is

TOBE RETURNED ow OR BEFORE ocr. 46

(ED REPEAL OF THE MISSOURI PROMIBITION OF SLAVERY

| fae NORTH oF 36° Bodie ae we WasHiNerON, ap DAT -THE, CoNGmeSSONAT chéun orrice. ¢

: ‘ ’ bag’! ‘ A = ~ > te ~o \ ’ rg a ~ ’ : ‘ “ oe ~ ’ ve ‘ Ps 7 % ale e. ‘ 7 Oh é = : F- ee os 2 8 ® - - ~ er : ‘ “ =f - rye 4 x 7 of , = r I * “ i : A ~ S ~*~ ay oe ‘ Pa * ~ f u aie Ne é . - iat %; m % ; * + Pes a: - - . ee ee See re ; Lo ae cea » Legs aer — « fae pL F: ee Sop sk, . te F . a eee Ly é . at ; wo oo 7 ~ 7 Se pee % ie ¢ “ ae. sin ° : = - << i : ‘ ie = Saar . - & fr PX ‘ \ i Pa 5 : . f F “7 . 5 P ~ * “a ¥ < t : = . > cas . af a . as a = . 4 - } § — . ed Fh F 7 - F ‘ = wy peste z ; 5 : y eo eeee ~ y - ; > ‘ ta wes. ‘ : / > rs j ~ are Ad tA ‘ - ; > : a, _ ig . : = ‘ eeeet : ee, oe ; 2 6 88 6S +. < j t - ps at ‘ Hel 6 ce Z - “| ~~ €eSee : i i ee othe tts (€s608" : 7, 64.04 - » = ie : v é ‘ 5 5 “ . - = <s > ’ - 2 = re / 4 <A 7 ° Shee ~ : . 2 3 — 1s , * — - ) ~~ ie “ ; 2 ! = , . Z = ’ = * - j be . at > ( aa : a - . od - y . ~ . } - a * 3 ad r - j ' . ~ - F 1 = 3 . a M is = $ ‘ , c - ~ Pocty > aS i } . c ~— - ~ a - Pega | ‘ > * J é . ‘ ~ § = A ms $ aoe z 79 . >. —. = z ~ * > _ : - } ll

' MAINTAIN PLIGHTED FAITH.

H265 #77

The bill for the organization of the Territories of Nebraska and Kansas being under considera-

tion— Mr. CHASE submitted the following amend- ment:

Strike out from section 14 the words “‘ was superseded by the principles of the legislation of 1850, commonty called + aedupea measures, and;”? so that the clause will read :

‘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 Nebraskaas elsewhere within the United States, except the eighth section of the

_ act preparatory to the admission of Missouri into the Union, approved March 6, 1820, which is hereby declared inoper- alive.”’

Mr. CHASE said: Mr. President, | had occasion, a few days ago,

to expose the utter groundlessness ef the personal ||

charges made by the Senator from Illinois {Mr. Deve as] against myself and the other signers of the Independent Democratic appeal. I now move to strike from this bill a statement which I will to-day demenstrate to be without any foundation

in fact or history. I intend afterwards to move |

to strike out the whele clause annulling the Mis- souri prohibition.

I enter into this debate, Mr. President, in no Spirit of personal unkindness. grave and too momentous for the indulgence of such feelings. I seethe great question before me, and that question only.

Sir, these crowded galleries, these thronged lob- bies, this full attendance of the Senate, prove the deep, transcendent interest of the theme.

A few days only have elapsed since the Con- gress of the United States assembled in this Capi- tol. Then no agitation seemed to disturb the political elements. ‘Two of the great political par- ties of the country, in their national conventions, had announced that slavery agitation was at an

end, and that henceforth that subject was not to _ be discussed in Congress or out of Congress. The _ President, in his annual message, had referred to

this state of opinion, and had declared his fixed purpose to maintain, as far as any responsibility attached to him, the quiet of the country. Let me read a brief extract from that message:

‘It is no part of my purpose to give prominence to any subject which may properly be regarded as set at rest by the deliberate judgment of the people. But while the present is bright with promise, and the future full of demand and

, inducement for the exercise of active intelligence, the past can never be without useful lessons of admonition and in- struction. If its dangers serve not as beacons, they will evidently fail to fulfil the object of a wise design. When

/

The issue is too |

1

the grave sha]l have closed over all who are now endeav- Oring to meet the obligations of duty, the year 1850 will be recurred te as a period filled with anxious apprehension. A successful war had just terminated. Peace brought with it @ vast augmentation of territory. Disturbing questions arose, bearing upon the domestic institutions of one portion of the Confederacy, and involving the constitusional rights ofthe States. But, notwithstanding differenees of opinion and sentiment, which then existed in relation to details, and specific provisions, the acquiescence of distinguished citizens, whose devotion to the (nion can never be doubt- ed, had given renewed vigor to our institutions, and.restored a sense of repose and security to the public mind through- out the Confederacy. That this repose is to.suffer no shock during my official term, if I have power to. avert it, those who placed me here may be assured.?”

The agreement of the two old political parties, thus referred to by the Chief Magistrate of the country, was complete, and a large majority of the American people seemed to acquiesce in the legislation of which he spoke.

A few of us, indeed, doubted the accuracy of these statements, and the permanency of this re- pose. We never believed that the acts of 1850 would prove to bea see et adjustment of the slavery question. e believed no permanent adjustment of that question possible except by a return to that original policy of the fathers of the Republic, by which slavery was restricted within State limits, and freedom, without exception or limitation, was intended to be secured to every person outside of State imits and under the exclu- sive jurisdiction of the General Government.

But, sir, we only represented a small, though vigorous and growing party in the country. Our number was small in Congress. By some we were regarded as visionaries—by some as faction- ists; while almost all agreed in pronouncing us mistaken.

And so, sir, the country was at peace. As the eye swept the entire circumference of the horizon and upward to mid-heaven not a cloud appeared; to common observation there was no mist or stain upon the clearness of the sky.

But suddenly all is changed. Rattling thunder breaks from the clondless firmament. The storm bursts forth in fury. Warring winds rush into conflict.

“¢Eurus, Notusque ruunt, eyeberque procellis, Africus. ”?

Yes, sir, ‘‘creber procellis Africus’—the south wind thick with storm, And now we find our- selves in the midst of an agitation, the end and issue of which no man can foresee.

Now, sir, who is responsible for this renewal of strife and controversy? Not we, for we have

4

—

introduced no question of territorial slavery into Congress—not we who are denounced as agitators and factionists. No, sir: the quietists and the final- ists have become agitators; they who told us that ail agitation was quieted, and that the resolutions of the political conventions put a final period to the discussion of slavery.

This will not escape the observation of the country. Itis Slavery that renews the strife. It is Slavery that again wants room. Jt is Slavery, With its insatiate demands for more slave territory and more slave States.

And what does Slavery ask fornow? Why, sir, it demands that a time-honored and sacred compact shall be rescinded—a compact which has endured

through a whole generation—a compact which has |

been universally regarded as inviolable, North and South—a compact, the constitutionality of which few have doubted, and by which ail have consented to abide.

It will not answer to violate such a compact without a pretext. Some plausible ground must be discovered or invented for such an act; and ‘Such a ground is supposed to be found in the doc- trine which was advanced the other day by the Senator from Illinois, that the compromise acts of 1850 ‘‘superseded”’ the prohibition of slavery north of 36° 30’, in the act preparatory for the admis- sion of Missouri. Ay, sir, ‘‘ superseded”’ is the phrase— superseded by the principles of the le- gislation of 1850, commonly called the compromise measures.”

It is against this statement, untrue in fact, and without foundation in history, that the amend- ment which I have proposed is directed.

