Wass ^ 4" 33- 
 Book aS hJs^ 
 
I 
 
SPEECH 
 
 / 
 
 OF 
 
 TEUMAN SMITH, OF CONNECTICUT, 
 
 /</> 
 
 ON THE 
 
 NEBRASKA QUESTION. 
 
 DELIVERED 
 
 IK THE SE'NATE OF THE UNITED STATES, 
 FEBRUARY 10 AND 11, 1854. 
 
 WASHINGTON: 
 
 PRINTED BY JOHN T. AND LEM. TOWERS, 
 1854. 
 
E4-23 
 
 IN EXCHMWE . 
 
 JUN 
 
 5 1917 
 
SPEECH 
 
 OF 
 
 MR. TRUMAM SMITH, OF CONNECTICUT, 
 
 OK THE 
 
 NEBRASKA QUESTION. 
 
 DELIVERED IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES, FEBRUARY 10 AND 11, 1854. 
 
 The Senate having under consideration the 
 bill to establish Territoriol Governments for 
 Nebraska and Kensas, Mr. SMITH rose and said : 
 
 Mr. President: I rise to address the Senate on 
 the subject now under consideration with un- 
 usual hesitation and reluctance. I have not 
 been in the habit of obtruding myself on the 
 notice of tlie Senate; and if I depart on the 
 present occasion from the reserve which I have 
 prescribed to myself, and ordinarily observed, 
 it will be owing to my sense of the magnitude 
 of the evils which must result from this measure, 
 if it is to receive the sanction of the two Houses 
 of Congress, and become the law of the land. 
 
 It is now almost fifteen years since I became 
 a member of Congress, and I have been almost 
 incessantly present in the one body or the other, 
 with the ex&eption of the 28th Congress, during 
 which I was at homp. engaged in the discharge 
 of the duties of4^^ profession. I venture to 
 assert here, that there is no member of this or 
 the oth-er House who has taken less part than I 
 have in the agitation of those deplorable sec- 
 tional questions which have from time to time, 
 and often unnecessarily-, been thrown into the 
 two Houses to disturb, in a high degree, the har- 
 mony of our public councils, and to put in haz- 
 ard the peace of the country. I have contented 
 myself with responding in the simple accents of 
 "yea" or "nay" to the various propositions of 
 agitation and disturbance which have been sub- 
 mitted in either House. Ordinarily I have cast 
 my vote in conformity with the predominating 
 sentiment of my own section, for I do not pre- 
 tend to be a "Northern man with Southern prin- 
 ciples," and I have no confidence in any man 
 who dees set up-that pretention. On one occa- 
 sion, Mr. President, I did address the Senate at 
 very considerable length on these topics, and it 
 is the only time I have ever spoken to them in 
 either House ; it was on the 8th of July, 1850, 
 •when the Compromise measures of that year 
 were pending here, being the day before the 
 death of th« kuaeuted Tatlob. I undertook to 
 
 demonstrate, on that occasion, that there was 
 nothing of practical importance in any or all of 
 the questions then in dispute, which occasioned 
 so much disturbance here, and so much irrita- 
 tion elsewhere. Mr. Webster, in a speech de- 
 livered in this Chamber shortly after, paid me 
 the high compliment of saying tliat I had fully 
 succeeded in my object. I appreciate as highly 
 as any member of tliis body can, the great prin- 
 ciples of free government which lie at the foun- 
 dation of this controversy, but I do not desire 
 to have them introduced here, to become a sub- 
 ject of dispute, except when they can be made 
 to have some useful practical application. As, 
 then, I have not been an agitator, either here or 
 elsewhere, I trust honorable Senators will ac- 
 cord to me a patient hearing, though they may 
 possibly differ from the views which I shall 
 have the honor to present. 
 
 I have risen, Mr. President, to discuss the 
 merits of this bill in extenso, and to dwell oa 
 topics, in the first instance, which have nothing 
 to do with the slavery question. Unfortunate- 
 ly, that question has been thrust into the bill. 
 I shall, however, state other objections, which 
 should, in my judgment, exclude this measure 
 by the unanimous vote of the Senate ; and then 
 we can, if we please, leave the question alluded 
 to undecided, 
 
 I say here, in broad terms, that there are ob- 
 jections to the bill which ought to, and I believe 
 would, crush it to atoms, were there not mixed 
 up with it that all-perverting and blinding ele- 
 ment — the negro controversy. I do not know 
 that I can get the ear of those honorable Sena- 
 tors who seem anxious to abrogate the 8th sec- 
 tion of the act for the admission of Missouri into 
 the Union, but my position is such as to author- 
 ize me to make a strong appeal to their candor 
 and their sense of justice. I united with South- 
 ern Senators in putting down the Nebraska bill 
 of the last session, on the very objections which 
 I now state, notwithstanding it left the Missouri 
 Eeetriction untouched. 
 
 In th« first place, Mr. President, I desire to 
 
inquire of tlie Senate whether it is necessary or 
 expedient for us now to organize two additional 
 territories, when we have already no less than 
 five, viz., Minnesota, Oregon, New Mexico, Utah, 
 and Washington ? I desire honorable Senators 
 to point to any period in the history of this 
 country when we had so large a number on 
 hand as at present; and yet it is proposed to 
 add two more. How we came at the last ses- 
 sion to suffer the bill to organize the Territory 
 of Washington to pass without objection, is in- 
 comprehensible to me; for, in my judgment, it 
 was totally unnecessary. 
 
 My honorable friend, the chairman of the Com- 
 mittee on Territories, (M. Douglas,) started at this 
 session with a proposition to establish 07ie terri- 
 tory, which would give us six. I do not know how 
 long that idea lasted: I believe, however, only 
 about one week — when the thought suddenly 
 occurred to the chairman that it would be expe- 
 dient to divide this 07ic into two territories. And 
 now it seems we are to have seven territories — 
 in fact a complete litter of territories — to be sup- 
 ported and maintained out of the Treasury- of 
 the United States. Sir, I beg leave to enter my 
 earnest protest against this policy. I verily be- 
 lieve that nothing could induce even Southern 
 Senators to vote for this extravagant proposition, 
 were not the negro element mixed up with it. 
 Where, sir, is all this to end? Encouraged by 
 what has already transpired, a convention has 
 been called, as I am informed, in Oregon to form 
 another territory there. 
 
 I admit that the vast expanse within our limits 
 ought to be opened for settlement from time to 
 time as it is needed, but the policy has been al- 
 ready pushed as far as existing exigencies re- 
 qiure. I say, in the first place, to create new 
 territories — to carry them up to the unprece- 
 dented number of seven — is conti-ary to the in- 
 terest of the present organized States, particu- 
 larly the land States. What, Mr. rresideiit, is 
 tlieir present condition? Are they occupied? 
 Are the public lands in them exhausted ? Are 
 there not in Michigan, Wisconsin, Iowa, Mis- 
 souri, and Arkansas, vast bodies of public lands 
 untouched? Are there not large quantities in 
 Illinois, a considerable quantity in Indiana, and 
 some in Oliio, to say nothing of tlie States on 
 the Lower Mississippi and the the Gulf of Mexi- 
 co? I venture to assert that at least one-half of 
 the lands in these States remain unoccupied. 
 There is a vast quantity of public land within 
 their limits, besides a quantity little less in the 
 hands of speculators. 
 
 I say, in the second place, that it is contrary 
 to the interest of the organized Territories to 
 Banction the policy of this bill. There is, sir, 
 the Territory of Minnesota open for settlement, 
 comprising within its limits an expanse large 
 enough to make three States like Pennsylvania. 
 Then there are the Territories of Oregon and 
 Wa.shiugton, each sufficient for two, if not more 
 States. Tlie Territory of Utah is good for one 
 State. It will hardly do to count New Mexico, 
 for I do not believe t hat a sensible wolf would go 
 to reside there. Why should we disperse our 
 population? Wliy not fill uji, to some extent at 
 
 least, the States and Territories now organized ? 
 The objection of injury to the one and the other 
 would seem to me insurmountable. If there be 
 a stern necessity — political or otherwise — for 
 this measure ; if it be desirable to smash the 
 Missouri compromise to relieve the present Ad- 
 ministration from the embarrassments in which 
 it has involved itself by taking the abolitionists 
 and freesoilers of the North to its bosom, avow 
 your policy openly, and the motives of that 
 policy, and then Ave shall know where we are! 
 
 But, sir, I am anticipating. It is said that 
 these Territories should be organized, because 
 by that means the transit of persons and pro- 
 perty across the continent would be facilitated. 
 In answer to that I have to say, that this could 
 be done by establishing military posts along the 
 line at trivial expense. But there is a much 
 more effectual means of accomplishing that ob- 
 ject, which I will propound for the considera- 
 tion of honorable members, and that is a Pacifie 
 railroad, for whicji I contended most strenuously 
 at the last session. I wish such a road properly 
 located, and I believe a central location the best, 
 but I may be disposed to concede that point, 
 and go for a southern route, if you will agree 
 to leave us undisturbed on the slavery question. 
 We have made several compromises with you 
 already, gentlemen of the South, which you fly 
 from, or at least manifest a disposition to do so. 
 Will you stand tip to the new compromise? 
 
 But, after all, sir, this business of creating Ter- 
 ritories is no trivial affair, so far as the treasury 
 is concerned. During the last four years we 
 have appropriated no less than $873,332 52 for 
 our Territories. Of this amount, $682,161 37 
 has been actually expended — leaving a balance 
 of nearly $200,0u0 unexpended, but which is in 
 course oi' being expended, and will soon be ex- 
 hausted ; for I have noticed that the Territories 
 never fail to get every dollar of their appropria- 
 tions. The large sura of $873,332 52 was appro- 
 priated when we had, in fact, only two Territo- 
 rial governments for the wholfe, four years, two 
 for three years, and one for onlj' about six 
 months. If the five goverments had been in 
 lull blast during the whole period, the aggre- 
 c;ate ap)iropriations could not have been less 
 than $l,UOO,CiOu or $1,2011,000. Every Territory 
 requires an outfit — which is ordinarily $50,000, 
 viz : $25,000 for public buildings, $20,00( » for a 
 penitentiary, and £5,000 for a library — so that, 
 if this bill becomes a law, there is to be paid at 
 once out of tlie treasury $100,000 for the objects 
 indicated. The annual cost of the executive, 
 judicial, and legislative departments is about 
 $30,000; and this will make, for seven Territo- 
 ries, the very considerable aggregate of $210,000 
 per annum. 
 
 And this, sir, is not one-half of the story. 
 Other large expenses will be inevitable. Much 
 will be required to extend our post office and 
 post road system over these Territories. We all 
 know tliat the Territories and new States do not 
 refund to the Post Office Department the ex- 
 penses required within their respective jurisdic- 
 tions for the transportation of the mails. 
 
 In the next place, I hare to say th&i we ehall 
 
have to incur all the expenses of extending our 
 land system throughout this vast extent of coun- 
 try. The lands have to be surveyed or run out 
 into townsliips and sections, and brought into 
 the market for sale ; this will probably require 
 several hundred thousand dollars per annum. 
 "We sliall have, also, to extinguish the Indian 
 titles: lirst, such as are possessory; and, second- 
 ly, absolute — or where they have acquired the 
 fee by treaty, or where the lands have been 
 patented in conformity thereto. We had in the 
 bill, as it stood originally, an inkling of what we 
 are to expect from this policy. One section ap- 
 propriated one hundred thousand dollars, and an- 
 other two hundred thousand dollars, for enabling 
 the President to commence negotiations to extin- 
 guish these titles. These clauses, however, have 
 been striken out — I know not for what reason, 
 unless it be by way of preparation for a very 
 rapid progress of the bill through the House of 
 Representatives, on account of the vast merits 
 of the negro clause. But tlie honorable chair- 
 man of the Committee on Indian Affairs had the 
 frankness to announce that these appropriations 
 were not to be abandoned — that they would be 
 put into some other bill. No doubt they will be, 
 and I fear that the aggregate first proposed will 
 be doubled at least, even at the present session. 
 My honorable and most excellent friend from 
 Massachusetts, (Mr. Everett,) who pronounced 
 such an admirable discourse in this chamber 
 yesterday, addressed a very earnest hope to ibis 
 body, tliat ample provision might be made for 
 the poor Indians. When these governments are 
 formed, with all their paraphernalia, our peo- 
 ple will rusli into the Territories, and it would 
 beeonie a matter of necessity to extinguish the 
 Indian title. What sum will be required for 
 this purpose no man can tell. I should not be 
 surprised if it should amount finally to ^50,000- 
 000 or even $100,000,000. It must' be recollect- 
 ed that we are to deal with the titles of half- 
 civilized — I will uot call them savage — tribes, 
 where the^' own the fee, and are the proprietors 
 of the soil, which will prove a much more serious 
 matter than the acquisition of possessor}' rights, 
 as in ordinarj"^ cases. 
 
 It is certain, also, that the adoption of this 
 measure will involve an increase of our army 
 expenditures. The administration is- now call- 
 ing for a large addition to the army, and I have 
 a strong impression resting on my mind that it 
 is really needed, and shall vote for it, unless 
 there be some good reason assigned to the con- 
 trary. But if you adopt this measure, a further 
 augmentation will be required sooner or later — 
 at least one regiment of mounted troops for each 
 Territory. Collision with the Indians will be 
 inevitable. Wars will be of frequent occurrence, 
 and the expenditures under this head will ex- 
 tend over a long period — perhaps a quarter of a 
 century. 
 
 I will mention here a matter which Senators 
 may think of trivial importance, and that is the 
 expense of delegates to Congi-ess from our Terri- 
 tories. These are much greater than I had any 
 idea of until I looked into the facts. For the 
 last Congress they were as follows: 
 
 Minnesota. 
 1st se5sion— mileage, $1,880; per diem, 
 
 $-2,2(10 - - - . 34,080 00 
 
 -2(i session — mileage, $1,880; per diem, 
 
 #704 - - - . . 2.584 00 
 
 Oregon. 
 1st spssion — mileage, §5,960; per diem, 
 
 $'2,200 - - - 8,160 00 
 
 2(! session — mileage, $3,900 ; per diem, 
 
 $704 6.664 00 
 
 UtaJl. 
 
 1st session — mileage, $2,577 60 ; per 
 
 diem, $;-J,2i)0 " .„ ' ' '*'''''''' '^'^ 
 
 2d session— mile.ige, $2, .577 60; per 
 
 diem, $704 - . - - 3,231 60 
 
 New Mexico. 
 
 1st session— mileage, $2,096 80 ; per 
 
 diem, .•s;2.:00' - . - - 4,296 80 
 
 2d session — mileage, $2,152 80 ; per 
 
 diem, .$704 - - . - 2,856 80 
 
 $6,664 GO 
 
 14,824 CO 
 
 8,058 20 
 
 To lliis aggregate is to be added at the present Con- 
 gress an auionnt for tlie Territory of Washing- 
 ton equal to Ifial of Oregon, viz. 
 
 And, then, should this hill pass, we shall have a 
 further addition of at least $0,000 per Congress 
 for eauli Territory, equal to - - • 
 
 7,153 60 
 36,699 80 
 
 14,824 00 
 
 Nothing could more fully illustrate the in- 
 equality and abuses of the mileage system than 
 these details, but there is no hope of a correc- 
 tion at the hands of Congress. Let lis, then, 
 combine this with other financial elements ad- 
 verted to, and give them, in the aggregate, 
 their proper weight. 
 
