- pecting the increase or diminution of slavery. Sir, I affirm that this is the precise question now to be de- cided. A new and extensive country is about to be settled ; and it is for us to say whether it shall be in- habited by freemen or by slaves. In a few genera- tions, at the furthest, it must be filled with the one or the other ; and will it be pretended that, with twenty slave-holding states, we shall then have no more slaves in them all, than we should have in ten ? Suppose there were but one, would there be as many slaves in Maryland, for instance, as in all the south and west ? It cannot be believed. This is then a question of the increase of slavery. All history proves, that emigration does not, for any considerable time, diminish the number of inha- bitants in the country which they leave. The stream flows, but is not exhausted; it overflows, but its banks are still full, and not the less so for what they have discharged. For two hundred years the tide of emi- gration has been constantly setting, with a steady cur- rent, from the old to the new world ; yet no one be- lieves that Europe is less populous now than she would have been if America had never been disco- vered. On the contrary, her inhabitants never doub- led their numbers,within such short terms, as since the discovery of this country. In Spain, it has been often remarked, that the provinces which sent forth the most emigrants to America, were, at the same time, the best people They have the power, in clear, unequivocal terms. and will clearly and certainly exercise it.** It is surely unnecessary to quote further authorities I have not produced these, as containing my own views of the constitution ; for, in some respects, they are certainly incorrect; but merely to show, what the \vhole history of the times proves, that the framers of the constitution, and those by whom it was adopted, both its friends and its enemies, in every part of the country, considered it as leading gradually to the abolition of slavery in the old states, and as guarding effectually against its introduction into the new states. In proposing the present measure, then, we are only doing what was expected from us by the founders of our republic ; and it is therefore not on us, but on our opponents, that the imputation rests, of intro- ducing new and alarming doctrines, unknov/n to our fathers, and unsanctioned by the constitution. The free states, sir, would never have come into this Union, had they supposed it possible that within the first generation they would become a minority in the government. There wants but one, on the other side, to make them so at present in the Senate ; and, at this 4(i iiionient, the representation of slaves alone, on this floor, exclusive of the whites, exceeds in number, and, on this very question, out votes all the represen- tatives from six out of eleven of thcnon-slavc-holding states. Feeling the weight of this slave representation, and knowing with what fatal activity it increases, is it strange that the free states, believing they possess au- thority under the constitution, should wish to prevent its existence in states hereafter to be admitted^ as they have already prevented it in Ohio, Indiana, and Illi- nois ? No, sir, in such a cause, it would be strange indeed if the best hearts and the best minds of our country, its wisdom and its virtue, were not all en- gaged on this occasion. Nor, 'm truth, have the free states been wanting to themselves on this great day of their trial ; and if we, their representatives on this floor, have but firmness to perform, painful as it may be, the duties of our station, all will be well with them —all will yet be well, if we are but true to our con- stituents, and true to ourselves. And what, let me ask, have we seen or heard, on this occasion, that we, above all others, should shrink from this duty, or hesitate and falter in its performance ? Is it the con- duct of the Senate in connecting Maine with Mis- souri; or the declaration that, in future, no free state shall be admitted till a slave-holding stale can be found to form a balance to it in the Senate ? Is it the doctrine, now advanced, that, instead of three- fifths, all the slaves ought to be represented ? Or is it the assertion, that slavery is the natural state of man, and that slaves are happier than their masters ; or, at any rate, that their condition is better than that of sol- diers and seamen; and that slavery is not only esta- blished in practice among all nations, but is agreea- ble to the laws of nature, and expressly sanctioned by our religion ? Are these the arguments by which we are to be persuaded to forego our just rights on this occasion ? Sir, on my mind they produce an effect directly the reverse of that intended by their authors. When I hear slavery in the southern states lamented 41 as an evil, "which they cannot immediately remove, i acquiesce in the justice of this defence. But when gentlemen go further, and not merely excuse slavery, but pronounce its eulogium ; when they tell us that, however bad it may be for the slave it is no in- jury to the master; that he gains by it, that his ease and convenience are promoted, and, therefore, that it ought not to be touched, I tremble for the stability of our republican institutions^ For on what does this defence of slavery in the abstract rest, but on this— that by the decrees of Providence, one man is born to labor, and another to enjoy the fruits of that labor ; that one is born with a right to govern, and another bound to obey ; the one a master, the other a slave ? And what is this, but the very essence of kingly go- vernment — the doctrine of tyrants, in every age— *< The enormous faith of millions made for one ?'* These, then, are the motives of our conduct — we find slavery unjust in itself: adverse to all the great branches of national industry : a source of danger in times of war: repugnant to the first principles of our re- publican government: and in all these ways, extend- ing its injurious effects to the states where its existence is not even tolerated. We believe that we possess, un- der the constitution, the power necessary to arrest the further pregress of this great and acknowledged evil ; and the measure now proposed is the joint result of all these motives, acting upon this belief, and guided ky our most mature judgments and our best reflec- tions. As such, we present it to the people of Mis- souri, in the firm persuasion that we shall be found, in the end, to have consulted their wishes not less than their interests by this measure For what, sir, is Missouri ? Not the comparatively few inhabitants who now possess the country; but a state, large and powerful, capable of containing, and destined, 1 trust, to contain half a million of virtuous and intelligent freemen. It is to their wishes and their interests that I look, and not to the temporary blindness or the lamentable delusions of the present moment. If this restriction is imposed, in twenty years we shall have 4i2 t^,^ the people of Missouri thanking us for the measure^ as Ohio, Indiana, and Illinois now thank the old Con- gress for the ordinance of 1787. The existence of a state is not limited to a single generation. Its inhabi- tants, yet unborn, have claims upon our wisdom and I our care ; and it is for us to determine what shall be their character and their fortunes. It is in the first formation of societies alone, that individuals have any considerable influence upon governments ; and that a Sew persons have it sometimes in their power to fix the permanent character and enduring policy of states and nations ; to say whether their institutions shall be free or slavish, framed for the benefit of a few, or securing equal rights to all. But, after a gov- ernment is once formed, and the institutions of the country-become fairly settled, though at first but the mere creatures of man*s power, they act, in turn, as the masters of his willj and form and fashion, to their own likeness, the national character of the peo- ple. Never was this remark more applicable than to the present case. It is in our power, by a single act, to determine the character and the policy of Missou- ri on this important subject, connected, as it is, with so many others, for all succeeding times; and to say whether the people whom we admit into our Union, shall bring to it a system of equal rights, extending Ihe blessings of freedom alike to all, or introduce with them an odious monopoly of power and of wealthj unjust to its victims, and injurious to its authors. As we may this day decide, posterity will bless us for laying broad and deep the foundations of an equal government, or load our memories with the maledic- tion of ages, for mistaking or neglecting their inter- ests, and forging chains for them, which we, the free- men of America, disdained ourselves to wear. It is not often that legislators have it in their power to do so much good, or inflict so much evil on mankind; and fortunate indeed will be our lots if we are but iound equal to the glorious task — if we are but wise, according to the measure of our duties, and firm and faithful to the end, in the discharge of this mighty trust. LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 011 899 330 5