Sir, thisis a novel idea. At the time when these measures were before Congress in 1850, when the questions involved in them were discussed from day to day, from week to week, and from month to month, in this Senate Chamber, who ever heard that the Missouri prohibition was to be super-

seded? What man, at what time, in whatspeech, |

ever suggested the idea that the acts of that year were to affect the Missouri compromise? The Senator from Illinois the other day invoked the authority of Henry Clay—that departed states- man, in respect to whom, whatever may be the differences of political opinion, none question that, among the great men of this country, he stood

roudly eminent. Did he in the report made by ae as chairman of the Committee of Thirteen, or in any speech in support of the compromise acts, or in any conversation in the committee, or out of

the committee, ever even hint at this doctrine of |

supersedure? Did any supporter, orany opponent of the compromise acts, ever vindicate or condemn them upon the ground that the Missouri prohibition would be affected by them? Well, sir, the compro- mise acts were passed. They were denounced North, and they were denounced South. Did any defender of them at the South ever justify his sup- port of them upon the ground that the South had obtained through them the repeal of the Missouri prohtens Did any objector to them at the

orth ever even suggest as a ground of condem- nation that that prohibition was swept away by them? No,sir! No man, North or South, during the whole of the discussion of those acts here, or in that other discussion which followed their enact- ment throughout the country, ever intimate any such opinion.

t

it | Illinois, as its chairman.

Now, sir, let us come to the last session of Con- gress. A Nebraska bill passed the House and

‘came to the Senate, and was reported from the Committee on Territories by the Senator from

Was there any provis- ion in it which even squinted towards this notion of repeal by supersedure? Why, sir, southern gentlemen opposed it upon the very ground that it left the Territory under the operation of the Missouri prohibition. The Senator from Illinois made a speech in defense of it. Did he invoke southern support upon the ground that it superseded the Missouri prohibition? Not atall. Was it op- posed or vindicated by anybody on any such ground? Every Senator knowsthecontrary. The Senator from Missouri, [Mr. Arcutson,] now the President of this body, made a speech upon the bill, in which he distinctly declared that the Mis- souri prohibition was not repealed, and could not be repealed.

[ will send this speech to the Secretary, and ask him to read the paragraphs marked.

The Secretary read, as follows:

‘¢ T will now state to the Senate the views which induced me to oppose this proposition in the early part of the ses- sion.

‘¢¥ had two objections to it. One was that the Indian title in that Territory had not been extinguished, or, at least, a very small portion of it had been. Another was the Missouri compromise, or, as it is commonly called, the slavery restriction. It was my opinion at that time—and I am not now very clear on that subjeet—that the Jaw of

| Congress, when the State of Missoari was admitted into

the Union, excluding slavery from the Territory of Louisi-

| ana north of 36° 36’, would be enforced in that Territory

unless it was specially rescinded ; and, whether that law was in accordance with the Constitution of the United. States or not, it would do its work, and that work would be to preclude slaveholders from going into that Territory. But when I came to Jook into that question, I found that there was no. prospect, no hope, ofa repeal of the Missouri compromise, excluding slavery from that Territory. Now, sir, ] am free to admit, that at this moment, at this hour, and for all time to come, | should oppose the organization or the settlement of that Territory unless my constituents, and the constituents of the whole South—of the siave States of the Union, could go into it upon the same footing, with equal rights and equal privileges, carrying that species of property with them as other people of this Union. Yes, sir, 1 acknowledge that that would have governed me, but I have no hope that the restriction will ever be repealed. ‘“¢T have always been of opinion that the first great error committed in the political history of this country was the ordinance of 1787, rendering the Northwest ‘Territory free territory. The next great error was the Missouri compro- mise. Butthey are both irremediable. Thereis noremedy for them. We must submit to them. Iam prepared to doit. It is evident thatthe Missouri compromise cannot be repealed. So far as that question is concerned, we might | |

as well agree to the admission of this Territory now as next year, or five or ten years hence.*"—Congressional Globe, Second Session 32d Cong., vol. 26, page 1113.

That, sir, is the speech of the Senator from Mis- souri, [Mr. Arcurison,] whose authority, I think, must go for something upon this question. What does he say? ‘* When Freche to look into that question’’—of the possible repeal of the Missouri prohibition—that was the question he was looking | into—‘‘I found that there was no prospect, no hope, of a repeal of the Missouri compromise ex- cluding slavery from that Territory.”? And yet, sir, at that very moment, according to this new. doctrine of the Senator from Illinois, it had been repealed three years! |

Well, the Senator from Missouri said further, that if he thought it possible to oppose this re-. striction successfully, he never would consent to. the organization of the Territory until it was re- scinded. But, said he, ‘‘ l acknowledge that I have

5

no hope that the restriction will ever be repealed.”’

Then he made some complaint, as other southern |

gentlemen have frequently done, of the ordinance

of 1787, and the Missouri prohibitions but went

on to say, ‘‘they are both irremediable; there is no

remedy for them; we must submit to them; I am

prepared to do it; itis evident that the Missouri | compromise cannot be repealed.”’

Now, sir, when was this said? It was on the) morning of the 4th March, just before the close | of the last session, when that Nebraska bill, re- ported by the Senator from Illinois, which pro- posed no repeal, and suggested no supersedure, was under discussion. 1 think, sir, that all this shows pretty clearly that up to the very close of the last session of Congress nobody had ever thought of a repeal by supersedure. Then what took place at the commencement of the present | session? ‘I'he Senator from Iowa, early in De- cember, introduced a bill for the organization of the Territory of Nebraska. I believe it was the same bill which was under discussion here at the last session, line for line, and word for word. If i am wrong, the Senator will correct me. |

Did the Senator from Iowa, then, entertain the idea that the Missouri prohibition had been super- seded? No, sir; neither he nor any other man here, so far as could be judged from any discus- | sion, or statement, or remark, had received this | notion.

- Well, on the 4th day of January the Com- mittee on Territories, through their chairman, the Senator from Illinois, made a report on the terri- torial organization of Nebraska; and that report was accompanied by a bill. Now, sir, on that 4th day of January, just thirty days ago, did the Com- mittee on Territories entertain the opinion that, the compromise acts of 1850 superseded the Mis- | souri prohibition? If they did, they were very | careful to keep itto themselves. We will judge the | committee by their own report. What do they | say in that? In the first place, they describe the |

_ character of the controversy in respect to the Ter- _ritories acquired from Mexico. _ some believed that a Mexican law prohibiting sla-

They. say that

very was in force there, while others claimed that | the Mexican law became inoperative at the mo- | ment of acquisition, and that slaveholders could | take their slaves into the territory, and hold them | there under the provisions of the Constitution. | The territorial compromise acts, as the committee tell us, steered clear of these questions. They sim- ly provided that the States organized out of these erritories might come in with or without slavery, as they should elect, but did not affect the question whether slaves could or could not be introduced before the organization of State governments. That question was left entirely to judicial decision. Well, sir, what did the committee propose to do with the Nebraska Territory? In respect to that, as in respect to the Mexican Territory, dif- ferences of opinion exist in relation to the intro- duction of slaves. There are southern gentlemen who contend that notwithstanding the Missouri rohibition, they can take their slaves into the pores covered by it, and hold them there by virtue of the Constitution. On the other hand, the great majority of the American people, North and South, believe the Missouri prohibition to be constitutional and effectual. Now what did the committee propose? Did they propose to repeal

|; enactment.

aes

| the prohibition? Did they suggest that it had been superseded? Did they advance any idea of that |kind? No, sir. This is their language:

| ‘* Under this section, as in the case of the Mexican law in \| New Mexico and Utah, it is a disputed point whether || slavery is prohibited in the Nebraska country by valid The decision of this question involves the constituiional power of Congress to pass Jaws prescribing and regulating the domestic institutions of the various Ter- ritories of the Union. In the opinion of those eminent statesmen who hold that Congress is invested with no right- | ful authority to Jegislate upon the subject of slavery in the | Territories, the eighth section of the act preparatory to the admission of Missouri is null and void, while the prevailing | sentiment in a large portion of the Union sustains the doc- trine that the Constitution of the United States secures to every citizen an inalienable right to move into any of the Territories with his property, ef whatever kind and des- cription, and to hold and enjoy the same under the sanction of law. Your committee do not feel themselves called |upon to enter into the discussion of these controverted questions. They involve the same grave issues which pro- duced the agitation, the sectional strife, and the fearful struggle of 1850.7?