 I insist, in the next place, that this measure is 
 perfectly impracticable. I can demonstate that 
 it is impossible to execute it in conformity with 
 its provisions and terms. You may do some- 
 thing in the nature of execution, but I say it 
 would be a direct and palpable violation of the 
 law. I refer particularly to those provisions 
 for the exercise of the elective franchise and 
 for holding office. I will not detain the Senate 
 b}' reading the parts of the bill to which I al- 
 lude, but I can state them briefly: It provides 
 that a person to be capable of voting, or eligi- 
 ble to office, must be twenty-one years of age, a 
 white male citizen of the United States — or an 
 alien, also white, who has declared under oath 
 his intention to become a citizen, and who is an 
 inhabitant of the Territory — or, as it is express- 
 ed in another part of the bill, he must have 
 therein "his permanent domicile, residence, 
 habitation, and home." 
 
 Sir, I think I can demonstrate, as a legal 
 proposition, that there are, and can be, under 
 your present laws, no inhabitants there. There 
 may be individuals who are bodily within the 
 limits of those Territories; where they are, if 
 any, I do not know. A member of the House 
 of Representatives from Missouri, (Mr. Hall,) 
 said, at the last session, that there were, in the 
 whole counti-y now proposed to be organized 
 under the names of Nebraska and Kansas, about 
 five hundred individuals j and another membei", 
 
(Mr. Richardson,) the chairman of the House 
 Committee on Territories, tliought tliere were 
 about twelve liundred. I do not care which 
 number is assumed to be correct — it beins^ borne 
 in mind that it is now proposed to divide this 
 coiintry into two Teri-itories. We do not kno^*■ 
 ■where these five hundred or twelve hundred 
 persons are. We do not know how many are 
 in the proposed Nebraska, or how many in Kan- 
 sas. Perhaps most or all are in Nebraska, and 
 this would leave few or none for Kansas. How- 
 ever this may be, I will now endeavor to sliow 
 the Senate that they cannot be called inhabit- 
 ants for the purposes indicated in the bill. 
 
 The Intercourse Act of 1834 lias many pro- 
 visions which bear on this subject. By the first 
 section of that act, all the country comprised 
 within the limits of the proposed Territories is 
 declared "to be the Indian country." By the 
 second section it is provided "that no person 
 shall be permitted to trade with any of the In- 
 dians in the Indian country, without a license 
 therefor from the Superintendent of Indian Af- 
 fairs, or Indian Agent, or Sub-Agent; which 
 license shall be issued for a term not exceeding 
 three years ;" revocable whenever, in the opin- 
 ion of the Superintendent, the party has "trans- 
 gressed" an}' of the laws or regulations provided 
 for the government of trade and intercourse with 
 the Indian tribes, or that it would be imiiroper 
 for him to remain in the Indian country. l]y the 
 third section, a power of revocation and exclu- 
 sion is vested in the President of the United 
 States. By the fifth section, licenses to trade 
 are restricted to citizens of the United States; 
 and aliens, though they have declared under 
 oath their intention to become citizens, are 
 whoU}' excluded liy the sixth section, aliens 
 of every class are heavily fined if they enter the 
 "Indian countrj' without a passport." By the 
 tenth section, "the Superintendent of Indian 
 Aff'airs and Indian agents and sub-agents" are 
 authorized "to remove from the Indian country 
 all persons found tlierein contrary to law, and 
 the President of the United States is authorized 
 to direct the military force to be employed in 
 such removal." By the twenty-third section, { 
 regulations are prescribed for the applicatiou of | 
 such force, but the details arc not material. 
 
 Now, I insist that these provisions amount to ] 
 an utter exclusion of inhabitants from the country 
 in any and every legal sense; pnd that 1 am not! 
 alone in this o])inion, appears from what was 
 said by one of the members above alluded to, 
 (Mr. Hall,) in the House of Representatives, at 
 the last session, as follows: "The (jcntleman 
 from North Carolina, (Mr. Clingman,) in tlie Jirst 
 place, objects to this Territory/, bicavsc there are^ 
 only Jive or six hundred people settled there. Whtj 
 is it that there are not more people there ? Sii/ijili/ 
 because your laws will not let a white man settle 
 there." And further: "As soon as a white man 
 goes into the Territory, without a license from the 
 Indian JJcpartnient, there is a company of dra- 
 goons to run him out of the Territory." 
 
 I have a groat rcsix'ct for, and confidence in, 
 the learning imd al)ility of IJie chairman of the 
 Committee ou Territories, and 1 should like to 
 
 have him explain how he can get inhabitants 
 into a country where by law no person has a 
 right to be for a single hour, except by license 
 for a short period, and that too revocable. 
 
 Well, sir. in the year 1817, I studied law in 
 companionship with my honorable friend from 
 Delaware, (Mr. Clayton,) in good old Connecti- 
 cut, and I then learned that, in order to constitute 
 an inhabitant, a man must have a settled, per- 
 manent residence. Tliere must be no animo 
 revertendi — no intention to go back to his old 
 abode. Can it be said that licensed traders are 
 in this predicament — that is to say, without the 
 animo revertendi — when the law rigidly limits 
 their presence in the Territory to three years, 
 subject to be turned out at any time, at the 
 pleasure of the President, or either of the other 
 officers named in the act. A licensed trader an 
 inhabitant! There are other things in the bill 
 which look very mysterious; but certainly it is 
 a very great mysterj' how the honorable chair- 
 man expects to turn a licensed trader into an 
 inhabitant. As for the people who go there 
 without license, the honorable Mr. Hall tells us 
 that the moment they make their appearance a 
 company of dragoons stood ready, sword in hand, 
 armed to the teeth, to chase them out of the 
 country. Sir, a man was once asked where he 
 lived? He replied, "all along shore." You 
 might as well undertake to convert this personage 
 into an inhabitant, as to call the few people such 
 who have been roaming over that country con- 
 trary to law. My honorable friend from Illinois 
 is so anxious to put through the negro clause of 
 this bill, that he has worked himself up to the 
 extravagant proposition, that these people may 
 be legally called inhabitant.^. They are to be 
 baptised into the name of inhabitants, in viola- 
 tion of our most familiar ideas, and all just 
 notions on the subject are to be turned upside 
 down. 
 
 Perhaps it will be said that there is some por- 
 tion of tliese Territories to which the Indian 
 title has been extinguished; and the honorable 
 chairman may insist that, so far as that portion 
 is concerned, it has got some inhabitants any 
 how; and we may go up hill and down dale, 
 and search out all the nooks and corners oi the 
 country, and may perchance find somebody whom 
 we can in. a proper sense call an inhabitant, but 
 1 very strongly suspect — I have a mind to use 
 the word "(juet^.t," for I have an indisputable 
 title to it as a native of New Kngland — that the 
 five hundi-ed people mentioned by Mr. Halt, 
 and the twelve hundred conjectured by Mr. 
 RicnAiinsoN, will be found on the liulian lands, 
 and in immediate contract with the Indian tribes. 
 
 But if it be otherwise, or, in other words, if 
 the pojiulation, such as it is, can be assigned to 
 llie otlier jiarl of tlie Territories, then the honor- 
 able chairman, before he can call them inhabit- 
 ants will have to tramjilc under foot another act 
 of Congress. Yes, sir, another act. I refer, sir, 
 to the act of 18u7, by which it is esju'cssly pro- 
 vided, that if an}' person or persons shall intrude 
 on the public lands, he shall be treated as a tres- 
 ])asscr, and it is nuide the duty of the proper 
 oflicer of the Government to turn him out, and, 
 
I think, also of the President to employ a mili- 
 tary force if necessary. Here we have the dra- 
 goons again ; chasing down the inhabitants of 
 the honorable Senator from Illinois. I do not 
 know but that one of them may be the abolition 
 missionary, mentioned by the honorable Senator, 
 who manifested his abolitionism and his hatred 
 of slavery in a very peculiar and remarkable 
 manner, by purchasing and bringing into the 
 country a slave, whether male or female the 
 Senator did not say; perhaps he had better in- 
 quire. 
 
 Mr. DOUGLAS. I will inquire, if the gentle- 
 man wishes it. 
 
 Mr. SMITH. No, sir. I have nothing to do 
 with the matter. I surrender the whole negro 
 question to the Senator; he has jurisdiction of 
 it, and I believe of nothing else. 
 
 Nor can the honorable Senator (Mr. Douglas) 
 get along witli the law of 1841, which authorizes 
 pre-emption rights. By the act referred to it is 
 provided that whenever the Indian title to the 
 
 Eublic lands has been extinguished, and the same 
 ave been surveyed, it shall be lawful for a citi- 
 zen, or an alien who has declared under oath an 
 intention to become a citizen, to enter upon a 
 quarter section of such lands, settle thereon, 
 and thus acquire the right of pre-emption on 
 certain specified terms. Now these lands have not 
 been surveyed, and the difficulty is equally in- 
 surmountable in both parts of these Territories, 
 that is to say, where the Indian title has been 
 extinguished and where it has not. I am very 
 sorry that there should be so many obstacles to 
 the progress of the Senator, for I have a sincere 
 respect for him, nay, admiration, on account of his 
 remarkable fecundity in the line of Territories. 
 We have every session the parturition of a Ter- 
 ritory, occasionally two at a time as now. I am 
 sorry that the travail throes should be so ter- 
 rific. I do not believe that even the Cffisariau 
 operation will save the patient. As, however, 
 the honorable Senator is a devotee of progress, 
 he must give birth to a Territory occasion- 
 ally. I will proffer him a little bit of advice if 
 he will permit me, by way of preparation for 
 "lying in." In the first place, he should have 
 the Indian title extinguished to a good breadth 
 of country ; and if he has any respect for the 
 faith of treaties, such country should be located 
 far away from those Indian Territories which 
 we have guarantied and bound ourselves by the 
 most solemn obligations to secure to that unfor- 
 tunate race forever. 
 
 In the next place, the Senator ought to ask 
 for an appropriation to have lands surveyed; 
 and after this has been done, and the country 
 marked off into townships, sections, and quarter 
 sections, the settlers can go there and build their 
 log-cabins — when my friend will have people in 
 the country whom he can properly call inhabit- 
 ants, and then he may go it blind in this business 
 of manufacturing Territories, for aught I care. 
 Hence there are no inhabitants there, and can 
 be none; and, therefore, there can be neither 
 
 voters nor office-holders, in conformity with the 
 
 provisions of this bill. 
 
 It is a remarkable fact that the Senator (Mr. 
 
 Douglas) does not in this bill provide for the 
 suspension or repeal either of the act of 1804 or 
 that of 1807. Thus he leaves those acts in full 
 force, so that not only the Governor, but the le- 
 gislative assembly itself, would be liable to be 
 chased out of the Territories by the dragoons. 
 Suppose some place can be found where it would 
 be lawful to erect a structure for the accommo- 
 dation of the assembly, and suppose, moreover, 
 that the body convenes and is duly organized. 
 Could they deliberate in peace? Why, sir, in 
 the very midst of a flight of oratory of some 
 patriot on (say) the negro question — of which, 
 according to this bill, they are to have sole ju- 
 risdiction — the dragoons might appear, and then 
 we should have an universal stampede of Gov- 
 ernor, counsellors, and representatives! I can 
 see them, even now, streaming across the coun- 
 try, the dragoons in full chase, with the honor- 
 able Senator (who would naturally be at hand 
 to take care of his offspring) following, booted 
 and spurred, close at their heels, and trying to 
 arrest so untimely a procedure by reading the 
 riot acL 
 
 Besides, what is to be the state of things if 
 we invite our people to rush in before the lands 
 are surveyed? Will it not produce confusion, 
 utter confusion? Suppose on the surveys being 
 made, it turns out that two or more settlers are 
 on the same quarter section, which of them is to 
 have it? To open the country to settlement in 
 advance of the public surveys, is to the last de- 
 gree absurd. Nay, you do not open it, you only 
 ask our people to violate existing laws, and yon 
 make yourselves accessories before the fact to 
 every species of enormity. 
 
 But there are other parts of the machinery 
 which will be found nearly as stubborn, if not 
 quite. The Governor of each Territory is to lay 
 off' the same into council and representative dis- 
 tricts, and every counsellor and representative 
 must be an inhabitant of the district. I would 
 like to witness the process of laying off this 
 country for the purposes indicated. How is it 
 to be done? Where are the villages? Where 
 are the inhabitants so grouped as that they could 
 conveniently be comprised within a district? 
 For aught I can see, in the exuberance of this 
 policy, the Governor would have to manage 
 somewhat in this wise: Log-cabin No. 1, situat^i 
 near the top of branch so and so, shall be dis- 
 trict No. 1 ; and log-cabin No. 2, situated fifty- 
 miles northeast of No. 1, shall be district No. 2, 
 and so on, to the end of the chapter. Perhaps 
 the Governor would be reduced to such straits 
 that he would have to constitute any half dozen 
 log-cabins in the same vicinage, each into a dis- 
 trict by itself, and then each occupant would be 
 sure to get into either the council or the legis- 
 lative assembly. I think that if the districts, as 
 they must necessarily be constituted, were liiid 
 down on paper, it would cast this proceeding 
 into contempt, and render it all a farce from be- 
 ginning to end. 
 
 But, Mr. President, I now come to a question 
 which I deem of much higher importance than 
 any to which I have hitherto adverted. It is a 
 question which, in my judgment, deeply con- 
 
eerns the honor of this Republic and the charac- 
 ter of this nation for integrity and good faith. 
 I say that if you pass this bill you initiate a 
 policy which will result in the outrageous 
 breach of numerous treaties which you have 
 made with the Indian tribes now having a rest- 
 ing place west of the organized States. Nay, it 
 is a present violation of those treaties. It will 
 bring upon them irremediable calamities, and 
 will within a few years consign them to utter 
 annihilation. I am very much indebted to a gen- 
 tleman recently a member of the House of Rep- 
 resentatives, (Mr. Howard, of Texas,) for a digest 
 of these treaties. I have it here in the Congres- 
 sional Globe of last session. It will greatly fa- 
 cilitate and expedite the examination of the 
 subject to use this digest, rather than to refer to 
 the treaties themselves. Before I proceed to 
 Bpeak particularly of these treaties, I wish to 
 recur to tlie act of 1830, "to provide for an ex- 
 change of lands with the Indians residing in any 
 of tlie States or Territories, and for their re- 
 moval west of the Mississippi." By the third sec- 
 tion of the act it is provided that in making the 
 exchanges, "it shall and may he lawful for the 
 President solemnly to assure the tribe or nation 
 with which the exchange is made, that the United 
 States will forever secure and guaranty to them and 
 their heirs aiid successors, the country so exchawjed 
 with them, and if they prefer it the United States 
 Kill cause a patent or grant to be 7nade and exe- 
 cuted to them for the same." This is certainly 
 very strong language. Ti»e President is autho- 
 rized not only to give an assurance, but one of 
 the most formal and solemn cliaracter — not onlj' 
 that they should be permitted to occupy their 
 new homes in peace, but that the same should 
 descend to their children and their childrens' 
 children forever; and, moreover, that they might 
 have the option of an absolute title secured by 
 a patent under the sign manual of the Presi- 
 dent, and bearing the broad seal of our Repub- 
 lic. Considering that we were about to deal 
 with poor, benighted, friendless Indians, such 
 an enactment imposes on us all the obligations 
 of the most solemn treaties; and we have no 
 moral right either to set them aside or to evade 
 in the slightest degree their force. Such was 
 your legislation, based on the policy of remov- 
 ing the Indians from the east side of the Mis- 
 sijjsippi west of the organized States. It was 
 your policy to take them from their homos — from 
 the graves of their fathers, their wives, and 
 children, across the "Father of Waters" into a 
 land tlicy knew not : and to induce them to 
 yield all tliat men deem sacred, we said to them 
 you shall iiave here an ainding j)lace ; here you 
 shall no longer be disturbed by the lawless, "nor 
 pur.-<ued with importunities to yield your new 
 abode. Well, sir, the treaties were made; the 
 promises were all given and the Indians were in- 
 ueedd to remove — though with mucli dilHcuty. 
 Even a military force had to be emploj-ed tosonio 
 extent, if I do not mistake the history of the coun- 
 try. I will not 8i>cak of the hardships of that 
 journc}', nor of tliose greater hardships which 
 they must have encountered when they found 
 themselvee in the far West without dwellings, and 
 
 with inadequate subsistence. This measure had, 
 in fact, little reference to the true interest of 
 these unhappy peojjle, whatever suggestions to 
 that effect may be found in the public docu- 
 ments, but much more to the advancement of 
 the States from which they were removed, in 
 population and wealth. Hence obligations arise 
 which appeal to Heaven, and which the high' 
 est considerations of duty require us to execute 
 and fulfill. "Wliat, Mr. Pi-esident, are these 
 treaties ? I find that they divide themselves into 
 three different classes: First, treaties which stipu- 
 late in express terms that the lands ceded shall 
 not be included within any State or Territory 
 without the consent of the Indians. Secondly, 
 treaties which contain the same stipulation, 
 without any qualification whatever, that is to 
 say, the words " without their consent " are left 
 out, so that the stipulation is absolute ; and in 
 the third class there is nothing said in express 
 terms about their being included in any State 
 or Territory; but language is used of an equiva- 
 lent character. The language in every instance 
 imports that these lands were to be their per- 
 manent home and final abiding place. 
 
 I ask honorable Senators to tell me, when it 
 is said to an Indian tribe that they shall have a 
 certain tract of country as a permanent home, 
 what is meant by it ? Do you not intend that 
 they shall understand it as importing a guaranty 
 that they shall have it as an abiding place for- 
 ever? Indeed I consider the language of those 
 treaties which contain only general words as 
 importing the same thing as the more precise 
 stipulations of the first two classes of treaties, 
 particularly as their general words connect 
 themselves with the third section of the act of 
 1830. 
 
 But, Mr. President, mj' friend, the chairman 
 of the Committee on Territories, insists that he 
 has delivered the bill from the objections which 
 I now urge. In the first place it is admitted that 
 the lines propounded sweep within such Terri- 
 tory tlie Indian lands thereto appertaining ; or, 
 in other words, the exterior lines of Nebraska 
 embrace a portion of these Indian grants, and 
 the exterior lines of Kansas the residue, so that 
 they are all included either in the one or the 
 other. This, it is admitted, would be a clear 
 and palpable violation of the treaties. In order 
 to obviate this difficulty my honorable friend 
 has inserted in so much of the bill as relates to 
 Nebraska the following proviso : 
 
 " That nothing in this act contiined shall be constrned to 
 impair the ri^^hts of person or |iro|ierty now pertainin" to the 
 I iiilians in saiil Territory, so long as snch rrahls shall remain 
 unoxtiujuislied by treaty between the Unitecl States and such 
 Indians, or to include any territory which, by treaty with any 
 (ndiao tribe, is not, without the consent of said tribe, to be 
 included within the territorial limit: or jurisdiction of any 
 Slate or Territory ; but all iuch territory shall be excepted out 
 of the bonudaries, and constitute no part of the Territory of 
 Nebraska, until saiil trilio shall signify their assent to the 
 ('resilient of the ITnited States to be included within the said 
 Territory of Nebra>ka." 
 
 And then he has inserted a similar proviso in 
 that part of the bill wliich relates to Kansas. 
 
 ]\Iy honorable friend, the chairman, thrusts 
 them all into the Territories, and then, in order 
 to relieve the bill of bad faith, he snatches thorn 
 
9 
 
 out — where they are to remain until they shall 
 " signify to the President of the United States 
 thew- assent to be included within the proper 
 Territory." How signify? "What amounts to a 
 signifj'ing of their assent? Will they write a 
 letter to the President? Are they to send an 
 Indian talk .? • Is a delegation to appear at the 
 white house to smoke with the Executive the 
 calumet of peace? There is no suggestion of a 
 treaty. The Senate is to have nothing to do 
 with the subject; but something is to be done 
 which, in the judgment of the Executive, shall 
 amount to a signifying of assent — then they are 
 to jump right in. 
 
 You sweep your boundaries around them in 
 the first instance, and have them momentarily, 
 then put them out with a great parade of fair- 
 ness, and then you set a snare for them under 
 the head of "assent signified" — knowing that it 
 would have precisely the same affect as if all 
 this jugglery of in and out and in again were 
 not resorted to. 
 
 Now, Mr. President, I am a plain man, and I 
 desire to say, ia broad terms and in measured 
 language, that this is a mockery — a complete 
 mockery ! " You keep the word of promise 
 to the ear, but break it to the hope." Now I 
 ■want to propound to my honorable friend, the 
 chairman of the committee, one question. I 
 want to know if this is not a final act of legis- 
 lation? Does not this bill include within the 
 Territories all these grants in futuro, and all 
 the residue of the country comprised within the 
 exterior limits, in preseyili ? And I maintain that 
 to include them by a final act of legislation — 
 though in futuro — is just as much a breach of 
 the treaties as it would be to include them in 
 presenti. You do the very thing which the 
 Indians provided against by these stipula- 
 tions. Tliey knew that if they were included 
 within the limits of any Territory or State, 
 every effort would be made to get away their 
 lands. And do you gain any thing — so far as 
 the question of good faith is concerned — by in- 
 cluding them in the Territories in futuro, and 
 then embarking instantly in that very effort? 
 Does it make any difference to the poor Indians 
 in what order the facts occur? The purpose to 
 include them in the Territories and to get away 
 their lands is entertained at one and the same 
 moment, and that is avowed on the face of the 
 bill. I beg Senators to consider what was the 
 object of these treaty stipulations not to be in- 
 cluded in the limits of any State or Territory. 
 "Was it to secure to the Indians their lands? 
 No! because the treaties declare in express 
 terms that they shall be theirs forever. "Was it 
 to secure to them the right of self-government? 
 Not at all : for the treaties are equally explicit 
 on that point "What, then, was the object of 
 it? It was to protect themselves against the 
 all-corrupting effect of our glitteting gold. They 
 had experienced the bitter consequences of such 
 seductions before. Indeed it is well known 
 that it has been the settled policy of this Gov- 
 ernment for the last quarter of a century, in- 
 augurated by the late President Jackson, to 
 separate the Indian race wholly from our own 
 
 people, and to place them by themselves, where 
 they could be educated, civilized, and, if possi- 
 ble, christianized : where there would be no mo- 
 tive, either on the part of the General Govern- 
 ment or the people of any State or Territory, 
 for dispossessing them of their lands. All tlua 
 is now to be reversed. And how long can you 
 expect to escape the reproach of just and good 
 men every where. Sir, I rejoice that there is 
 one honorable member of this body— I refer to my 
 friend from Texas (Mr. Houston) — who has long 
 been the protector and guardian of these poor 
 people, and who will endeavor to assert and 
 vindicate their rights under the treaties to which 
 I have referred. He is much more competent to 
 do justice to the subject than I am, and I rejoice 
 to be able to turn the case over to his faithful 
 hands. If you commence the policy of dispos- 
 sessing, you will pursue it to a consummation. 
 "Where are these unfortunate jjeople to go ? "Will 
 there not soon be a vast population in Minne- 
 sota — an immense column of enlightened, intel- 
 ligent, patriotic freemen, rushing forward from 
 tlie Mississippi to the base of the Rocky Moun- 
 tains, and ultimately overleaping that barrier, 
 and occupying the Territory beyond. I ask 
 you, then, can they go North ? No, sir ! mani- 
 festly no ! "Will they go South : will you turn 
 them down upon the State of Texas ? Would it 
 be just to that State to do so ? And how long 
 could they exist there ? Is there not another 
 mighty column advancing from the Gulf of 
 Mexico to the North and Northwest, which is 
 ere long to give to the State of Texas an amount 
 of population and wealth which will render her 
 little if any inferior to any State in the Union f 
 
 You first lay hands on all their territory east 
 of the Mississippi, and now you lay hands on all 
 their territory west of that river: or rather you 
 initiate a policy which is to have that result, 
 to a dead certauity. If you pass this bill you 
 write down against the aboriginal inhabitants 
 of this country a sentence of annihilation. Are 
 they to be dealt with fairly even in carrying out 
 this scheme — which seems to me to be perfidious. 
 Will it not be a spoliation ? It is true indemni- 
 ties will be granted — perhaps inadequate ; but 
 whether adequate or inadequate, nine-tenths of 
 the amount will find its way into the pockets of 
 our own people — leaving no substantial benefit 
 to the poor Indians. 
 
 We are to crush them down, rob them of their 
 territory, and to leave them without an abiding 
 place. 
 
 Ere long nothing wiU remain of them, but the 
 record of their wrongs on the darkest page of 
 our history. 
 
 It was mainly on the ground last assumed that 
 I opposed the bill of the last session, though it 
 left the Missouri restriction in full vigor. 
 Having passed the House, a motion was made 
 on the 2a of March, by the honorable Chairman 
 (Mr. Douglas) to proceed to its considera- 
 tion, which failed by a vote of 20 yeas to 25 
 nays. This motion was renewed the succeeding 
 day, and the bill was taken up without a division, 
 when a Senator from Arkansas moved to lay it 
 on the table, which prevailed by a vote of 23 
 
10 
 
 yeas to 17 nays. On the first occasion four 
 Northern Senators, viz: Messrs. Bradbury, 
 Davis, Fish, and Foot voted with me in the nega- 
 tive, and on the last, four also, viz: Messrs. Broad- 
 head, Davis, Fish, and Phelps voted with me in 
 the negative. Messrs. Broadhead and Phelps were 
 not present on the first occasion, and Mr. Brad- 
 bury on the last. It thus ajjpears that seven 
 Northern Senators, including myself, opposed 
 themselves to this bill resolutely and firmly, no 
 doubt all on the grounds now assumed, and we 
 were supported by every Senator from the slave- 
 holding States, with the exception of the Sena- 
 tors from Missouri, (Messrs. Atchison and Geyer,) 
 and it is with infinite concern I see a disposition 
 manifested now by my friends of the slave-hold- 
 ing States to change front and go for this bill en 
 masse. But right cannot be made wrong, nor 
 wrong right, by the introduction of the negro 
 clause. I shall not envy the position of honorable 
 Senators if such shall be their ultimate course. 
 What will posterity say? "\^^lat good and just 
 men every where? 
 
 Sir, it is contrary to the true interests of the 
 slave-holding States to filch these lands from the 
 poor Indians, and break up their settlements. My 
 opinion is, we should form the country covered 
 by the grants, and perhaps some of the adjoining 
 country, into a distinct territory — an Indian terri- 
 tory, and then we should concede to them a 
 Delegate in Congress, which if I mistake not, we 
 have authorized them to expect by the terms of 
 one or more of the treaties. I would then change 
 our policy entirely. I would exclude the trader, 
 and above all I would exclude the great curse 
 of the Indian race, alcohol. Whatever goods or 
 agricultural instruments they require can be 
 purchased by the United States through the 
 War Department. I would pursue such a policy 
 as to gradually wean them from the chase to the 
 avocations of the plough, the axe, and the scythe, 
 and thus build up a prosperous if not a great 
 community, as a perpetual monument to the jus- 
 tice and goodness of the American people. I 
 would not depart from the treaties even though 
 you now proposed for the first time to enact the 
 exclusion of slavery north of 36° 30'. I am for 
 standing by the faith of treaties at all hazards. 
 "FlatjUStUia ruat coeium." 
 
 (Here the Senate, on motion of Mr. Seward, 
 adjourned ; and on the succeeding day, to wit, 
 Friday, Febiniary 11th, it resumed the consider- 
 ation of the subject, when Mr. Smftu proceeded 
 as follows:) 
 
 Mr. President: I resume the remarks which I 
 was addressing to the Senate yesterday, by re- 
 curring to some of the last words uttered by the 
 great Daniel Webster in this chamber. They 
 were as follows : . 
 
 " Sir, my object is peace ; my object is reconciliation. My 
 porpose is not to make np a case for the North or South. My 
 object is not to continue useless and irritating controversies. 
 I am apaiast a{;itators, North an<l South. I am ai;ainsl local 
 ideas. North ami .South ; and against all narrow and local 
 contests. I am an American, mid know no locality in Ame 
 rica — that is my country — that is my country. My heart, my 
 nentimenU, my judgment, demand of me that I shall pursue 
 
 the good and the harmony and the Union of the whole coan- 
 
 U7." 
 
 Precisely in this spirit I rise, Mr. President, to 
 oppose the clauses of this bill which proposes to 
 abrogate the Missouri Compromise. In the same 
 generous, liberal, and truly national spirit, with 
 a view to the peace of the country, and to sus- 
 tain the reconciliation so happily accomplished 
 in 1850, 1 shall resist to the last tlJis unnecessary 
 measure. The course which I pursued at the 
 last session, in voting, as already stated, against 
 the bill for organizing Nebraska, when it left 
 the exclusion of slavery north of 36° 30" un- 
 touched, is proof conclusive that my opposition 
 now is not based on sectional motives. I feel at 
 liberty, under such circumstances, to speak, and 
 shall speak with entire freedom. I do not hesi- 
 tate, Mr. President, to pronounce this proposition 
 ajire brand thrown into the two houses of Con- 
 gress. It is, in my judgment, calculated to in- 
 flame the country in a high degree, and to bring 
 back upon us all the dangers and evils from 
 which we have but just escaped by the efforts 
 of our wisest and best men. We are now to 
 undo the great measures of peace which were 
 adopted in 1850, and which have been cordially 
 acquiesced in by all parties and all sections of 
 the country. In short, we are to have strifes, 
 bickerings, alienations, and disturbance, without 
 the slightest prospect of benefit to either section. 
 I hope there is enough of goodness and modera- 
 tion in the body to put down this project of 
 mischief at once, so that we may consecrate our 
 time and our faculties to the promotion of such 
 measures as are demanded by the welfare of a 
 great and united people. 
 
 And here, Mr. President, I cannot help notic- 
 ing the extraordinary manner in which this 
 measure has been sprung upon Congress. Was 
 it suggested or dreamed of before we met at this 
 Capitol on the first Monday of December ? Had 
 it been adverted to in the newspapers, or at 
 public meetings of our citizens, either North or 
 South? Have the legislatures of the Southern 
 States demanded it, or has there been any ex- 
 pression of public sentiment, either there or else- 
 where, to sustain it? On the contrary, is not 
 the universal acquiesence of the country in the 
 bill of the last session, which left the Missouri 
 restriction in full force, proof conclusive that 
 the American people have been taken completely 
 by surprise? 
 