This language will bear repetition:

“ Yonr committee do not feel themselves called upon to enter inte the discussion of these controverted questions. They involve the same grave issues which produced the agitation, the sectional strife, and the fearful struggle of 1850.’

And they go on to say:

“Congress deemed it wise and prudent to refrain from deciding the matters in controversy then, either by affirming or repealing the Mexican laws, or by an act declaratcry of

|| the true intent of the Constitution and the extent ot the

protection afforded by it to slave property in the Territories; | so your committee are not prepared now to recommend a departure from the course pursued on that memorable occa- sion, either by affirming or repealing the eighth section of the Missouri act, or by any act declaratory of the meaning | of the Constitution in respect to the legal points in dispute.?? Mr. President, here are very remarkable facts. 'The Committee on Territories declared that it was not wise, that it was not prudent, that it was not right, to renew the old controversy, and to rouse agitation. They declared that they would abstain from any recommendation of a repeal of the pro- hibition, or of any provision declaratory of the construction of the Constitution in respect to the legal points in dispute.

Mr. President, I am not one of those who sup- pose that the question between Mexican law and the slave-holding claims was avoided in the Utah and New Mexico act; nor do [ think that the in- troduction into the Nebraska bill of the provisions of those acts in respect to slavery would leave the question between the Missouri prohibition and the same slave-holding claim entirely unaffected. [am of a very different opinion. But I am dealing now with the report of the Senator from Illinois, as chairman of the committee, and 1 show, beyond all controversy, that that report gave no counte- nance whatever to the doctrine of repeal by super- sedure.

Well, sir, the bill reported by the committee was printed in the Washington Sentinel on Saturday, January 7. It contained twenty sections; no more, no less. It contained no provisions in respect to slavery, except those in the Utah and New Mex- ico bills. It left those provisions to speak for themselves. This was in harmony with the re- port of thecommittee. On the 10th of January— on Tuesday—the act appeared again in the Senti- nel; but it had grown longer during the interval. It appeared now with twenty-one sections, There was a statement in the paper that the twenty-first | section had been omitted by a clerical error.

6

SS SESS ST : —<—<—[—$—[_—[_—[_>_—>—S—>————E>E>——EE

But, sir, itis a singular fact that this twenty- first section is entirely out of harmony with the committee’s report. It undertakes to determine the effect of the proviston in the Utah and New Mexico bills. It deelares, among other things, that all questions pertaining to slavery in the Territo- ries, and in the new States to be formed therefrom, are to be left to the decision of the people residing therein, through their appropriate representatives. This provision, in effect, repealed the Missouri prohibition, which the committee, in their report, declared ought not to bedone. Isit possible, sir, that this wasa mere clerical error? May it not be that this twenty-first section was the fruit of some Sunday work, between Saturday the 7th, and Tues- day the 10th?

Bat, sir, the addition of this section, it seems, did not help the bill. It did not, I suppose, meet the approbation of southern gentlemen, who con- tend that they have a right to take the slaves into the Territories, notwithstanding any prohibition, either by Congress or by a Territorial Legislature. I daresay it was found that the votes of these gen- tlemen could not be had for the bill with that clause init. It was not enough that the committee had abandoned their report, and added this twenty- first section, in direct contravention of its reason- ings and principles. The twenty-first section itself must be abandoned, and the repeal of the Missouri prohibition placed ina shape which would notdeny the slave holding claim. :

The Senator from Kentucky, [Mr. Drxon,] on the 16th January, submitted an amendment which came square up to repeal, and to the claim. That amendment, probably, produced some fluttering and some consultation. Jt met the views of southern Senators, and probably determined the shape which the bill has finally assumed. Of the various mutations which it has undergone, | can hardly be mistaken im attributing the last to the amendment of the Senator from Kentucky. That there is no effect without a cause, is among our earliest lessons in physical philosophy, and T know of no cause which will account for the re- markable changes which the bill underwent after the 16th of January, other than that amendment, and the determination of southern Senators to sup- port it, and to vote against any provision recog- nizing the right of any Territorial Legislature to prohibit the introduction of slavery.

[t was just seven days, Mr. President, after the Senator from Kentucky had offered his amend- ment, that a fresh amendment was reported from the Committee on Territories, in the shape of a new bill, enlarged to forty sections. This new bill cuts off from the proposed Territory half a degree of latitude on the south, and divides the residue into two Territories—the southern Territory of Kansas, and the northern Territory of Nebraska. It applies to each all the provisions of the Utah and New Mexico bills; it rejects entirely the twenty-first clerical-error section, and abrogates the Missouri prohibition by the very singular provision, which I will read:

*¢'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 see- tion of the act preparatory to the admission of Missouri into the Union, approved March 6, 1820, which was super- seded by the principles of the legistation of 1850, commonly called the compromise measures, and is therefore declared inoperative, ””

Doubtless, Mr. President, this provision oper- ates as a repeal of the prohibition. The Senator from Kentucky was right when he said it was in effect the equivalent of his amendment. Those

| who are willing to break up and destroy the old

compact of 1820, can vote for this bill with full assurance that such will be its effect. But I ap- peal to them not to vote for this supersedure clause. I ask them not to incorporate into the legislation of thecountry a declaration which every one knows to be wholly untrue. 1 have said that this doc- trine of supersedure is new. I have now proved that it is a plant of but tendays’ growth. It was never seen or heard of until the 23d day of Janu- ary, 1854. It was upon that day that this tree of Upas was planted: we already see its poison fruits.

The provision I have quoted abrogates the Mis- sourl prohibition. It asserts no right in the Ter- ritorial Legislature to prohibit slavery. The Sena- tor from Illinois, in his speech, was very careful to assert no right of legislation in a Territorial Legislature, except subject to the restrictions and limitations of the Constitution. We know well enough what the understanding or claim of south- ern gentlemen is in respect to these limitations and restrictions. ‘They insist that by them every Ter- ritorial Legislature is absolutely precluded from all power of legislation for the prohibition of slavery. { warn gentlemen who propose to support this bill, that their votes for this provision will be re- garded as admitting this claim.

I have thus given a brief account of the muta- tions which this bill has undergone. I have shown the recent origin and brief existence of the pretense that the Missouri prohibition is superseded by the legislation of 1859. I now appeal to the Senators whosit around me, and who with me participated in the discussions of 1850—I ask them to say whether any one of them imagined then, or believes now, that the Missouri prohibition was superseded by the legislation of that year. Here, sir, sits the Senator from Virginia, [Mr. Mason]—will he say that at any time before the 23d of January, 1854, he ever heard such a proposition stated or main- tained anywhere, by anybody? No, sir, he will not say it. There is no evidence that the asser- tion was ever made before that day, when it made its appearance in the Senator’s bill. It is a re- markable circumstance, that five thousand copies of the committee’s report have been printed by the order of the Senate, and I know not how man for individual subscribers, and circulated throug the country, sustaining the bill upon the ground that the Missouri prohibition is neither repealed nor affirmed—while the bill itself as now amended expressly abrogates that prohibition. The report as circulated condemns the bill as amended, and the bill as amended contradicts the report as circu- lated. All this must necessarily mislead and con- fuse the public judgment.

I have now proved that the doctrine of super- sedure is a novelty. I will proceed to prove that it is as groundless as it is novel.