 Why, sir, that bill was carried through the 
 Ilouse by a largo majority — the vote being yeas 
 98, nays 43. There were in the affirmative no 
 less than twenty votes from the slaveholding 
 States, viz: From Maryland, Evans; from Vir- 
 ginia, Ilollidaj', McMiJllcn, and Powell; from 
 Alabama, Cobb and Smith; from Louisiana, 
 Landry and St. Martin ; from Kentucky, Gray 
 Stone, and Ward ; from Tennessee, Johnson, (An- 
 drew,) Watkins, and Williams; and from Mis- 
 souri, Darby, Hall, Miller, and Porter. Thus we 
 find gentlemen from every part of the country 
 supporting the organization of Nebraska witli 
 slavery totally excluded from its limits by the 
 act of 1820. I am disposed to think that there 
 is not a man in tlie nation who has been more 
 strenuous in ujtholding the rights, the interests, 
 and the honor of his own section, than the pre- 
 
11 
 
 Bent able Executive of Tennessee; and yet he 
 deemed it but just that the Missouri restriction 
 should be maintained, and Nebraska organized 
 subject to that restriction unimpaired and in 
 force. I would inquire, moreover, why the Pre- 
 sident did not advert to this subject m his an- 
 nual message at the opening of the present ses- 
 sion. If the restriction be a grievance, and its 
 repeal be called for by the public sentiment of 
 the South, surely he must have known it. If it 
 be repugnant to the adjustment of 1850, and 
 subversive of our true interests, surely the fact 
 could not have escaped his vigilance. And yet, 
 sir, in a moment of profound repose, and without 
 the knowledge or suspicion, I venture to say, of 
 five members, this magazine of explosive mate- 
 rials has been introduced into Congress, and we 
 are required to deal with it as best we may. I 
 am confident the impression will exist universal- 
 ly, or nearly so, that there are other objects than 
 the public good, which have prompted this ex- 
 traordinary procedure. I fear that this is no- 
 thing but a movement on the political checker- 
 board, and has more reference to party objects, 
 and future presidential elections, than to the 
 real welfare of the American people. 
 
 I cannot avoid, Mr. President, taking some 
 notice here of the singular mutations which this 
 measure has undergone. It has been presented 
 to us in all manner of shapes and forms. In the 
 first place, we have submitted to us a report 
 from the Committee on Territories, in which, 
 after looking at the subject in all its bearings, 
 they very wisely and properly conclude, that 
 they could not recommend the repeal of the 8th 
 section of the Missoiiri act, and they report a 
 bill which certainly does not repeal it in ex- 
 press terms, but concludes with the following 
 Bection : 
 
 " Skc. 21. And be it farther enacted. That, in ortier to 
 avoid all nilsoonstraclion, it is hereby declared to be the trae 
 intent and meaning of this act, so far as the question of slavery 
 is concerned, to carry into practical operation the following 
 propositions and principles established by the compromise 
 measures of l^.W, to wit : 
 
 " First, that all questions pertaining to slavery in the Terri- 
 tories, and in the uew States to be formi'd therefrom, are (o 
 be left to the decision of the people residing therein, throngh 
 their appropriate representatives. 
 
 " Second, that ' all cases involving title to slaves ' and 
 ' questions of personal freedom,' are referred to the adjndica 
 tion of the local tribunals, with the right of appeal to tiie Su- 
 preme Court of the United States. 
 
 " Third, that the provisions of the Constitution and laws of 
 the United States, in respect to fugitives from service, are to 
 be carried into faithful execution in &I1 ' the organized Terri- 
 tories ' the same na in the States." 
 
 I consider this section as one of the most ex- 
 traordinary samples of legislation which has 
 ever been presented to the civilized world. It 
 opens with intimating that the bill is suscejitible 
 of some " misconstruction," but how, or where, 
 is not indicated. The question here arises, that 
 if there be doubtful clauses in the bills, why not 
 amend them at once. Why resort to such a 
 roundabout way to do what might be done with 
 two or three dashes of the pen ? But the hon- 
 orable chairman will have it that there is a 
 lurking doubt somewhere, which he himself per- 
 haps could not detect. The bill is everywhere 
 very plain, and does not touch the Missouri re- 
 
 striction. But, nevertheless, he informs us that 
 his object is "to carry into practical operation" 
 certain "propositions and principles." "Well, 
 then, sir, why not write them down at once? 
 But this, it seems, would not answer some inscru- 
 tible purpose of the chairman, and therefore he 
 adds as ojie of his propositions or principles, 
 " that all questions pertaining to slavery iu the 
 Territories and in the new States to be formed 
 therefrom, are to be left to the people residing 
 therein, through their appropriate representa- 
 tives." Now, sir, what does this mean? Does 
 it repeal the restriction of 1820 ? Was it intend- 
 ed to repeal it ? If so, why not use the ordinary 
 words of repeal ? I venture to assert that never 
 has Congress, nor the American people, been 
 puzzled so much as they were by this Delphie 
 oracle. In one quarter of the Union it was un- 
 derstood to mean one thing and in the opposite 
 quarter a different thing. I, myself, concluded 
 that it would take a jury of nineteen Philadel- 
 phia lawyers to fix its meaning. I am pretty 
 well satisfied that the real object was to dis- 
 credit the 8th section and to throw it into 
 doubt. I think I can find a clue to the real 
 purpose of that part of the bill now before us, 
 in the language addressed by the honorable 
 chairman (Mr. Douglas) to the Senate, on open- 
 ing this debate, as folloAvs : 
 
 " I know there are some men, Whigs and Democrats, who, 
 not willing to repudiate the Baltimore platform of their own 
 party, would be willing to vote for this principle, provided 
 they could do so in snch equivocal terms that they could deny 
 that it means what it was intended to mean in certain locali- 
 ties. I do not wish to deal in any equivocal language." 
 
 We all know the honorable chairman is dis- 
 tinguished for his frankness; he uses no equivo- 
 cal language — not he! His object was truly 
 philanthropic — it was to accommodate certain 
 tender-footed "Whigs and Democrats" who 
 might be " willing to vote for this principle " — 
 that is to say, the overthrow of the iCssouri 
 compromise — "provided" they could do so in 
 such equivocal terms that they could deny that 
 it means what it is intended to mean in certain 
 localities. Ah! ha! "equivocal terms!" Great 
 statesmanship, this! 
 
 I think the bill was before us in this form for 
 about three days, when my honorable friend 
 from Kentucky, (Mr. Dixon,) — and I feel under 
 great obligation to him for the service he has 
 rendered us — introduced a proposition to abro- 
 gate the 8th section of the act of 1820 at once. 
 This seems to have involved my frend, the chair- 
 man for the Territories, in pretty serious difii- 
 culty, and he all at once concluded to come up 
 to the scratch ; therefore he reports a new bill, 
 dividing the one Territory which he proposed 
 originally into two, and inserting instead of the 
 21st section of the bill first reported the follow- 
 ing provision : 
 
 "That the Constitution, and all laws of the United States 
 which are not locally inapplicable, shall have the same force 
 and effect within the said Territory of Nebraska as elsewhere 
 within the United States. Except the eighth section of the 
 act preparatory to the admission of Missouri into the Union, 
 approved March sixth, eighteen hundred and twenty, which 
 was superseded by the principles of the legislation of eighteen 
 hundred and fifty, commonly called the Compromise Meas- 
 ures, and is hereby declared inoperative." 
 
12 
 
 Whereupon the honorable chairman delivers 
 himself in his opening speech as follows : 
 
 " Upon the other point, that pertaining to the qnestion of 
 slavery in the Territories, it was the fntention of the commit 
 tee to be equally explicit. We look the principles established 
 by the Compromise acts of 1850 as our snide, and intended to 
 make each and every provision of the bill accord with those 
 principles. Those measures established and rest upon the 
 gpeat principles of self government, that the people should be 
 allowed to decide the question* of their domesti;'. institutions 
 for themselves, subject only to such limitations and restrictions 
 as are imposed by the Constitution of the United States, in- 
 stead of having tiiera determined by an arbitrary or geogra- 
 phical line." 
 
 That is to say, the committee, by the 21st 
 section of the bill as first reported, really in- 
 tended to set aside the Missouri restriction ; for 
 it has been all the while insisted that the 8th 
 section of the act of 1820 is in principle and 
 substance incompatible with the measures of 
 1850. The honorable chairman seems to have 
 forgotten that he had declared in his report, in 
 express terms, that the committee could not re- 
 commend the repeal of that section. The speech 
 and the report do not jump together very well ; 
 or, in other words, he is like one of Shakspeare's 
 characters, " the latter end" of whose discourse 
 "forgot the beginning." But it seems that the 
 8th section "was superseded by the legislation 
 of 1850." "Whoever before heard of a solemn 
 act of Congress being superseded by principles ; 
 and, if sujjerseded, where the necessity of ad- 
 verting to the subject at all. 
 
 This curious performance seems to have per- 
 plexed honorable Senators nearly as much as the 
 original demonstration. The honorable chair- 
 man at length found out that it would hardly 
 do; and, therefore, as he says, he consulted the 
 friends of the measure, or, in other words, he 
 Jield a council of war ; and the result of their 
 united meditations is a substitute, which I will 
 now examine. 
 
 In course of a practice, Mr. President, which 
 extended over some fifteen or twenty years, I 
 became somewhat familiar with the construing 
 of statutes, and knew how their different parts 
 were designated. We, who are lawyers, have 
 all heard of the preamble of a statute ; the en- 
 acting clause ; the exception, or qualification, 
 and the proviso; but I never before heard of the 
 exordium and the peroration of a statute or bill. 
 
 Here we have the exordium of the proposed amcnd- 
 inent. 
 
 " Which" (that is to say, the 8th section of the act of 1820) 
 "being inconsistent with the principle of non intervention by 
 Congress, with slavery in the States and Territories, as recog- 
 .Biied by the legislation of 1850, commonly called the Cumpro- 
 mise meacures." 
 
 Here the enacting clause. 
 
 "Is hereby declared inoperative and void." 
 
 Jlcrc the peroration. 
 
 •' It being the true intent and meaning of this act not to le- 
 l^late slavery into any Territory or State, nor to exclude it 
 therefrom; but to leave the people thereof perfectly free to 
 •form and regulate tlieir domestic institutions in their own way, 
 sabject only to the Constitution of the United States." 
 
 My honorable friend from Massachusetts (Mr. 
 Eveuktt) seemed to bo greatly perplexed witli 
 this singular alfair, and asked witli great pro- 
 priety why you do uot simply say that the 8th 
 
 section "be and the same is hereby repealed?" 
 No doubt it would have been done so, were it 
 not for the political elements to which I have 
 adverted. Probably the honorable chairman 
 (Mr. DouGL.\s) had in his eye tender-footed Whigs 
 and Democrats, for whom he seems to have a 
 profound solicitude. This looks to me very 
 much like adroit or cunning legislation. I sus- 
 pect it was apprehended that it would not quite 
 do to break down the Missouri Compromise at 
 once, or by the ordinary simple plain enactment. 
 The idea must be held out that if the 8th section 
 was not absolutely overthrown by the legisla- 
 tion of 1850, it was in some mysterious way un- 
 dermined, or so weaken! d, that it is proper now 
 to blow it into the aii\ It was about half de- 
 molished then, and there is a call on us now to 
 give it the eoup de grate. 
 
 What is meant by the expression "inconsist- 
 ent with the principle of non-intervention ? " 
 Do you mean to assert that the legislation of 
 1850 is so incompatible with or repugnant to that 
 of 1820, as to annul the latter? We all know 
 that incompatibility between acts may be such 
 as that both cannot possibly stand, and that in 
 such case the latter will so operate as to repeal 
 the former. Will any one assume the responsi- 
 bility of aflSming that incompability has an- 
 nulled the act of 1820. If so, where is the ne- 
 cessity of your interposition; and, if not, why 
 cannot the measures stand together? Can more, 
 be said than that the legislation of 1850 is un- 
 like tha.t of 1820 — as it undoubtedly is? Is it 
 uncommon to put into acts of legislation, touch- 
 ing kindred subjects, different, or unlike pro- 
 visions? Must all Territorial legislation be cast 
 in the same mould? May you not have one set 
 of provisions for one Territory and a different 
 set for another? Nay: is not this often indis- 
 pensable? You therefore arrive at the conclu- 
 sion (which you were determined to reach any- 
 how) that the 8th section shall be "inoperative 
 and void" — without any reason. It is your 
 sovereign will and pleasure. Further, are not 
 the words "inoperative and void" perfectly ex- 
 plicit? What occasion is there to declare their 
 "true intent and meaning." Or, in other words, 
 why have you introduced the peroration, and 
 why a procedure so extraordinary ? 
 
 Sir, this Ls legislation with excuaes, or apolo- 
 gies. 
 
 You knew that a direct repeal, and in the 
 ordinary form would give a great shock to pub- 
 lic sentement in this country, and tliorefore the 
 subject must be befogged, and be made to as- 
 sume a plausible aspect. 
 
 Can it be possible tliat honorable and upright 
 gentlemen, from the South, are about to approve 
 such indirection and artifice? We know that 
 legislation like the act of 1820 has ever been to 
 them a stumbling block and an offence, and tliey 
 may be now willing to get rid of the 8th section; 
 but it seems to mo tliat it would better befit 
 their character for frankness to liavc the abro- 
 gation accomplished in the ordinary way, and 
 in simple plain terms. 
 
 Mr President, in my judgment, the extraordi- 
 nary proceedings here depicted are proof con- 
 
13 
 
 elusive that the hicompatibility which has been 
 Bet up, is all a pretence — is an afterthouglit. 
 The incessant mutations which the proposed 
 legislation has undergone, within a brief period, 
 show that you have no fixed ideas on the sub- 
 ject, and the adroitness of the verbiage which 
 you throw around the only operative clause 
 prove an apprehension that the measure may 
 after all turn out quite hazardous. Indeed, the 
 whole proceedings have a very bad aspect ; and, 
 unless we are willing that the people of this 
 country should believe that the Senate of the 
 United States has ceased to be the exalted, dig- 
 nified, body it was formerly, we should reject, 
 with indignation, a measure imbued with such 
 singular, not to say unworthy elements. 
 
 And here, sir, I must be permitted to notice 
 the many incongruous notes which " the organ" 
 published in this city, has sounded forth on this 
 subject. When the honorable chairman asserted 
 in his report, in substance, that he and his as- 
 sociates could not recmnmend an abrogation of 
 the 8th section, and when, shortly after the 
 honorable Senator from Massachusetts, (Mr. 
 SuMNEB,) proposed an express re-enactment of 
 that section, and the honorable Senator from 
 Kentucky, (Mr. Dixon,) a repeal, these gentle- 
 men were held up to the country as represent- 
 ing extreme opinions, and as being actuated by 
 factious or at least partisan motives. Tlie for- 
 mer was pronounced a mischivous anti-slavery 
 agitator, and the latter and equally mischivous 
 pro-slavery agitator, while the honorable chair- 
 man was all that could be moderate, just, and 
 Btatesmanlike. He (it was insisted) was pur- 
 suing an intermediate course, and we were all, 
 asked to rally .around him and save the coun- 
 try from another convulsion. But soon there- 
 after he took a leap South and assumed the posi- 
 tion of annulment, and then "the organ" lept 
 after him, and indeed sticks to him as closely 
 as his own shadow. It seems to me that the 
 paper alluded to must be "the organ" of the 
 nonorable chairman rather than of the Admin- 
 istration. It is clearly contrary to the interests 
 of the latter to involve Congress and the coun- 
 try in another controversey on^the subject of 
 slavery. 
 
 But, Mr. President, I do no intend to rest the 
 case on considerations such as these. I propose 
 t-o examine the subject in all its bearings, and 
 by a full and precise induction of facts and con- 
 siderations to show beyond doubt or cavil there 
 is nothing in the legislation of 1850 incompati- 
 ble with that of 1820, and that it was the in- 
 tention of Congress and the expectation of the 
 country both should stand together, as well they 
 may. And here I would observe that the hono- 
 rable chairman, in his opening speech, commit- 
 ted himself to an issue of a very gi-ave char- 
 acter, to which I mean to hold him on the 
 present occasin. He says : 
 
 " That a close examination of those acts clearly establishes 
 the fact that it was the intent, as well as the legal effect of 
 the Compromise Measures of 1850, to supersede the Missouri 
 Compromise, anJ all geographical and Territorial lines. 
 
 Here is, first, a direct and positive allegation 
 of a fact that it was " the intenC of the measures 
 
 of 1850 to supercede the Missouri Compromise, 
 and secoudly, an opinion declared that such is 
 their "legal effect." 
 
 I deny,"utterly, the fact, and I controvert, with 
 equal positiveness, the soundness of the opinion. 
 I will not stop to inquire why the honorable chair- 
 man is dabling with the subject at all, if his alle- 
 gations are true, but I choose to meet the issue 
 at once, and flat-footed. 
 
 Wliat, Mr. President, were the measures of 
 1850? They were, (1) to admit California; 
 
 (2) to adjust the disputed boundary with Texas; 
 
 (3) to abrogate the slave trade in the District of 
 Columbia ; (4) to amend our laws for the return 
 of fugitives from labor, so as to make them more 
 effective ; and finally, to provide Territorial gov- 
 ernments for Utah and New Mexico. It is not 
 pretended that any of these measures, _ other 
 than those last indicated, have the slightest 
 bearing on this subject. We will inquire then, 
 
 I whether there is any incompatability between 
 the acts organizing tjtah and New Mexico, and 
 legislation for Nebraska and Kansas, leaving the 
 I 8th section of the act of 1820 in force. 
 
 I would observe, in the first place, that there 
 is nothing in either of the acts first mentioried, 
 on the subject of slavery, except the following 
 clause, "And provided further, that when ad- 
 mitted as a State, the said territory, or any por- 
 tion of the same, shall be received into the Union 
 with or without slavery, as their constitution 
 may prescribe at the time of their admission." 
 We do not propose that you should re-enact, in 
 express terms, the restrictions of 1820, but are 
 willing to vote for a bill, so far as this objection 
 is concerned, in precise conformity with the pro- 
 visions of that which passed the House at the 
 last session, or in other words, for a bill which 
 says nothing of slavery one way or the other. 
 The only difference between such bill and the 
 Utah and New Mexico acts would consist in the 
 fact that the clause above recited appears in the 
 former and would not appear in the latter. Be 
 it remembered that the 8th section of the act of 
 1820 provides no rule for the admission of States 
 into the Union which might be formed out of 
 the territory lying north of 36° 30', but simply 
 provides that, from such territory " slavery and 
 in volimtary servitude, otherwise than in punish- 
 ment of crimes, whereof the parties shall have 
 been duly convicted, shall be and is hereby for- 
 ever prohibited." Notwithstanding the word 
 " forever" is used, I apprehend that the 8th sec- 
 tion applies only to the country during its Terri- 
 torial existence, and should a State present itself 
 for admission, with a constitution tolerating 
 slavery, we could receive it into the great na- 
 tional family without violating that section. 
 How then, can the clause which I have recited 
 from the Utah and New Mexico acts, be consid- 
 ered incompatible with legislatieu for Nebraska 
 and Kansas, which is silent on the subject of 
 slavery, or which, in other words, leaves those 
 Territories subject to the restrictions of 1020. It 
 is difiicult to see how a State which applies for 
 admission can be excluded though her constitu- 
 tion tolerates slavery, and though she be formed 
 out of territory made free by the act of 1820. 
 
14 
 
 Any State now free, can so amend its constitu- 
 tion as to introduce slavery if it pleases, and it 
 is obvious that the people of the States, whetlier 
 already in or about to come in, must decide this 
 troublesome question for themselves. What 
 then, does the clause in the acts organizing gov- 
 ernmenti? for Utah and New Mexico amount to 
 after all ? Fortunately we are not without some 
 light upon this subject. Mr. Webster voted ia 
 favor of that clause when proposed as an amend- 
 ment by a late Senator from Louisiana, (Mr. 
 SoULE,) but he observed, " I do not see much })rac- 
 tical utility in this amendment." And further, 
 the honorable chainnan himself, in his speech 
 at Chicago, (October 23, 1850,) took even stronger 
 ground — " the bills," said he, " establishing Ter- 
 ritorial governments for Utah and New Mexico 
 are silent upon the subject of slavery, except the 
 provision that, when they should be admitted 
 into the Union as States, each should decide the 
 question of slavery for itself. This latter pro- 
 vision was not incorporated in my original bills, 
 for the reason that I conceived it to involve a 
 principle so clearly deducible from the Constitu- 
 tion that it was unnecessary to embody it in the 
 form of legal enactment. But when it was 
 offered as an amendment to the bills, I cheer- 
 fully voted for it, lest its rejection shouldbe 
 deemed a denial of the principle asserted in it." 
 So that Mr. Webster could see "very little of 
 practical utility " in the clause, and the honorable 
 chairman no utility whatever. The legislation 
 of 1850 was then, in effect, silent on the subject 
 of slavery. Why can you not be silent now, 
 and how can any one assert that it was the 
 intent as well as the legal effect of the Compro- 
 mises of 1850 to supercede the Missouri Compro- 
 mise ? You organise Territorial governments for 
 certain countries, and you do not deem it expe- 
 dient to prohibit the introduction of slavery. 
 What has that to do with countries many hun- 
 dred miles off, where the circumstances may be, 
 and are in fact, entirely different ? 
 
 In the next place 1 would observe that the 
 system of measures adopted in 1850, were in- 
 tended to comprise all the known subjects of 
 controversy between the different sections of 
 the Union, so as to put an end to the slavery 
 question forever: thev were to be a finality : they 
 •were intended to re'dress all existing grievan- 
 ces— and the Missouri restriction was a griev- 
 ance in 1850 if it be so now. That measures 
 comprehending every cause of dissension or diffi- 
 culty were really intended, appears from what 
 Mr. Clay said in his opening speech, delivered m 
 the Senate on the 5th of February, as follows : 
 " When I came to consider this subject, there 
 ■were two or three general purposes which 
 eeemed to me most desirable, if possible, to ac- 
 complish. The one was to settle all the contro- 
 verted questions arising out of the subject of 
 slavery ; and it seemed to me to be doing very 
 little if we settle one question and left other dis- 
 turbing questions unadjusted. It seemed to me 
 but doing but little if we stopped but one leak 
 in the ship of state and let other leaks capable of 
 producing danger, if not dcstructiou to the vessel. 
 i therefore turued my attention to every subject 
 
 connected with the institution of slavery, and 
 out of which controverted questions have sprung, 
 to see if it were possible or practicable to ac- 
 commodate and adjust the whole of them." He 
 frequently addressed the Senate on the import- 
 ance — nay, the necessity of comprehensive and 
 final measures of reconciliation. 
 
 lie often specified all the known causes of irri- 
 tation; and on one occasion he spoke of them 
 as "five gaping wounds" — meaning only the 
 matters already alluded to. In no instance did 
 he speak of the Missouri restriction as a wound 
 or cause of irritation, nor did he dream of set- 
 ting it aside. In no instance did any other 
 member suggest or propose the overthrow of 
 that restriction. Nothing is to be found in the 
 reports submittf-d to the Senate or House to 
 that effect. Nothing in the speeches of honora- 
 ble members. Nothing in the resolutions or acts 
 of State Legistures, and nothing in the sugges- 
 tions of the press — either North or South. We 
 were to have a final adjustment; the harmony 
 of the country was to be restored ; and every 
 possible occasion for the reintroduction of these 
 irritating topics into Congress was to be removed. 
 All this was attempted, and was supposed to 
 have been accomplished. The country rejoiced 
 accordingly, and tlie authors of this happy con- 
 summation were regarded by an immense ma- 
 jority of the American people as public benefac- 
 tors. The universality of the adjustment was 
 recognised by President Fillmore in his annual 
 Message, (2d session of the 31st Congress,) in 
 these words: "The series of measures to which 
 I have alluded are regai'ded by me as a settle- 
 ment, in substance and principle — a final settle- 
 ment of the dangerous and exciting subjects 
 which they embrace." I venture to assert, also, 
 that the honorable chairman (Mr. Douglas) him- 
 self took exactly the same view of the subject — 
 for he observed, in a speech delivered in this 
 chamber, on the 23d December, 1850: "I wish 
 to state that I have determined never to make 
 another speech on the slavery question. And I 
 will now add the hope that the necessity for it 
 will never exist. I am heartily tired of the con- 
 troversy." And then he added, "I will there- 
 fore say to the friends of those measures, let us 
 cease-agitating; stop the debate, and drop the 
 subject. If we do this, the Compromise will be 
 recognised as a final settlement. If we do not, 
 we have gained but little by its adoption." And 
 yet, according to the views now presented by 
 the Senator, there was no final settlement — 
 there reuiained undisposed of the question of 
 the abrogation of the Missouri restriction, which 
 was calculated, more than any other cause, to in- 
 flame the country, and set it by the ears. He 
 knew that Territories must sooner or later be 
 formed out of the country — or some part of it — 
 north of the parallel of 36° 30'. 
 
 Could he have imagined that on the formation 
 of such Territories tlie abrogation could be in- 
 troduced without raising anotlier storm. And 
 then, what a singular method the Senator has 
 of dropping the subject, and of carrying out his 
 detcruunation "nevor to make another speeoJh 
 on the slavery question."' I strongly suspect 
 
K 
 
 that the old relish has returned, and that the 
 disgust of which he spoke was evenescent and 
 temporary.* 
 
 In the next place, Mr. President, I take the 
 ground that the Compromise Measures of 1850 
 were formed and carried through Congress on 
 the basis of mutual concessions, and with a view 
 not to give either section any considerable ad- 
 vantage over the other. This I can prove by 
 recurring to the speech of Mr. Clay, already 
 quoted, in which he says: "It appeared to me, 
 flien, that if any arrangement, any satisfactory 
 adjustment could be made, of the controverted 
 questions between the two classes of States, that 
 adjustment, that arrangement could only be suc- 
 cessful and effectual, by exacting from both 
 parties some concession — not of principle — not 
 of principle at all, but of feeling, of opmion, in 
 relation to the matters of controversy between 
 them. I believe that the resolutions which I 
 have prepared fulfill that object. I believe that 
 vou will find upon that careful, rational, and at- 
 tentive examination of them which I think they 
 deserve, that by them neither party makes any 
 concessions of principle at all, though the con- 
 cessions of forbearance are ample." I would ob- 
 serve here, that the measures ultimately adopted 
 were based on the resolutions of Mr. Clay; and, 
 indeed, there is an exact coincidence between 
 tliem. It was supposed that the principle of 
 mutuality of concession had been fully carried 
 out; and on this idea the people acquiesced, and 
 on this only. 
 
 The same view of the subject was taken by 
 Mr. Webstee in his speech delivered in this 
 chamber, July 1*7, 1850. I quote as follows: 
 " Well, sir, the next inquiry is, what do Massa- 
 chusetta and the North, the anti-slavery States, 
 lose by this adjustment? I put the question to 
 every gentleman here, and to every man in the 
 country. They lose the application of what is 
 called the Wilmot Proviso, to these Territories, 
 and that is all. There is nothing else that I 
 suppose the whole North are not willing to 
 do or willing to have done. They wish to get 
 California into the Union and to quiet New 
 Mexico; they wish to(Jterminate the dispute 
 about the Texas boundary, cost what it may. 
 They make no sacrifice in all these. What they 
 sacrifice is this : the application of the Wilmot 
 proviso to the Territories of New Mexico and 
 Utah, and that is all." Here is the same idea 
 of mutuality : the South would concede the ad- 
 mission of California into the Union, and the 
 North governments for New Mexico and Utah 
 without the Wilmot proviso. They would sa- 
 crifice the application of the Proviso to these 
 Territories. Mr. Webster did not dream that 
 they were at the same time sacrificing the re- 
 striction of 1820, or in other words, that we 
 were admitting slavery into the countries which 
 we acquired from France, lying north of 36 deg. 
 SO min. I am truly happy to call to my aid, 
 under this head of remark, the honorable chair- 
 man himself, referring again to his Chicago 
 speech, which is, I admit, characterized with 
 ability. He undertook, on that occasion, to de- 
 
 cessions made on the one side and the other, 
 and the justice and propriety of the adjustment. 
 After expatiating on the various topics embraced 
 in the Compromise, he makes the following 
 broad declaration, "neither party has gained or 
 lost any thing, so far as the question of slavery is 
 concerned." Texas has gained ten millions of 
 dollars, and the United States has saved in blood 
 and treasure, the expenses of a civil war." The 
 honorable Senator did not intimate to his con- 
 stituents that he had been undermining or 
 tearing down the restriction of 1820. The 
 statement of such fact would have created 
 a profound sensation at Chicago, and indeed 
 throughout the whole northern country. I 
 will not do the Senator the injustice to sup- 
 pose that he entertained any such idea at 
 the time, for that would be to hold him np 
 to the nation as the most disingenuous of men. 
 If he chooses now to hold himself up in that 
 light, it is an affair of his own, not mine. The 
 repeal of the 8th section would have completely 
 unsettled the balance of concession which Mr. 
 Clay so carefully adjusted as between the two 
 sections. The South would have obtained a 
 great victory over the North, nay, an absolute 
 conquest ! It would be a mockery to call the 
 measures of 1850 a compromise on this hypo- 
 thesis. 
 