The Senator from Illinois, in his speech the other day, made a general charge of gross igno- rance of the history and geography of the country against the signers of the Independent Democratic Appeal, and singled out several paragraphs of that Appeal for special reprehension. It was _

’ vather adroit in the Senator to mix the defense of

7

his own bill with an attack upon two Senators

whose opinions on slavery questions are at vari-.

ance with those most commonly received here. But this movement will not, I think, avail him much. I have no fears that he can refute ed statement, or overturn any proposition of that ad- dress. Sir, he might as well attack Gibraltar. True in all its statements, and irrefragable, as I believe, in all its reasonings, it is impregnable to pny assault by him, or any man.

he first specification under his general charge of ignorance and misrepresentation, denies the truth of a statement which I will now read:

“These acts were never supposed to abrogate or touch the existing exclusion ef slavery from what is now called Nebraska. They applied to the Territory acquired from Mexico, and to that only. They were intended as a settle- ment of the controversy growing out of that acquisition, and of that controversy only. They must stand or fall by their own merits.”

That the first sentence which I have read is ab- solutely true, 1 suppose no man now doubts. Senators who were here during the discussions of 1850, must remember that the report of the Com- mittee of Thirteen distinctly stated that the com- promise measures applied to the ‘“‘newly acquired territory.”” The honorable and distinguished Senator from Michigan sits near me, and can say whether any syllable was uttered in the Committee of Thirteen or elsewhere, to his knowledge, which indicated any purpose to apply them to any other Territory. If I am in error, I beg the Senator to correct me. [Mr. Cass remained silent]. I am right, then.

But the Senator from Illinois says that the ter- ritorial compromise acts did in fact apply to other territory than that acquired from Mexico. How does he prove that? He says that a part of the territory was acquired from Texas. But this very territory which he says was acquired from Texas was acquired first from Mexico. After Mexico ceded it to the United States, Texas claimed that that cession inured to her benefit. That claim, only, was relinquished to the United States. The case, then, stands thus: we acquired the territory from Mexico; Texas claimed it, but gave up her claim. This certainly does not disprove the asser- tion that the territory was acquired from Mexico, and as certainly it does not sustain the Senator’s assertion, that it was acquired from Texas.

The Senator next tells the Senate and the coun- try, that by the Utah act, there was included in the Territory of Utah a portion of the old Louis- ition, which prohibition was annulled as to that iana acquisition, covered by the Missouri prohib- portion by the provisions of that act. Every one at all acquainted with our public history knows that the dividing line between Spain and the United States extended due north from the source of the Arkansas to the 42d parallel of north lati- tude. That arbitrary line left within the Lou- isiana acquisition a little valley in the midst of rocky mountains, where several branches of the Grand river, one of the affluents of the Colorado, take their rise. Here isthe map. Here spreads out the vast Territory of Utah, more than one hun- dred and eighty-seven thousand square miles. Here is the little spot, hardly a pin’s point upon the map, which | cover with the tip of my little finger, which, according to the boundary fixed by the ter- ritorial bill, was cut off from the Louisiana acquisi-

tion and included in Utah. ‘The account given of |

it in the Senator’s speech would lead one to sup-

ose that it was an important part of the Louis- lana acquisition. It is, in fact, not of the smallest consequence. ‘There are no inhabitants there. It is, as I have said, a secluded little valley in the Rocky Mountains, visited once by Frémont, and penetrated occasionally by wandering bands of Arapahoes and Utahs. The summit of the Rocky Mountains was assigned as the eastern limit of Utah. That limit, in consequence of the curvature of the mountain range, happened to include this valley. Nobody here, at the time of the passage of the Utah bill, adverted to that fact. It was known that the Rocky Mountain range was very near the arbitrary line fixed by the treaty, and nobody ever dreamed that the adoption of that range as the eastern boundary of Utah would abrogate the Missouri prohibition. The Senator reported that boundary line. Did he tell the Senate or the country that its establishment would have that effect? No, sir; never. Theas- sertion of the Senator that a ‘* close examination of the Utah act 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, and all geographical and territorial lines,’’ is little short of preposterous. There was no intent at all, except to make a con- venient eastern boundary to Utah, and no legal effect at all upon the Louisiana acquisition, except to cut off from it the little valley of the Middle Park.

The second specification of the Senator denies the accuracy of the following statement of the ad- dress in relation to this pretense of supersedure:

‘¢The compromise acts themselves refute this preten- sion. In the third article of the second section of the joint resolution for annexing Texas to the United States, it is expressly declared that ‘in such State or States as shall be formed out of said Territory north of said Missouri com- promise line, slavery or involuntary servitude, except for crime, shall be prohibited ;’? and in the act for organizing New Mexico, and settling the boundary of Texas, a proviso was incorporated, on the motion of Mr. Mason, of Virginia, which distinctly preserves this prohibition, and flouts the bare-faced pretension that all the territory of the United States, whether north or south of the Missouri compromise line, is to be open to slavery. It is as follows:

“¢¢ Provided, That nothing herein contained shall be con- strued to impair or qualify aNy THING contained in the third article of the second section of the joint resolution for an- nexing Texas to the United States, approved March 1, 1845, either as regards the number of States that may hereafter be formed out of the State of Texas, oR OTHERWISE.’

“‘ Here is proof, beyond controversy, that the principle of the Missouri act, prohibiting slavery north of 36° 30/, far from being abrogated by the compromise acts, is expressly affirmed; and that the proposed repeal of this prohibition, instead of being an affirmation of the compromise acts, is a repeal of a very important provision of the most import- ant act of the series. It is solemnly declared in the very compromise acts ‘that nothing herein contained shall be construed to impair or qualify’ the prohibition of slavery north of 36° 30/, and yet, in the face of this declaration, that sacred prohibition is said tobe overthrown. Can presump- tion further go? ‘To all who, in any way, lean upon these compromises, we commend this exposition.’

This is what the Senator says in his speech about the passages [ have just read from the ad- dress:

‘They suppress the following material facts, which, if produced, would have disproved their statement: They first suppress the fact that the same section of the act cuts off from 'T'exas, and cedes to the United States, alJ that part of Texas whieh lies north of 36° 30’. They then suppress the further fact that the same section of the Jaw cuts off from Texas a large tract of country on the west, more than three degrees of longitude, and added it to the territory of the Uni-

§

a Se CSE EE SN Sv SN LS SS Se ee mand eerrrcnmnbenanecieetnaennendsRaedsettnunanaiters;haniinentacaseaa aT A eee

ted States. They then suppress the further fact that this | territory thus cut off from Texas, and to which the Missouri compromise line did apply, was incorporated into the Ter- ritory of New Mexico. And then what was done? It was | incorporated into that Territory with this clause:

<¢* That when admitted as a State, the said Territory, or any portion of the same, shall be received into the Union with or without slavery, as their constitution may prescribe at the time of its adoption.’ :

‘¢ Yes, sir, the very bill and section from which they quote cuts off all that part of Texas which was to be free by the Missouri compromise, together with some on the south side of the line, incorporates it into the Territory of New Mexico, and then says that that Territory, and every portion of the same, shall come into the Union with or without slavery, as iL sees proper.”?

The assertion here is, that all the territory claimed by Texas north of 36° 30’ was cut off by the Texan boundary and New Mexico act.

Mr. DOUGLAS. Read it.

Mr. CHASE. I have read it; but will read it again.

“Yes, sir, the very bill and section from which they quote cuts off all] that part of Texas which was to be free by the Missouri compromise, together with some on the south side of the line, incorporates it with the Territory of New Mexico, and then says that that territory, and every portion of the same, shall come into the Union with or without slavery, as it sees proper.’

Mr. DOUGLAS, (in his seat.) Most of it.