 Besides all this, I can prove, from the lan- 
 guage held by the leading members of Congress 
 during the pendency of this controversy, that 
 nothing could have been further from their 
 thoughts than the repeal of the 8th section of 
 the Missouri act. I shall begin with referring 
 to the speeches of Mr. Webstee. In his cele- 
 brated 7th of March speech, I find the following 
 passage; "And I now say, sir, as the proposi- 
 tion on which I stand this day — and upon the 
 truth and firmness of which I intend to act until 
 it is overthrown — that there is not at this mo- 
 ment within the United States, or any Territory 
 of the United States, a single foot of land, the 
 character of which, in regard to its being free 
 territory or slave territory, is not fixed by some 
 law, and some irrepealable law, beyond the 
 power of the action of the Government." This 
 opinion, so strongly expressed, was based on the 
 idea that the character of the territory north- 
 west of the Ohio and east of the Mississippi, was 
 fixed as free territory by the ordnance of 1787, 
 that the territory west of the Mississippi and 
 north of 36 deg. 30 min. was also fixed as free by 
 the restriction of 1820. That the territory com- 
 prised within the State of Texas was fixed as 
 slave territory by the terms and conditions of her 
 admission into the Union. That the territory 
 embraced by the limits of California was fixed as 
 free territory by the provisions of the Constitu- 
 tion; and the Territories of Utah and New 
 Mexico were fixed as free territory by irre- 
 sistable laws of nature. To some of these topics 
 he barely alluded, and on others he commented 
 at length, and then concluded as follows : " Now, 
 Mr. President, I have established, as far as I pro- 
 pose to do so, the proposition with which I set out, 
 and with which I intend to stand or fall, and 
 
 fend the mutuality and the equality of the con- 1 that is, that the whole territory within the 
 
16 
 
 former United States, or in the newly acquired 
 Mexican provinces, has a fixed and settled char- 
 acter, now fixed and settled by law, which can-' 
 not be repealed ; in the case of Texas with9ut a 
 violation of public faith, and by no human power 
 in regard to California and New Mexico. That, 
 therefore, under one or the other of these laws, 
 every foot of land in the States or the Territo- 
 ries, has clearly received a fixed and decided 
 character." 
 
 ■ And then, again, he remarks, in his speech of 
 the 3d of June, as follows: "On the 7th of 
 March, sir, I declared my opinion to be that 
 I there is not a square rod of territory belonging 
 ^ to the United States, the character of which for 
 * slavery or no slavery is not already fixed by 
 some irrepealable law. I remain of that opin- 
 ion." And then, after some observations not 
 material to be quoted, he adds: "I have heard 
 no argument calculated in the slightest degree 
 to alter that opinion; the committee, I believe, 
 with one accord concurred in it." How could 
 Mr. Webster use such broad language if he had 
 supposed that Congress were, by the Compro- 
 mise Measures of that year, laying the founda- 
 tion for the overthrow of the restriction of 1820. 
 A quotation from a subsequent part of this 
 speech of the 3d of June, will prove conclusive- 
 ly what his views were : "And let it be remem- 
 bered" he says, "that I am now speaking of 
 New Mexico and Utah, and other territories ac- 
 quired from Mexico, and nothing else. I confine 
 myself to these; and as to them, I say, that I 
 see no occasion to make a provision against 
 slavery n<f^, or to reserve to ourselves the right 
 of making such provision hereafter. All this 
 rests on the most thorough conviction that, un- 
 der the laws of nature, there never can be 
 slavery in these Territories. Tliis is the founda- 
 tion of all." Mr. Webster obviously thought 
 that the Missouri restriction was a "fixed fact;" 
 and as the celebrated Committee of Thirteen 
 unanimously concurred with him in the opinion, 
 the position which I assume is impregnable. It 
 is idle to pretend that Congress intended by the 
 measures of 1850 to set aside tl»e Compromise of 
 
 But I maintain that the universality of the ad- 
 justment of 1850 has been recognised and ad- 
 mitted in the proceedin^^s of Congress until 
 within a very short period. The action of the 
 two Houses on the Nebraska bill of the last ses- 
 sion is a very striking illustration of this fact. 
 It is true that the bill then said nothing on the 
 subject of slavery, either one way or the other. 
 It did not repeal the 8th section of the Missouri 
 act, and therefore left it to operate on the Ter- 
 ritory in all its vigor. The attention of the 
 House was particularly called to this fact by an 
 honorable meinl.o.r, (Mr. Giddinos,) whose ap- 
 pearance on the fioor was pre-eminently adapted 
 to arouse the suspicions and awaken tlie vigi- 
 lance of Southern members. After quoting the 
 8th section of the act of 1820, he remarked that 
 " this law stands perpetually, and I did not think 
 that this act would receive any increased valid- 
 ity by a re-enactment. There I leave the mat- 
 ter It is very clear that the territory included 
 
 in that treaty must be forever free, unless that 
 law be repealed." And yet in face of this broad 
 avowal, no less than twenty mombeft from slave- 
 holding States, as before stated, including Mr. 
 Johnson, the present Governor of Tennessee, 
 voted for the bill. How idle is it to pretend 
 now that we had either repealed, or had laid 
 the foundation foi* repealing, the restriction of 
 1820, by the Compromises of 1850. 
 
 The bill was sent to the Senate, and fell into 
 the hands of the honorable chairman ; and he 
 reported it back to the body with the recom- 
 mendation that it should pass without amend- 
 ment. He was strenuous in his efforts to bring 
 it to the consideration of the Senate, and to se- 
 cure its passage. He then addressed the Senate 
 at length, and said that it was an act very "dear 
 to his heart." It was dear when he was going 
 for freedom, and it is probably more dear now 
 when he is striking for slavery. Not a word 
 did the Senator say about the wonderful work- 
 ings of the measures of 1850 in subversion of the 
 8th section. He tells us that the bill underwent 
 a thorough investigation, both in the House and 
 by his committee ; and he seems then to have 
 made no discovery of the occult elements now 
 found to have been lurking under the verbiage 
 of 1850, to which he would give such an extra- 
 ordinary effect Even the distinguished and 
 honorable Senator from Missouri, (Mr. Atchisok,) 
 was in the same oblivious frame of mind: for, in 
 addressing the Senate on that occasion, he re- 
 marked, "I found that there was no prospect of 
 the repeal of the Missouri Compromise, exclud- 
 ing slavery from that Territory"." It is certain, 
 then, that nobody dreamed — down to so late a 
 period as the last session — that we had, in 1850, 
 done anything to break down, or even weaken, 
 the Compromise of 1820. 
 
 I do not envy the position in which these facts 
 place the honorable chairman. Did he suppose, 
 in 1850, that we were subverting the 8th section, 
 or laying the foundation for its subversion? If 
 so, why did he not undeceive Mr. Webster! 
 Why did he suffer him to act with feai-ful re- 
 sponsibilities, under the delusion that the terri- 
 tory north of 36 degJUo min., and this side of 
 the Rocky mountains, was fixed, irrevocably 
 fixed for freedom? Why did he suffer the hon- 
 orable Senator from Missouri to fall, at the last 
 session, into the same error? Or, rather, why 
 did he not rise and correct it on the spot? Why 
 not communicate with his friends in the House 
 of Representatives, and why not lay the true 
 state of the case before the Senate and the coun- 
 try? The Senator, by the j)osition he now aa- 
 suines, arraigns himself; he impeaches his own 
 conduct; ho furnishes conclusive evidence on 
 the issue adverse to himself; and the verdict of 
 impartial and upright men will be quite likely 
 to shock his self-esteem, and to give him a place 
 and a name on the pages of American history 
 quite the reverse of enviable. 
 
 IJut, Mr. President, I deny that there is to be 
 found any such principle or policy in the legis- 
 lation of 1850, as is suggested in this amend- 
 ment. I deny that, by the Territorial acts for New- 
 Mexico and Utah, you conferred on the people 
 
1*7 
 
 there the power to regulate, at pleasure, their do- 
 mestic institutions or left them free to act on 
 this or any other subject. No such liberty of 
 action has ever been conferred by this Govern- 
 ment on the people of the Territories. Origin- 
 ally, the whole power of legislation was con- 
 fided to the governor and judges of the respec- 
 tive Territories ; but latterly, the people, I ad- 
 mit, have been allowed to participate to some 
 extent therein. 
 
 But let us recur to the New Mexico and Utah 
 acts, and see how the matter stands. I say there 
 is written down in each of those acts a declara- 
 tion of want of confidence in the people of those 
 countries. We have invested the President with 
 the power of appointing, by and with the advice 
 and consent of the Senate, all the executive and 
 judicial ofiicers of each Territory. We have as- 
 sumed that the people are not competent to elect 
 such officers. How, then, can it be supposed 
 that Congress intended to confide to them, exclu- 
 sively, the power of deciding the momentous 
 question of slavery or freedom. 
 
 It is true they are authorized to choose a coun- 
 cil to consist of thirteen members, and a house 
 of representatives to consist of twenty-six, but 
 "the legislative power and authority" is not 
 vested in tliem solely, but the governor is asso- 
 ciated with them in the exercise thereof. The 
 language of both acts is, " that the legislative 
 power and authority of such Territory shall be 
 vested in the governor and legislative assem- 
 bly;" and again, "that the governor shall ap- 
 prove all laws passed by the legislative assem- 
 bly before they take effect." Hence, it appears, 
 tliat the people can do nothing without the as- 
 sent and concurrence of the governor. Give me 
 the appointment of the governor, and I can ex- 
 clude slavery forever if not introduced, or per- 
 petuate it if tolerated. No matter how anxious- 
 ly the people may desire its introduction or its 
 exclusion — no matter though they may be unani- 
 mous in calling for slavery or freedom, the gov- 
 ei-nor, who holds his office at the will of the 
 Executive here, can pronounce a peremptory 
 negative, and overrule their wishes. 
 
 But this is not all, sir, another part of the acts 
 provides that, " All the laws passed by the le- 
 gislative assembly and governor, shall be sub- 
 mitted to the Congress of the United States, and 
 if disapproved, shall be null and of no effect." 
 Singular liberty, this I And equally singular 
 method of conferring on them the power " to 
 form and regulate their domestic institutions in 
 their own way." Congress saySj in effect, we 
 will not entrust to you the power to enact even a 
 wolf or dog law — we will appoint a master over 
 you — one who is not responsible to you, but to 
 us; he shall revise all your doings, and may 
 write them down a nullity if he sees fit. And 
 in order to make all safe we reserve to ourselves 
 ihe power of ultimate revision. Though you 
 obtain even the concurrence of the governor, 
 it shall not avail you ; in short, we do not intend 
 you shall have any legislation for Utah and New 
 Mexico except just such as we approve. The 
 demands for these precautions were infinitely 
 
 more urgent in respect to the newly acquired 
 Mexican provinces, than in ordinary cases. How 
 was it with New Mexico? We had there an 
 uncongenial and a hostile population, speaking 
 a foreign language, just subdued by our arms, 
 ignorant of our form of government and unfa- 
 miliar with the principles of our free institutions. 
 How indispensable, then, was it that we should 
 have the power to hold such a population in 
 check, and to overrule any and all their deter- 
 minations, and yet in face of the plain provi- 
 sions of these acts of Congress, and of the palpa- 
 ble facts of the case, this amendment, in effect, 
 asserts that we left them " perfectly free to form 
 and regulate their domestic institutions in their 
 own way." 
 
 But, Mr. President, I will bring the matter at 
 once to an issue, which I challenge the honora- . 
 ble chairman of the committee, (Mr. Douglas,) 
 to meet. You say that by the Utah bill you 
 intended to leave the people there perfectly free 
 to regulate their domestic institutions as they 
 might see fit. What are those domestic institu- 
 tions or relations ? They are husband and wife, 
 parent and child, guardian and ward, and mjis- 
 ter and servant. Now, I desire to ask the chair- 
 man, did you intend to confer ou the people of 
 Utah the power to introduce poIygainy,_ for 
 that appertains to one of the domestic relations. 
 I want the honorable chairman to stand up here 
 and tell us whether, if the legislative assembly 
 were to send an act here sanctioning polygamy, 
 he would let it stand a single hour? On th« 
 contrary, would he not seize a pair of tongs and 
 thrust it out of yonder window ? 
 
 But, Mr. President, let us trace this matter a 
 little further ; let us consider what would be the 
 modus operandi of the singular principle, annun- 
 ciated in the amendment, in reference to the 
 polygamous relations of Utah. If they may_ in- 
 troduce polygamy in their Territorial condition, 
 if this is one of the relations which they are per- 
 fectly free to establish, and if Congress cannot 
 gain say it, then I say Utah can knock for ad- 
 mission into the Union, and must be received, 
 though she be covered all over with this moral 
 leprosy. We must admit Brigham Young with 
 his forty wives! Nay, more! Brigham might, 
 and pro'bably would, be elected one of the Sena- 
 tors from the new State: has the honorable 
 chairman considered whether he is to bring hie 
 forty wives to the Seat of Government ; and if 
 so, I would ask in what part of the city is he to 
 establish his harem ? The committee on "Public 
 Buildings and Public Grounds" should take his 
 case into tender consideration, as it seems to me. 
 Any patriot having forty Avives on his hands, 
 ought, in the matter of his harem, to have a lit- 
 tle relief from the public coffers. And, besides, 
 our present system of ''mileage and per diem" 
 would hardly do for such a case. I would sug- 
 gest to my friend the chairman, (Mr. Douglas,) 
 he should allow at least two dollars per day ad- 
 ditional for each wife. Discrimination would be 
 indispensable. I have long thought that there 
 should be some distinction made between those 
 Senators who do their duty to society and the 
 fairer portion of God's creation, and those who 
 
18 
 
 do not; but however this may be, the case of 
 our friend Britcham would cry aloud for relief, 
 and the honorable chairman is not the statesman 
 he has been cracked up to be unless he woule be 
 "willing to grant it! 
 
 But, Mr. President, we will suppose Utah ad- 
 mitted, Brigham elected Senator, and actually 
 present in this city with all his retinue, and that 
 he forms a procession, withhimself atthehead, of 
 the aforesaid retinue for the Capitol. Being 
 somewhat fatigued, he all at once makes a dash 
 with his twice twenty wives for an omnibus, 
 in one corner of which is sitting my worthy 
 friend the chairman. What would become of 
 the Senator? Would he not be stifled? But 
 suppose he escapes, and the omnibus draws up 
 in front of the Capitol; the honorable Senator, 
 'who is so much distinguished for his urbanity, 
 could do no less than hand the "domestic in- 
 stitutions" out, and conduct them into the Capi- 
 tol. Who, then, shall rise and move that this 
 chamber be opened to "the ladies f It cannot 
 be my honorable friend from Texas, (Mr. Hous- 
 ton,) who ordinarily performs that grateful 
 office, for he is utterly opposed to this bill ; but 
 at the instance of some Senator who is in favor 
 of the "principle" avowed in this amendment, 
 the doors are thrown open, and in rushes Brig- 
 ham and his forty wives, who arrange themselves 
 around the chamber. The Hon. Brigham! on 
 being sworn in, immediately takes the floor on 
 "the negro quest! -i." And 0! how the eyes of 
 "t! 3 darlings" would flash, and their counten- 
 ai es beam with joy, as their leige lord towered 
 ay on the superlative advantages of negro 
 servitude over good old fashioned Saxon liberty, 
 and "the inalienable rights >i man!" By the 
 time, Mr. President, all this is over, we should 
 begin to understand the modus operandi of this 
 monstrous sj'stem — of this unheard of proposi- 
 tion — to leave the people of the Territories to 
 regulate their "domestic institutions" just as 
 they please. Polygamy ! and Slavery! fit asso- 
 ciates — united in the bonds of unholy wedlock, 
 and producing a miscreated progeny, called in the 
 first instance "principles," but which has finally 
 dwindled down to "the principle of non-inter- 
 vention with the domestic institutions" of the 
 Territories, the people whereof are to be left 
 "perfectly free to form and regulate them in 
 tlieir own way." 
 
 Let the honorable Senator stand up here and 
 say that he is for a system which will convert 
 the interior of this continent into a Sodam, and 
 ■which will conflagrate it with brimstone, unless 
 a righteous Cod, who rules the destinies of men, 
 shall order it otherwise. 
 
 But, sir, I contend that the bill itself will be 
 nothing but jargon — nothing but a bundle of 
 contradictions and inconsistanccs if this anieiid- 
 ment prevails. Theri^ will be all sorts of dis- 
 cordant voices and notes therein. One clause 
 cries out the peoi>le, represented by the couiu-il 
 and liouse of representatives, may be overruled 
 by the governor, and another that the council, 
 house of representatives, governor and all, may 
 bo overruled by Congress, and then comes the 
 eunendmcnt which asserts, almost impudently, 
 
 that we leave the people of these Territories 
 "to regulate their domestic institutions" as they 
 may think best. How can inconsistenc}' go fur- 
 ther; and how can legislative hypocracy exhibit 
 a more brazen front. 
 
 And what is more, not one-half of the work of 
 upturning ancient foundations will have been 
 done. You must immediately attack the re- 
 striction of slavery introduced by an immense 
 majoriiy, and by many Southern votes, into the 
 Oregon bill, and you must demolish the ordin- 
 ance of 1787, in its application to so much of 
 Minnesota as is situated east of the Mississippi. 
 In short, the whole structure of legislation which 
 has been erected with so much of toil, and which 
 has engaged so much of the abilities of the greatest 
 and best man of the nation, is to be swept to the 
 ground, and all that is malignant in fanaticism 
 both North and South, and all that is wild, un- 
 reasonable, and pestiferous in sectional strife is 
 to be let loose upon our national counsels and 
 upon the country. 
 
 It results, Mr. 'Presiient, from these considera- 
 tions, that the basis of the adjustment of 18.50 
 was not to leave the people of the Territories 
 free to regulate their domestic institutions as 
 they pleased, but it was the "statu quo ante hel- 
 ium." We were to leave the country exactly in 
 the condition we found it — some part of it tole- 
 rating slavery, and some part of it excluding it 
 The object was to eff'ect some arrangement that 
 would restore harmony to our national councils 
 and peace to the country, and therefore it was 
 concluded that we should not insert the Wilmot 
 Proviso in the Territorial bills of that year, but 
 pass them silent on the subject of slavery, with 
 the distinct understanding that we were to drop 
 the subject entirely. That this was the great 
 predominating idea of the adjustment, I can 
 prove from the record. It is well known that 
 all the countries acquired from Mexico were 
 subject to an anti-slavery restriction, as the laws 
 of that republic remained in force notwithstand- 
 ing the conquest, until set aside by competent 
 authority. The supreme government of that 
 country had long before the war abrogated the 
 so-called institution' of slavery, and converted 
 all the territories within its jurisdiction into 
 "free-soil." This important fact is distinctly re- 
 ferred to and recognised by Mr. Clay in his 
 speech of February 5th. "By law" (he says) 
 "slavery does not exist within the territories 
 ceded to us by the Republic of Mexico." * * » 
 "I can only refer to the fact of the passage of a 
 law by the su])rcme government of Mexico abol- 
 ishing it, I think, in the year 1824." * * » 
 "The laws of Mexico, as they existed at the mo- 
 moment of the cession of the territories to this 
 country, remained their laws still, unless they 
 were altered by the new sovereign power which 
 this i>cople and their territories came under in 
 conse(juencc of the treaty of cession to the Uni- 
 ted States." Certain Southern Senators were 
 not satisfied with the mere exclusion of "the 
 Wilmot Proviso" from the Territorial bills — they 
 demanded an abrogation of this Mexican law, 
 but the Senate refused to concede such abroga- 
 tion. 
 
19 
 
 On the 23d of July, Mr. Davis, of Mississippi, 
 (the present Secretary of War,) submitted an 
 amendment to that effect, but it was rejected, 
 yeas 22, nay 33. My honorable friend from Illi- 
 nois (Mr. Douglas) seems not to have been present, 
 and did not vote. This proves conclusively that 
 the basis of the adjustment, or if you will have it 
 so, " the principle" "was " the statu quo." There 
 was an existing obstacle to the introduction of 
 slavery into the Territoi ies, and Congress was ask- 
 ed to remove it out of the way — but the response 
 was no ! no ! we leave matters to stand as we find 
 them — we wish to drop the subject. If Con- 
 gress refused to remove an impediment which ex- 
 isted to the introduction of slavery into the Terri- 
 tories with which they were at the moment deal- 
 ing, how can it be said that they intended to 
 strike down a similar impediment appertaining 
 to other and different Territories which were not 
 before us at all, nor in the thoughts of anyone. 
 If, Mr. President, considerations such as these do 
 not satisfy honorable Senators that the basis of 
 the adjustment of 1850 was in truth and in part 
 such as I now contend for, it is idle to pursue 
 the argument further 
 
 I have thus, Mr. President, called to the notice 
 of the Senate the essential elements of the case 
 which I desire to present, and it only remains 
 for me to advert briefly to certain topics which 
 honorable members, who favor this measure, at- 
 tribute considerable importance; but which, in 
 my judgment, are entitled to no consideration 
 whatever. Having performed this task, I shall 
 hasten to a conclusion as soon as may be. 
 
 In the first place, I wish to notice what was 
 said b}^ the honorable chairman (Mr. Douglas) 
 on his attempt, in 1848, to carry the parallel of 
 36° 30" through to the Pacific ocean, in which, 
 it seems, he failed. Herein he seems to suppose 
 he can find an ample justification for the attempt 
 which he is now making to break up the Com- 
 promise of 1820. Now, Mr. President, what are 
 the facts! There was pending before Congress 
 a bill to organize the Territory of Oregon, the 
 whole of which was situated north of 36 deg. 30 
 min., the southern line being in the parallel of 
 42 deg. north latitude, or, in other words, 5 deg. 
 30 min. north of the Missouri line. 
 
 The bill, if I mistake not, originated in the 
 House, and, when under consideration in the 
 Senate, it is true the honorable Senator submit- 
 ted a proposition for an extension of that parallel 
 through to the Pacific ocean as a division be- 
 tween free territory and slave territory, which 
 amendment was adopted by the Senate. In the 
 House, however, it was regarded as incongruous 
 to the main object of the bill, and was rejected 
 accordingly. I cannot see how the Senator can, 
 from this occurrence, derive any apology — much 
 less a justification of his course. If a division on 
 the line of 36 deg. 30 min. was a proper basis of 
 adjustment in 1848, it was equally so in 1850; 
 and why did not the Senator support that basis 
 then, as he had an ample opportunity to do? It 
 appears from the record, that Mr. Davis, of Mis- 
 sissippi, submitted in this body, July 19, a prop- 
 osition to divide on the parallel of 36 deg., which 
 was rejected by a vote of yeas 23, nays 32 — the 
 
 honorable Senator voted in the negative; that, 
 on the same day, Mr. King, (late Vice President 
 of the United States,) submitted another propo- 
 sition to divide on the parallel of 36 deg., which 
 was rejected by a vote of yeas 20, nays 37 — the 
 honorable Sentor voted in the negative. It also 
 appears, that on the 6th of August, Mr. Turney 
 submitted a proposition to divide on the parallel 
 of 36 deg. 30 min., which was also rejected by a 
 vote of yeas 24, nays 32, and the honorable Sen- 
 ator again voted in the negative. The Senator, 
 in his opening speech, says that the defeat of 
 1848 "created the necessity of making a new 
 compromise of 1850." How so? Was not the 
 whole subject under our control? Was it not 
 just as easy to establish that line in 1850 as it 
 was in 1848. In his speech at Chicago, the 
 Senator assigns reasons enough why that line 
 should not have been adopted; he insisted stren- 
 uously on that occasion, that the only eft'ect of 
 the division of California on the parallel of 36 
 deg. 30 min. would be to create two free States 
 in place of one on the Pacific; and this indi- 
 cated the main ground of my opposition to that 
 parallel. I have ever thought it very bjid policy 
 for the Atlantic States, and particularly the glo- 
 rious old Thirteen, to bring on this Government 
 an avalanche of States to be carved out of our 
 Mexican acquisitions. The resort of the Senator 
 to such an argument as this is sufficient proof 
 that he himself is conscious that he has very 
 slender ground to stand c'." to vindicate the 
 policy of this measure. 
 
 But by far the most extraordinary part of 'le 
 honorable Senator's speech consists in his 
 tempt to place himself in an anti-slavery p>,4* 
 tion. He went iu^ » a long induction of facts,' - 
 order to prove that the restriction of slavery 
 has ever been, and ever will be, unfavorable to 
 freedom. He remarked that the Territory of 
 Iowa was organized without any prohibitory 
 clause, and yet (says he) it became, and now re- 
 mains, a free State. But the honorable Senator 
 seems to have forgotten that the 8th section of 
 the Missouri act remained in full vigor, and was 
 binding on the people of Iowa during their Ter- 
 ritorial existence. It was not necessary that the 
 8th section should have been re-enacted or re- 
 affirmed in the act creating that Territory. 
 Repetition would not have given it one parti- 
 cle of additional force, so that the people of 
 Iowa enjoyed the benefits and blessings of ex-' 
 elusion while a Territory, and, in consequence, 
 they enjoy the fruits of that policy to this day. 
 
 I very much regret that the honorable Sena- 
 tor should have made such strenuous efforts to 
 discredit the ordinance of 1787, which, accord- 
 ing to his account of the matter, tended power- 
 fully to the introduction of slavery. He repre- 
 sents the people of the Northwest as engaged in 
 incessant insurrections against its authority; 
 that they regarded it as an act of grinding op- 
 pression, and would have slaves, and did have 
 them, in spite of it. What foundation is there 
 for such a pretence as this? There were a few 
 French settlers who held slaves de facto ; will 
 the honorable Senator take the resj)onsibility as 
 a lawyer of saying that these persons were 
 
20 
 
 slaves de jure? Would not the habeas corpus 
 have delivered every one of thera from servi- 
 tude? He does not saywhetlier there were any 
 acts contravening the ordinance; and if so, I 
 should like his opinion on their validity. Sir, 
 the ordinance of 1787 constitutes the main pillar 
 of that vast and glorious fabric of society which 
 is exhibited northwest of the Ohio, and whicli 
 in point of wealth, vigor, intelligence, and uni- 
 versal progress, is without a parellel in this or 
 any other countrj^ Under its benign and ever 
 present influence, there has been built up no less 
 than five large and prosperous States, wliich 
 will be an ever-present illustration of the ad- 
 vantage which free communities have over those 
 that tolerate African bondage. I can hardly 
 think, therefore, that the honorable Senator has 
 maintained his anti-slavery position; and the 
 avidity with which Senators from slaveholding 
 States come forward to sustain his proposed im- 
 molation of the Missouri restriction, is pretty 
 conclusive proof that they think there is very 
 little in this branch of his argument. 
 
 And here, Mr. President, I must take some 
 notice of the very novel ground taken by the 
 Senator from Kentucky, (Mr. Dixon,) that al- 
 though as a representative of one of the slave 
 States, he might not have submitted this proposi- 
 tion, j-et inasmuch as it .s brought before the 
 Senate, and off'ered by the North, he vntxy proper- 
 ly accede to the offer and vote for the abrogation. 
 1 want my friend to consider, that if he places 
 his vote on this ground, he may find himself in- 
 volved in very considerable difficulty. 
 
 I think, with great deference and respect,-that 
 the Senator ought to have some other evidence 
 of the desire of the North than the mere opinion 
 of any one Senator, however respectable he may 
 be. I would ask the Senator if he is quite sure 
 that a majority of the Committee on Territories 
 is in favor of this measure? Two of the mem- 
 bers have already declared their opposition; and 
 I strongly suspect it will appear, before we get 
 through, that there is a third member ei[ually 
 opposed, and then the bill will be a mere strag- 
 gler in this Chamber, and ought to be dismissed 
 for that reason. And I will ask another ques- 
 tion : Suppose it turns out that a large majority 
 fi"om the North, even of the Senate, is opposed 
 to .this proposition, and a much larger majority 
 of the House, where will the Senator be then? 
 Suppose Northern members shall be induced to 
 betray tlieir constituents in sufficient numbers 
 to pass the bill through the House, /ind suppose 
 tlie moment tlie people get hold of them the}- 
 are hurled with ignominy into jirivate life, I ask 
 again where will the Senator be? Aftei- all, is 
 tliis a statesmatdike argument, and worthy of 
 tlie s>iccoss<ir of Hi;nhy Cf.AY? Is a measure like 
 tins, subverting one of tlie most solemn acts of 
 tliis Government, which has lain at the founda- 
 tion of the i)eacc of the country for over one- 
 third of a century, to be put through on the 
 ipse dixit of a single Senator from the North? 
 1 arn pretty well convinced tiiat my friend will 
 fin<l out that the honorable chairman of the 
 Connnittee on Territories is not exactly the ])ro- 
 per exponent of Northern sentiment and North- 
 
 ern feeling. He will find out that the honorable 
 chairman does not carry the whole North in his 
 breeches pocket. 
 
 I maintain, Mr. President, that the people of 
 the South, and their Representatives in either 
 wing of the Capitol, should be the last to seek 
 or favor the abrogation of the Missouri Compro- 
 mise. They should not seek it for the sake of 
 their own honor, which they cannot but de- 
 sire to remain uuimpeached and intact. The 
 measure was carried through the two Houses 
 mainly by Southern votes, and wholly by South- 
 ern influence. Mr. Clat, in his speech already 
 i#ore than once referred to, says: "My friend 
 from Alabama in the Senate, (Mr. King,) Mr. 
 Pinkney, from Maryland, and a majority of the 
 Southern Senators in this body, voted in favor 
 of the line 36 deg. 30 min. ; and a majority of 
 the Southern members in the other House, at 
 the head of whom was Mr. Lowndes himself 
 voted also for that Hue. I have no doubt that 
 I did also, but as I was Speaker of the House, 
 and as the journal does not show which way the 
 Speaker votes, except in the cases of a tie, I am 
 not able to tell with certainty how I actually did 
 vote, but I have no earthly doubt that I voted 
 in common with my other Southern friends for 
 the adoption of the line 36 deg. 30 min." Here, 
 then, was a measure adopted under the auspices 
 of such men as King, Pinkney, Lowndes, and 
 Clay, for the adjustment of a great and fearful 
 controversy between sections. You have en- 
 joyed the full benefit of it. You secured the ad- 
 mission of Missouri at the time, and Arkansas 
 since. The admission of Texas was arranged on 
 the same basis; and now, when the time has 
 come for a realization of the just expectations of 
 the North, you propose to break the bargain. 
 How can this be done without an impeachment 
 of your honor? and how can the North, on this 
 hypothesis, repose the slightest confidence in 
 }-oa hereafter? Will not compromises and ad- 
 justments in future be impossible? and will not 
 sectional strife infest our public councils and 
 pervade the whole country? I verliy believe 
 that this measure is contrary to the true inter- 
 ests of the South. What you want is peace. 
 (Jften and often have you said let us alone- 
 leave our institutions undisturbed. Your true 
 position is a defensive one ; but this is a measure 
 of aggression on the North. You have com- 
 menced a war on Northern feelings. Northern 
 sentiments, and what will be regarded as North- 
 ern rights and interests; and you may depend 
 upon it that war will be returned with relent- 
 less fui'V. 
 