Mr.CHASE. In his speech the Senator said ALL the territory claimed by Texas north of 36° 30’ was incorporated into New Mexico. Nowhe says, Most oF 1T. ‘These are very different state- ments. I will show the Senate what was and what was not incorporated. The boundary line be- tween Spain and the United States—for I want to make this matter perfectly clear and distinct—was this : P

‘The boundary line between the two countries west of the Mississippi, shall begin on the Gulf of Mexico, at the mouth of the river Sabine, in the sea, continuing north along the western bank of that river, to the 32° of latitude ; thence by a line due north to the degree of latitude where it strikes the Rio Roxo of Natchitoches or Red river ; then following the course of the Rio Roxo westward, to the de- gree of, longitude 100° west from London, and 23° from Washington ; then crossing the said Red river, and running thence by a line due north to the river Arkansas; thence following the course of the southern bank of the Arkansas to its source in latitude 42° north, and thence by that paral- lel of latitude to the South Sea.’?

Now look at this boundary upon the map. Here itis. [Exhibiting the map.] Here we go up the Sabine to the 32° parallel; then straight north to the Red river; then along the Red river to the 100° of longitude; then straight north again to the Arkan- sas; then up the Arkansas to its source; then straight north once more to the 42° of latitude. There you see the boundary between the United States and the Spanish possessions, as defined by the treaty of 1820.

Now, what did Texas claim? Here is the most authentic evidence of it in her own act, approved December 19, 1836, by Sam Housron. I will read it:

** Beginning at the mouth of the Sabine river, running west along the Gulf of Mexico, three leagues from land, to the mouth of the Rio Grande; thence up the principal stream

of the said river to its source; then due north to the 42° of north latitude; thence along the boundary line as defined

in thetreaty between the United States and Spain to the beginning.’

That, sir, is the boundary claimed by Texas. After her annexation to the United States, and after the treaty with Mexico of Guadalupe Hidalgo, Texas asserted her claim to the whole territory in- cluded within these limits. The Senator from Vir-

ginia [Mr. Mason] was among those who regarded this claim of Texas as just~not because of any

valid original title to the territory, but because of

the implied recognition of her title by the United

States. I need not say that I, in common with

very many others, dissented from that view. But

the Senator from Virginia, and other Senators,

maintained it. That Senator, on the 30th July,

1850, moved a joint resolution recognizing this

claim, which I will read:

‘6 Resolved, &c., That by the joint resolution, approved March Ist, 1845, for annexing ‘Texas to the United States, it being ordained that ‘the territory properly included within and rightfully belonging to the Republic of Texas, may be erected into anew State,’ &c., it is the opinion and judgment of Congress, that the admission of Texas into the Union, with the boundaries described by the laws there- of, not objected to by the United States, atthe time of such annexation, is conclusive, as against the United States, of the right of Texas to the territory included within such boundaries. ”?

The recognition proposed by this resolution would give to Texas all the land east of the Rio Grande, and a line drawn from its source to the forty second parallel, and west of the line between the United States and the Spanish possessions al- ready described.

Now, sir, of the territory within this claim of Texas, that part between the 320 and 389 of north latitude, and west of 103° of longitude, was incor- porated intogthe Territory of New Mexico.. That part between the 38th parallel and the Arkansas river, stretching north toward the 42d parallel ina long narrow strip, and that other part included within 100° and 103° of longitude, and 36° 30’ north latitude, and the Arkansas river, were not incorporated into New Mexico, nor relin- quished to Texas, but became a part of the territory of the United States. Here are these two tracts of country, which the Senator says were cut off from Texas, and incorporated: into New Mexico. If the claim of Texas was valid, they were cut off from her territory, but they-were not incorporated into New Mexico. The Senator is totally mis- taken as to that; and it is not a trifling mistake. The tract west of New Mexico, between 36° 30’ and the Arkansas river, contains over twenty thousand square miles. It is not easy to estimate the contents of the other tract. The first is as large as Connecticut, Rhode Island, Massachusetts, and New Hampshire put together. The two tracts probably are nearly equal in extent to the whole of New England, excluding Maine. There are seven States in the Union neither of which equals in ex- tent the larger of these tracts, nor probably the smaller, Not one foot of this territory was in- corporated into New Mexico, and yet the Senator asserted that it all was. I repeat, sir, that here was agreat error. I show the Senator that he was wrong in a very material statement. But did [ accuse him, therefore, of falsifying the publie history of the country? of wilful misrepresenta- tion? of falsehood? Not at ail. The Senator, like other men, is liable to error. If he falls into error upon a point material to any controversy which I may happen to have with him, I will cor- rect the error, but I will not reproach the man. I will not charge him with violating truth, or with intentional misreprasentation.

I said the other day to that Senator, when he proposed to deny to mea postponement warranted by the usages of the Senate, that I thought him incapable of understanding the obligations of cour-

9

ooo

tesy. I prefer now to restrict that statement, and say that the Senator, on that occasion, under some excitement, perhaps, and perhaps influenced also by an over-anxious desire to hasten the vote upon his bill, disregarded the obligations which courtesy imposes. I make this remark because I am un- willing, under any provocation, to do any injus- tice to a political or personal opponent. While I say this, however, { ought, perhaps, to add in reference to a remark which fell from the Senator on that occasion, that at no time did I ever ap- proach him with a smiling face, or an angry face, or any face at all, to obtain from him a postpone- ment of his bill, in order to gain time for the cir- culation of attacks upon it. I have condemned his bill strongly, and have condemned his action in bringing forward this repeal of the Missouri rohibition. But I have done no injustice to the enator. All that I have done at all I have done openly. I have not waged, nor will I wage a war of epithets. It neither accords with my principles, nor with my tastes. But while [ wage no such war, 1 dread none. Neither vituperation, nor de- nunciation, will move me, while I have the ap- see: of my own judgment and conscience. But did not intend to recur to this matter, and willingly dismiss it.

If the Senator is wrong, as I have shown he is,.

in respect to the incorporation of all the territory cut off from Texas into New Mexico, then he is ‘ also wrong in his declaration that the compromise act of 1850 does not preserve and reassert the prin- ciple of the Missouri prohibition.

The facts are few and simple, and the inference from them obvious and irresistible.

The third article of the joint resolution for the annexation of Texas read thus?

“ New States, of convenient size, not exceeding four in number, in addition to said State of Texas, having sufficient population, may hereafter, by the consent of said State, be formed out of the Territory thereof, which shall be entitled to admission under the provisions of the Federal Constitu- tion. And such States as may be formed ont of that portion of said Territory lying south of 36° 30/ north Jatitude, com- monly known as the Missouri compromise line, shall be admitted into the Union, with or without slavery, as the people of each State asking admission may desire. And in such State or States as shal! be formed outof said Territory north of said Missouri compromise line, slavery or involun- tary servitude (except for crime) shall be prohibited.”’

Here is an express stipulation that slavery shall be prohibited in any State formed out of the ter- ritory of Texas north of 36° 30’. This was a valuable stipulation for freedom, in case the claim of Texas was a valid one to the whole territory within her boundaries. The Senator from Virginia regarded thatclaim as valid; and it was upon his mo- tion that the proviso whichI now proceed to quote was incorporated into the Texas boundary bill:

* Provided, That nothing herein contained shall be con- strued to impair Or qualify aNY THING contained in the third article of the second section of the joint resolution for an- nexing Texas to the United States, approved March 1, 1845, either as regards the number of States that may hereafter be formed out of the State of Texas or orHERWISE.”?

So

Here was a compact between two States. far as the parties were competent to enter into it, it was obligatory and permanent. That compact covered all the territory rightfully within the lim- its of Texas, until rescinded. It could make no difference if a portion of that territory should be subsequently relinquished to the United States. That would not disturb the effect of the compact. But this matter was not left to inference or conjec-

| ture.

et

At the very moment of relinquishment, the United States and Texas, by agreeing to the pro- viso I have quoted, saved the compact, and con- tinued it in full-force in all its provisions.

Nothing can be clearer, then, than that, if the two tracts of country of which I have spoken were within the rightful claim of Texas, the compact applied to them, and the prohibition of slavery in the States to be created out of them, is still in force. And it is, perhaps, at this day the only prohibition which is in force there; for the Mis- sourl prohibition, enacted in 1820, may be regard- ed as restricted to the limits of the Louisiana ac- quisition as defined by the treaty with Spain, which was concluded in that year.