 I also insist that this measure is contrary to 
 the true interests of this Administration. With 
 a President elected by an overwhelming majori- 
 ty, and witli majorities in the two houses nearly 
 as decisive, the last thing you should have done 
 was to throw this bomb-shell into Congress. 
 Why not devote yourselves to the dispatch of 
 the public business? Why not turn your atten- 
 tion to the Pacitic Ilailroad, to a reduction or 
 modification of the tariff, to harbor and river 
 improvement, to an amelioration of your army 
 and navy laws, and to the vast multitude of sub- 
 
21 
 
 jects, some of a public and some of a private 
 concern, -which now solicit our attention? And 
 what progress, Mr. President^ have we made 
 ■with the public business, and what are we likely 
 to make? What an extraordinarj- spectacle has 
 been exhibited in the House of Representatives! 
 Weeks spent in perfecting a deficiency bill, which 
 is then crushed down and buried so deep as to be 
 beyond the possibility of resurrection. Be it 
 remembered, that whatever of beneficial legisla- 
 tion the country is to have during any presiden- 
 tial term, must be accomplished at the first ses- 
 sion of the first Congress of that term ; the second 
 session is too brief for action on anything else 
 than the appropriation bills; and the second 
 Congress is uniformly occupied, though very 
 improperh", with the presidential election, and 
 by preparation for the inauguration of a new 
 Ciiief Magistrate and the arrangement of his 
 Cabinet. In order to make it certain that we 
 are to do nothing for the country, you have in- 
 volved us in this negro controversy. The Senate 
 is to be occupied with it many weeks, and, I 
 venture to assert, that the House will be so oc- 
 cupied most if not all the session. If I were the 
 worst enemy which Franklin Pierce has on 
 earth, (and I should be sorry to be regarded his 
 enemy at all.) I would do the very thing which 
 lias been done by the honorable chairman of the 
 Committee on Territories, by introducing a pro- 
 position here wholly uncalled for, and fraught 
 with nothing but mischief. 
 
 It is with infinite concern that I witness 
 the course Which my whig friends, honorable 
 Senators from the South, deem it proper to 
 pursue on this subject. They seem, almost to a 
 man, disposed to rush forward to the support of 
 the honorable Senator from Illinois. Two of 
 them, one the successor of Henry Clay, (Mr. 
 Dixon,) and the other, par excellance, his friend, 
 (Mr. Jones,) have already given in their adhesion 
 to this measure. Now, I say to those honorable 
 Senators, in a spirit of kindness and respect, that 
 I regard the proposed amendment of the Missouri 
 restriction aa a measure of radicalism — extreme 
 radicalism. And do the honorable Senators 
 suppose that the Whig pai-ty, as a great national 
 party, can be kept on foot on any such basis? 
 Sir, the very moment you pass this measure you 
 explode not only the Missouri Compromise, but 
 the adjustment of 1850, and the Baltimore Whig 
 Platform of 1852. You blow the Whig party 
 into ten thousand atoms. Another Whig Na- 
 tional Convention will be impossible. Nothing 
 can induce me to become, on the contingency 
 named, a party to such convention. It will 
 be idle to attempt any understanding with 
 Southern Whigs on the subject of slavery. — 
 Did we not go at Baltimore the finality of the 
 Compromise of 1850? Did we not agree to 
 stand by even the Fugitive Slave law, so dis- 
 tasteful to many of our people? Did we not, on 
 occasion of a proposition by the honorable Sena- 
 tor from Massachusetts, (Mr. Sumner,) to repeal 
 that act, abide our promise and vote m the neg- 
 ative? Do you not now tell us in effect that all 
 such covenants are binding on us in perpetuo, 
 but not binding on you any longer than you 
 
 choose to be bound? I repeat, this measure, if 
 carried, is and ought to be fatal to the Whig 
 party, and I think it will be equally fatal to the 
 Democratic party. Behold the elements of dis- 
 cord and repulsion now in full activity in your 
 midst! And when all outside pressure is with- 
 drawn, by the destruction of the Whig party, 
 what will become of you? Will you not be 
 scattered to the four winds of Heaven, and will 
 not all existing organizations be broken up? 
 
 Sir, I have become heartily tired of public 
 life, and I hope soon to find repose in seclusion 
 in the bosom of my family. I nm greatly offended 
 at the turmoil which we have incessantly had 
 on this miserable subject. Why, Mr. President, 
 I have hardly been able, for years, to enter 
 either chamber without being involved in all 
 the effluvia (perhaps the honorable chairman 
 would say aroma) of some negro question. Even 
 now it fills the chamber — "it smells to Heaven." 
 Why will you suffer demagogues to be incessantly 
 dabbling in'this subject — stirring up this offen- 
 sive cess-pool,|[existing in the midst of the body 
 politic. I say to you plainly, Senators from tbe 
 South, unless you frown on such attempts, we 
 shall be in hot water all the while. Tliere will 
 be in both quarters of the Union designing men, 
 trying to make either party or personal capital 
 out of this subject. has got to be high time 
 
 that we had a body of independent men in the 
 country. If I had one hundred thousand good 
 and true men scattered all over this vast Repub- 
 lic, to stand by me, I would engage to put down 
 the whole tribe of demagogues. A handful of 
 men, compact and united, can often turn the 
 scale between contending factions, and subdue 
 them to reason. I hate a Northern anti-slavery 
 demagogue, and I hate a Southern pro-slavery 
 demagogue. I think meanly of them all ; but 
 of all the mean reptiles which God, for some 
 inscrutable purpose, suffers to crawl and to 
 beslime the earth, I think a Northern pro-slavery 
 demagogue is the meanest. 
 
 But, Mr. President, if all compromises and 
 platforms are to be blown up by the passage of 
 this bill, and if in consequence I am drawn into 
 a position not unlike that of the soldier at the 
 battle ^f New Orleans, who, when inquired of 
 by General Jackson, to what regiment he be- 
 longed, replied he was there fighting on his own 
 hook, I intend to have a platform of my own, 
 and I am happy to inform the Senate that I have 
 found one which suits me exactly, and I wish to 
 produce it here by way of notice to my constitu- 
 ents and the country. 
 
 On the 11th day of June, 1846, a Democratic 
 State Convention was held at Concord, N. H., 
 whereat a Committee on Resolutions was ap- 
 pointed, of which the eminent citizen, now Presi- 
 dent of the United States, was cliairman, who 
 reported to the Convention a series of resolu- 
 tions, from which I take the following: 
 
 " Resolved, That we reaffirm the sentiments and opinions 
 of the Democratic party and Democratic statesmen of the 
 North, entertained from 1770 to the present day, in relation to 
 slavery — that we deplore its existence and regard it as a great 
 moral and social eril, but with this conviction we do' not 
 I deem ourselves more wise than Washington, Franlvlin, ami 
 their associate*, and that patriotism, common boneaty, and 
 
22 
 
 exists" — true! true! It is only the citizens of 
 such States and Territories that can effectually 
 influence or settle the policy which should be 
 pursued on this perplexing subject — exactly true! 
 "Angry external agitation by exciting the pre- 
 judices of the slave-holding communities, while 
 it may endanger the Union, tends rather to sus- 
 tain than destroy the bonds of the enslaved" — 
 true! every word true! 
 
 Mr. President, I have ever been opposed to 
 this external agitation, and am so still. I adnaifc 
 we have no constitutional or legal right to in- 
 terfere with slavery in the States, and I think it 
 inexpedient to interfere with it in the Territories 
 where it exists. And I admit, further, we have 
 no moral right to harass and worry the people 
 of such States and Territories by fruitless exter- 
 nal agitation — 1 condemn it utterly ; but then 
 you must permit me to say, with the Chief Ma- 
 gistrate of the country, that we regard it as a 
 threat moral, social, and political evil, and there- 
 fore it is not a proper subject of extension. I 
 do not like very much to speak of slavery as a 
 " moral evil," because it seems to give oft'ence to 
 our friends, who suppose we mean to set up 
 Pharisaical pretensions to superior morality over 
 the South. It is not so. I admit, there are 
 great moral evils at the North, some of which 
 we are trying to reform, such as drunkeness, 
 and you may chastise us to your heart's content 
 on account of such evils. I must at least be 
 permitted to think of slavery as a great social 
 and political evil. I will never unite with you 
 in considering it the sianmiitn bonum — as a thing 
 tit to be extended. And here I adopt the 
 words of Henry Clay, to be found in his speech i 
 of the 6th_of Fe_bniary. I inake them my pwi 
 "Thave saKTrnever could vote for it myself 
 and I repeat 1 never can and never will vote, 
 and no earthly power will make me vote to spread\ 
 slavery over territory xchcre it does not exist.' 
 Surely the President must take the same view! 
 of the subject. Surely he cannot be willing tol 
 extend over the land what he has pronounced/ 
 " a great moral and social evil" — a deplorable] 
 or dVlayJd." I admit, Mr. President, that we are evil. Hence the rumors which have reached us/ 
 bound "to a sacred observance of the compact] that he is pratonizing this measure, and using 
 
 religious principle, alike binJ us to a sacred observance of the 
 compact made by those wise niea." 
 
 " Re^olped, That the policy to be pursued in reference to 
 slavery, rests with the S^tates and Territories within which it 
 exists — that whatever parlies may profess, it is only at citizen! 
 of such Slates and Territories that the membi^rs of those par- 
 ties can essentially intliience that policy, and that angry ex 
 ternal a<:ilaiioii by exciting the prejudices of the slaveholding 
 communities, while it may endanger the Union, tends rather 
 to fasten than to destroy the bonda of the enslaved." 
 
 I agree, 2dr. President, to every word of these 
 resolutions. It is true, I was very much puzzled 
 in the first instance to determine how the origin 
 of the Democratic party of the North could be 
 carried back to so remote a period as 1776, but 
 when I came to read out of the Declaration of 
 Independence that "all men are endowed with 
 •certain inalienable rights — that among these 
 •are life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness," it 
 became very plain. I was equally puzzled bj' the 
 reference to Washington and Franklin, particu- 
 larly to the latter, but on searching out the 
 public documents 1 was enabled to solve the 
 mystery. It appears that a memorial by Benjamin 
 Franklin, as president of the Pennsylvania 
 society for promoting the abolition of slavery, 
 was presented in the Senate at the first session 
 of the first Congress, held under the Constitu- 
 tion, to wit: on'the 12th of Frebruaiy, 1790, 
 from which I make the following extract: "that 
 mankind are all fo' led by the same Almighty 
 being, alike objects of his care and equally de- 
 signed for the enjoyment of happiness — the 
 christian religion teaches us to believe and the 
 political creed of Americans fully coincides witli 
 the position." "They," the memorialists, "have 
 observed, with particular satisfaction, that 
 many important and salutary powers are vested 
 in you," that is to say in Congress, " for promot- 
 ing the welfare and securing the blessings of 
 liberty to the people of the United States, and 
 as they coucieve that these blesings ought right- 
 fully to be administered without distinction of 
 color to all description of people, so they indulge 
 themselves in the pleasing expectation that noth- 
 ing which can be done for the relief of the un- 
 happy objects of their care will be either omitted 
 
 which unites us as a nation — 'We should il^t on 
 the one hand seek to overthrow slavery by 
 violating its provisions, nor on the other pervert 
 its true intent and meaning by making it an 
 instrument for the extension of this " great, 
 moral, and social evil " all over this continent. 
 "Would "Wasliington, F'ranklin, and their asso- 
 ciates," including of course Jefferson, (who once 
 exclaimed, " 1 tremble for my country when 
 I recollect God is just") have gone for any such 
 extension ? 
 
 Having thus >. eared the subject of all doubt, 
 I am prepared to give in my adhesion to every 
 word contained in these resolutions. They re- 
 flect high honor on our wortliy Chief Magistrate. 
 I embrace them with all my heart I am wil- 
 ling to live and die by them — in short, to make 
 them religiously my rule of conduct now and at 
 all times. Let us see what they are: "Slavery 
 rests wilh tlie States in which it exists" — true! 
 "Slavery rests with the Territories in which it 
 
 us iiifliuiiicc to pi'Dinoto it, must be a foul slan- 
 ..ier! — hi- tVi.-iuls (iuu;ht to resent it — 
 
 Having thus erected luy platform, and hav- 
 ing found it sound, after an examination plank 
 by plank, 1 am prepared for retirement, and I 
 will tell you what 1 shall do when 1 am far 
 away from those turbulent scenes. I intend to 
 assume an indej)endent position, and support 
 the best ni.an who is before tiie country, irrespeo- 
 tive of party names. I will not be deterred 
 from giving him my support because he is called 
 a Denu)cr«t, or even because he is a slaveholder, 
 provided 1 am well satisfied he will hunt down 
 agitators and demagogues both North and South. 
 Here are two Senators near me, my friend from 
 South Carolina, (Mr. Butlki?,) and my friend 
 from Texas, (Mr. Holston,) either of whom 
 would do well for the country — "we might go 
 further and faro worse." 
 
 1 have no prejudices against my eouthern 
 brethren ; slavery I consider rather the misfor- 
 
23 
 
 ^une than the crime of the South. It is only 
 when you become aggressive that I feel bound 
 to resist you. Why should I have any pre- 
 judice? My honored father, whose remains I 
 followed to tlie grave in the fall of 1839, was 
 himself a slaveholder, and my earliest recollec- 
 tions are associated with what you call an iu- 
 Btitution. 
 
 I have sometimes thought, Mr. President, 
 that the North is in danger of being sold out, 
 and that we are to be reduced to servitude. I 
 can hardly believe we are in much danger. It 
 is proper however for me to give full notice that 
 if such an unhappy fate is before us I intend to 
 reserve to myself one liberty — that of choosing 
 my ovyn master, and I say now he shall be some 
 high-toned Southerh gentleman, and not a 
 Northern dough face, who would sell his birth- 
 right for a mess of pottage. I have ever un- 
 derstood that Northern men who go South and 
 turn slave owners, or slave drivers^niformerly 
 prove the most relentless and cruelof masters — 
 Heaven deliver me from such bondage ! 
 
 And finally, Mr. President, I would inquire 
 where is all this to end? Are the vitals of the 
 Republic to be incessantly lascerated ? Is there 
 to be no moderation, no regard to plighted 
 faith — no sence of justice — who is hereafter to 
 stay the raging elements of sectional strife — 
 Clay, Calhoun, Webster, Woodbury, all are gone, 
 and few seem disposed to interpose and say to 
 the surging elements, "peace, be still." I have 
 often wished during the progress of this dis- 
 cussion that Henry Clay were living and pres- 
 ent to participate in it. He would have op- 
 posed to this measure a stern and uncompro- 
 mising resistance. I deeply deplore his absence. 
 If he were here this day with his erect form, 
 animated countenance, flashing eyes, and fervid 
 accents — he would make these arches ring with 
 his remonstrances against the folly, nay the 
 madness of your course. Sir! I have done, I 
 wash my hands of all responsibilty for the con- 
 sequences of this measure. 
 
 I 
 
LBJa7.1 
 
I 
 
I 
 
[