But the Senator from Illinois says that the pro- hibition in the annexation resolution was of no practical effect, except to preserve the principle of the Missouri compromise. That was true, if Texas never had any just claim north of 36° 30’. Upon that supposition, also, the Mason proviso had no effect as preserving and reaffirming an actual pro- hibition north of 36° 30’, but still served to pre- serve the principle. It is impossible to maintain, as the Senator does, that the third article of the original joint resolution, though of no practical effect, preserved the principle of the Missouri com- promise, and yet deny that the Mason proviso, which reaftirms and reéstablishes, as part of a new compact, every provision of that third article preserves that principle. If the principle was pre- served by one, it must be by the other.

I have now, I think, demonstrated that the Sen- ator from Illinois was clearly wrong in asserting the incorporation of all the territory cut off from Texas into New Mexico; and justly as clearly wrong in denying the reaffirmance of the prin- ciple of the Missouri compromise by one of those very compromise acts which, as he would have us say, superseded it. Certainly the Senate, when it adopted the Mason proviso, without a division, and the House, when it agreed to the bill of which it was a part, must have intended to keep alive and affirm every provision of the third article of the annexation resolution. One of these provisions prohibited slavery north of 36° 30’. That pro- vision preserved the principle of the Missouri com- promise. The proviso, taken in connection with that provision, makes it clear beyond all question that the compromise acts preserved that principle, and rejected the consequence which it is now sought to force upon them.

I submit to the Senate if I have not completely vindicated this part of the appeal against the speech of the Senator? The errors, mistakes, mis- representations, are allhisown. None are found in the appeal. r

The third specification of the Senator charges the signers of the appeal with misrepresentation of the original policy of the country In réspect to slavery. The Senator says:

“The argument of this manifesto is predicated upon the assumption that the policy of the fathers of the Republie was to prohibit slavery in all the Territories ceded bv the old States to the Union, and made United States territory for the purpose of being organized into new States. I take issue upon that statement.”?

The Senator then proceeds to attempt to show that the original policy of the country was one of indifferentism between slavery and freedom; and that, in pursuance of it, a geographical line was established reaching from the east to the western

10

limit of the original States—that is to say, to the Mississippi river. Sir, if anything is susceptible

the proposition that the founders of this Republic never contemplated any extension of slavery. Let us for a few moments retrace the past.

W hat was the general sentiment of the country when the Declaration of Independence was pro- mulgated? I invoke Jefferson as a witness. Let him speak to us from his grave, in the language of his memorable exposition of the rights of British America, laid before the Virginia convention, in August, 1774. These are his words:

‘¢'The abolition of domestic slavery is the greatest object

of desire in these colonies, where it was unhappily intro- duced in their infant state.”?

In the spirit which animated Jefferson, the First Congress—the old Congress of 1774—among their first acts, entered into a solemn covenant against the slave traffic.

In 1776, the Declaration of Independence, drafted by Jefferson, announced no such low and narrow principles as seem to be in fashion now. That immortal document asserted no right of the strong to oppress the weak, of the majority to enslave the minority. It promulgated the sub- lime creed of human rights. It declared that anu MEN are created equal, and endowed by their Cre- ator with inalienable rights to life and liberty.

The first acquisition of territory was made by the United States three years before the adoption of the Constitution. Just after the country had emerged from the war of independence, when its struggles, perils, and principles, were fresh in re- membrance, and the spirit of the Revolution yet lived and burned in every American heart, we made our first acquisition of territory. That ac- quisition was derived from—I might, perhaps, bet- ter say confirmed by—the cessions of Virginia, New York, and Connecticut. It was the territory northwest of the river Ohio.

Congress forthwith proceeded to consider the subject of its government. Mr. Jefferson, Mr. Howell, and Mr. Chase were appointed a com- mittee to draft an ordinance making provision for that object. The ordinance reported was the work of Mr. Jefferson, and is marked throughout by his spirit of comprehensive intelligence, and de- votion to liberty. It did not confine its regards to the territory actually acquired, but contemplated further acquisitions by the cessions of other States. It provided for the organization of temporary and permanent State governments in all territory, whether ‘‘ ceded or to be ceded,’ from the 31st parallel, the boundary between the United States and the Spanish province of Florida on the south, to the 42d Hatelisk the boundary between this country and the British possessions on the north.

The Territory was to be formed into States; the settlers were to receive anthority from the Gen- eral Government to form temporary governments. The temporary government were to continue until the population should increase to twenty thousand inhabitants; and then the temporary were to be converted into permanent governments. Both the temporary and the permanent governments were to be established upon certain principles, expressly set forth in the ordinance, as their basis. Chief among those was the important proviso to.which I now ask the attention of the Senate:

‘‘After the year 1800 of the Christian era there shall be

neither slavery nor involuntary servitude in any of the said States, otherwise than in the punishment of crimes whereof

‘the parties shall have been duly convicted to have been

of absolute historical demonstration, I think it is || personally guilty.”

Let it be noted and remembered that this pro-

'viso applied not only to the territory which had

been ceded already by Virginia and the other

States, but to all territory ceded and to be ceded. |There was not one inch of territory within the

whole limits of the Republic which was not cov- ered by the claims of one or another of the States. It was then the opinion of many statesmen—Mr,. Jefferson himself among them—that the United States, under the Constitution, were incapable of

acquiring territory outside of the original States.

The Jefferson proviso, therefore, extended to all territory which it was then supposed the United States could possibly acquire.

Well, what was the action of Congress upon this proviso? Mr. Speight, of North Carolina, moved that it be stricken from the ordinance, and the vote stood, for the proviso, six States—New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Con- necticut New York, and Pennsylvania; against

‘it, three States—Virginia, Maryland and South

Carolina. Delaware and Georgia were not then

| represented in the Congress, and the vote of North | Carolina being divided, was not counted; nor was

the vote of New Jersey counted, one delegate only being present. But the Senate will observe that the States stood six to three. Of the twenty-three delegates present, sixteen were for the proviso, and seven against it. The vote of the States was two to one, and that of the delegates more than two to one for the proviso. But under the provisions of the Articles of Confederation which then controlled the legislation of Congress, the votes of a majority of all the States were necessary to retain the pro- viso in the ordinance. It failed, consequently;

recisely as a proviso in a treaty must fail unless It receive the votes of two thirds of the members of the Senate. Sir, if that doctrine of the rights of majorities, of which we hear so much and see in actual practice so little, had then been recog-

| nized—if the wishes of a majority of the States,

and of the majority of the delegates, had pre- vailed—if the almost universal sentiment of the people had been respected, the question of slavery in this country would have been settled that da forever. All the territory acquired by the Union would have been covered with the impenetrable egis of freedom. But then, as now, there was a slave interest in the country—then, as now, there was a slave power. The interest was compara- tively small, and the power comparatively weak; but they were sufficient, under the then existing Government, to defeat the proviso, and transfer the great question of slavery to future discussion. The facts which | have detailed, however, are suf- ficient to show what was the general sentiment, and what was the original policy of the country in respect to slavery. It Was one of limitation, discouragement, repression.

What next occurred? The subject of organia- ing this Territory remained before Congress. Mr. Jefferson,in 1785, went to France. His great influ- ence was no longer felt in the councils of the coun- try, but his proviso remained, and in 1787 was in- corporated into the ordinance for the government of the territory northwest of the river Ohio. I beg the Senate to observe, that this territory was, at that moment, the whole territory belonging to

into free territory.

_ gress was framing this ordinance—almost the last

I

1

the United States. I will not trouble the Senate | by reading the proviso of the ordinance. It is enough to say that the Jefferson Proviso of 1784, coupled with a provision saving to the original States of the Union a right to reclaim fugitives from service, was incorporated into the ordinance, and became a fundamental law over every foot of national territory. What was the policy indicated by this action by the fathers of the Republic?

Was it that of indifferentism between slavery and |

freedom? that of establishing a geographical line,

on one side of which there should be liberty, and

on the other side of slavery, both equally under the protection and countenance of the Government? No, sir; the furthest thing possible from that. It was the policy of excluding slavery from all na- tional territory. It was adopted, too, under remarkable circumstances. The territory over which it was established was claimed by Vir- ginia, in right of her charter, and in right of con- quest. The gallant George Rogers Clarke, one of the bravest and noblest sons of that State, had, with a small body of troops, raised under her au- thority, invaded and conquered the territory. Slavery was already there, under the French colo- nial law, and also, if the claim of Virginia was well founded, under thelaws of that State. These facts prove that the first application of the original policy of the Government converted slave territory

Now, sir, what guarantees were given for the maintenance of this policy in time to come? I once, upon this floor, adverted to a fact, which has not attracted so much attention, in my judgment, asits importance deserves. It is this: While the Con-

act of its illustrious labors—the convention which framed the Constitution was sitting in Philadelphia. Several gentlemen were members of both bodies, and at the time this ordinance was adopted, no prop- osition in respect to slavery had been discussed in the convention, except that which resulted in the establishment of the three fifths clause. It is im-

ossible to say, with absolute certainty, that the incorporation of that clause into the Constitution, which gave the slave States a representation for three fifths of their slaves, had anything to do with the unanimous vote by which the proviso was in- grafted upon the ordinance; but the coincidence is remarkable, and justifies the inference that the facts were connected. At all events, the proviso can hardly fail to have been regarded as affording a guarantee for the perpetuation of the policy which it established.

Already seven of the original thirteen States had taken measures fof the abolition of slavery within their limits, and were regarded as free States. Six only of the original States were re-

rded as slave States. The ordinance provided or the creation of five new free States, and thus secured the decided ascendency of the free States in the Confederation. The perpetuation of slav- ery even in any State, it is quite obvious, was not then even thought of.

And now, sir, let me ask the attention of the Senate to the Constitution itself. That charter of our Government was not formed upor pro- slavery principles, but upon anti-slavery prin- ciples. It nowhere recognizes any right of prop- erty inman. It nowhere confers upon the Gov- ernment which it creates, any power to establish

or to continue slavery. Mr. Madison himself re- cords, in his Report of the Debate of the Conven- tion, his own declaration, that it was ** wrong to admit in the Constitution the idea that there could be property in men.”’ Every clause in the Consti- tution which refers in any way to slaves speaks of them as persons, and excludes the idea of property. In some of the States, it is true, slaves were re- garded as property.

The language of Mr. Justice McLean on this point is yery striking. He says:

** That cannot divest them of the leading and controlling quality of persons by which they are designated in the Con- | stitution. The character of property is given them by the local law. This law is respected, and all rights under it are protected by the Federal authorities. But the Consti- tution acts upon slaves as persons, and not as property.’?

Well, sir, not only was the idea of property in men excluded from the Constitution; not only | was there no power granted to Congress to au- thorize or enable any man to hold another as prop- erty, but an amendment was afterwards ingrafted upon the Constitution, which especially denied all such power.

The history of that amendment is worth atten- tion. The State which the Senators from Virginia so ably represent on this floor was one of those | which immediately after the adoption of the Con- | stitution proposed amendments of it. One of the amendments which she proposed was this:

‘*No freeman ought to be taken, imprisoned, or deprived of his freehold, liberties, or franchises, or outlawed, or ex- iled, or in any manner deprived of his life, liberty, or prop- erty, but by the Jaw of the Jand.’’

Did Congress adopt thatamendment? No, sir; it adopted and proposed to the States a very dif- ferent amendment. It was this:

‘* No person * * * shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.”

Now, sir, in my judgment, this prohibition was intended as a comprehensive guarantee of personal freedom, and denies absolutely to Congress the power of legislating for the establishment or main- tenance of slavery. This amendment of itself, rightly interpreted and applied, would be sufficient to prevent the introduction of slaves into any ter- ritory acquired by the United States. Atall events, taken in connection with the ordinance, and with the original provision of the Constitution, itshows conclusively the absence of all intention upon the part of the founders of the Government to afford any countenance or protection to slavery outside of State limits. Departure from the true interpre- tation of the Constitution has created thenecessity for positive prohibition.

My general view upon this subject is simply this: Slavery is the subjection of one man to the absolute disposal of another man by force. Mas- ter and slave, according to the principles of the Declaration of Independence, and by the law of nature, are alike men, endowed by their Creator with equal rights. Sir, Mr. Pinckney was right, when, in the Maryland House of Delegates, he exclaimed, ‘‘by the eternal principles of justice, no man in the State has a right to hold his slave for a single hour.’’ Slavery then exists nowhere by the law of nature. Wherever it exists at all, it must be through the sanction and support of munic- ipal or State legislation. |

Upon this state of things the Constitution acts. It recognizes all men as persons. It confers no power, but, on the contrary, expressly denies to | the Government of its creation all power to estab-

12

lish or continue slavery. Congress has no more power under the Constitution to make a slave than to make a king; no morepower to establish slavery, than to establish the Inquisition.

At the same time the Constitution confers no power on Congress, but, on the contrary, denies all power to interfere with the internal policy of any State, sanctioned and established by its own Constitution and its own legislation, in respect to the personal relations of its inhabitants. The States under the Constitution, are absolutely free from all interference by Congress in that respect, except, perhaps, in the case of war or insurrec- tion; and may legislate as they please within the limitations of their own constitutions. They may allow slavery if they please, just as they may license other wrongs. But State laws, by which slavery is allowed and regulated, can operate only within the limits of the State, and can have no extra- territorial effect.

Sir, I could quote the opinions of southern judges ad infinitum, in support of the doctrine that slavery is against natural right, absolutely dependent for existence or continuance upon State legislation. I might quote the scornful rejection by Randolph of all aid from the General Government to the in- stitution of slavery within the States. I might

uote the decision of the celebrated Chancellor ythe, of Virginia—overruled afterwards, [) know, sir, inthe court of appeals—that slavery was so against justice, that the presumption of freedom

suing for liberty, and that the onus of proving the contrary rested upon the master.

I think I have now shown that the Ordinance of 1787, and the Constitution of the United States, were absolutely in harmony one with the other; | and that if the ordinance had never been adopt- ed, the Constitution itself properly interpreted, and administered, would have excluded slavery from all newly-acquired territory. But, sir, what- ever Opinion may be entertained in respect to the interpretation of the Constitution which I defend, | one thing is absolutely indisputable, and that is, that it was the original policy of the country to | exclude slavery from all national territory.

That policy was never departed from until the year 1790, when Congress accepted the cession, | of whatis now Tennessee, from North Carolina. | But did the acceptance of that cession indicate any | purpose of establishing a geographical! line between Slavery and freedom? Why, sir, on the contrary, the State of North Carolina, aware that in the absence of any stipulation to the contrary, slavery would be prohibited in the ceded territory, in pur- suance of the established policy of the Govern- ment, introduced into her deed of cession an ex- press provision, that the anti-slavery article of the ordinance of 1787 should not be applied to it. It may besaid that Congress should have refused | to accept the cession. I agree in that opinion. But slavery already existed in the district as part of the State of North Carolina, and it was pro- bably thought unreasonable to deny the wish of the State for ils continuance.

The same motives decided the action of Georgia in making her cession of the territory between her western limits and the Mississippi, and the action of Congress accepting it. The acceptance of both these cessions, as well as the adoption and reénactment by Congress of the slave laws |

‘sent to the Senate.

ee eee

—_—__—

‘of Maryland for the District of Columbia, were

departures from original policy; but they indi- cated no purpose to establish any geographical line. ‘They were the result of the gradually in- creasing indifference to the claims of freedom, plainly perceivable in the history of the country after theeadoption of the Constitution. Luther Martin had complained in 1788, that ‘* when our own liberties were at stake we warmly felt for the

common rightsofman. The danger being thought

to be passed which threatened ourselves, we are daily growing more and more insensible to those - rights.’? [t was this growing insensibility which led to these departures from original policy. Af- terwards, in 1803, Louisiana was acquired from France. Did we then hasten to establish a geo- graphical line? No, sir. In Louisiana, as in the territories acquired from Georgia and North Caro- lina, Congress refrained from applying the policy of 1787; Congress did not interfere with existing slavery; Congress contented itself with enactments prohibiting, absolutely, the introduction of slaves from beyond the limits of the United States; and

also prohibiting their introduction from any of the States, except by bona fide owners, actually re-

moving to Louisiana for settlement. When Louisiana was admitted into the Union, in 1812, no restriction was imposed upon her in respect to slavery. At this time, there were slavesall along up the west bank of the Mississippi as far as St.

Louis, and perhaps even above. must be allowed in favor of every alleged slave |

In 1818 Missouri applied for admission into the Union. The free States awoke to the danger of the total overthrow of the original policy of the coun-

try. They saw that no State had taken measures

for the abolition of slavery since the adoption of | the Constitution. They saw that the feeble at- tempt to restrict the introduction of slaves into the territories acquired from Georgia and from France had utterly failed. They insisted, there- fore, that in the formation of a constitution, the people of the proposed State should embody in it a provision for the gradual abolition of the exist- ing slavery, and prohibiting the further introduc- tion of slaves. By this time the slave interest had become strong, and the slave power was pretty firmly established. The demand of the free States was vehemently contested. A bill preparatory to the admission of Missouri, containing the pro- posed restriction, was passed by the House and In that body the bill was amended by striking out the restriction; the House refused to concur in the amendment; the Senate insisted upon it, and the bill failed. At the next session of Congress the controversy was renewed. In the mean time Maine*had been severed from Massachusetts, had adopted a constitution, and had applied for admission into the Union. A bill providing for her admission passed the House, and was sent to the Senate. This bill was amend- ed in the Senate by tacking to it a bill for the admis- sion of Missouri, and by the addition ofa section prohibiting slavery in all the territory acquired by Louisiana north of 36° 30’. The House refused to concur in these amendments, and the Senate asked for a committee of conference, to which the House agreed. During the progress of these events, the House, after passing the Maine bill, had also passed a bill for the admission of Mis+ sourl, embodying the restriction upon slave

in the State. The Senate amended the bill by

3

pear oh ak . : \| : . striking out the restriction, and by inserting the || ple this compromise was adopted, and to what

section prohibiting slavery north of 36° 30’. territory it applied. The controversy was be- _ This section came from the South, through Mr. || tween the two great sections of the Union. The Thomas, a Senator from Illinois, who had uni- || Subject was a vast extent of almost unoccupied formly voted with the slave States against all|| country, embracing the whole territory west of restriction. It wasadopted on the1l7th February, the Mississippi. It was territory in which slave 1820, as an amendment to the Maine and Mis- || law existed at the time of acquisition. The com-

souri bill, by 34 ayes, against 10 noes.* promise section contained no provision allowing Mr. HUNTER. I think that the provision slavery south of 36° 30’. It could never have passed without a division in the Senate. received the sanction of Congress if it had. The

Mr. CHASE. The Senator is mistaken. || continuance of slavery there was left to the determ- Fourteen Senators from the slave States, and || ination of circumstances. There was, probably, an twenty from the free States voted for that amend- implied understanding that Congress should not in- ment. Eight from the former, and two from the terfere with the operation of those circumstances— latter voted against it. No vote by ayesand noes || andthat wasall. The prohibition north of 360 30° was taken when the same amendment was en-|| Was absolute and perpetual. The act in which it grafted upon the separate Missouri bill, a few || Was contained was submitted by the President to

days later; the sense of the Senate having been his Cabinet, for their opinion upon the constitution- ascertained by the former vote. ality of that prohibition. Catnoun, Crawrorp,

This was the condition of matters when the || and Wirr were members of that Cabinet. Each, committee of conference, for which the Senate || in a written opinion, affirmed its constitutionality, had asked, made their report. The members of and the act received the sanction of the President. the committee from the Senate were, of course, || Thus we see that the parties to the arrangement favorable to the Senate amendments. In the|| were the two sections of the country—the free House, the Speaker, Henry Cray, was also in States on one side, the slave States on the other. favor of them, and he had the appointment of the The subject of it was, the whole territory west of committee. Of course he took care, as he has|j the Mississippi, outside of the State of Louisiana; since informed the country, to constitute the com- and the practical operation of it was, the division mittee in such manner and of such persons as of this territory between the institution of slavery would be most likely to secure their adoption. || and the institution of freedom.

The result was what might have been expected. || The arrangement was proposed by the slave It recommended that the Senate should recede from || States. It was carried by their votes. A large its amendments to the Maine bill, and that the | Majority of southern Senators voted for it; a ma- House should concur in the amendments to the | jority of southern Representatives voted for it. It Missouri bill. Enough members from the free || as approved by all the southern members of the States were found to turn the scale against the pro- || Cabinet, and received the sanction of a southern posed restriction of slavery in the State; and the | President. The compact was embodied in a single amendment of the Senate striking it out was bill containing reciprocal provisions. ‘The admis- concurred in by ninety yeas against eighty-seven | Sion of Missouri with slavery, and the under- “nays. From this moment successful opposition | Standing that slavery should not be prohibited by to the introduction of Missouri with slavery was || Congress south of 36° 30', were the considerations impossible. Nothing remained but to determine | of the perpetual prohibition north of thatline. And the character of the residue of the Louisiana ac- || that prohibition was the consideration of the ad- quisition; and the amendment prohibiting slavery || ™/SSion and the understanding. ‘The slave States north of 360 30' was concurred in by one hundred | received a large share of the consideration coming and thirty-four yeas against forty-two nays. Of | to them, paid in hand. Missouri was admitted the yeas, thirty-eight were from slave and ninety- without restriction by the act itself. Every other six from free States; of the nays, thirty-seven |) part of the compact, on the part of the free States, were from slave States and five from free. Among || has been fulfilled to the letter. No part of the those who voted with the majority was Mr. | compact on the part of the slave States has been Lownopzs, of South Carolina, whose vote, esti- fulfilled at all, exceptin the admission of lowa, and mated by the worth and honor of the man, out- the organization of Minnesota; and now the slave weighs many opposites. States propose to break up the contract without

Now, for the first time, was a geographical line the consent and against the will of the free States, established between slavery and freedom in this and upon a doctrine of supersedure which, if country. sanctioned at all, must be inevitably extended so

Let us pause, and ascertain upon what princi- | 48 to overthrow the existing prohibition of slavery : in all the organized Territories.

* The vote was as follows: Let me read to the Senate some paragraphs from

AYE3—Messrs. Morrill and Parrot, of New Hampshire; || Niles’s Register, published in Baltimore, March 11,

Mellen and Ottis, of Massachusetts; Dana and Lanman : : of Connecticut; Burrill and Hunter, of Rhode Island ; Pal- 1820, which show clearly what was then the uni-

mer and Tichenor, of Vermont; King and Sanford, of versal understanding in respectto thisarrangement: New York; Dickerson and Wilson, of New Jersey, Low- ‘‘' The territory north of 36° 30/ is ‘forever’? forbidden to rie and Roberts, of Pennsylvania; Ruggles and Trimble, of || be peopled with slaves, except in the State of Missouri. Ohio; Horsey and Van Dyke, of Delaware: Lloyd and || The right, then, to inhibit slavery in any of the Territories Pinkney, of Maryland ; Stokes, of North Carolina; Johnson || is clearly and completely acknowledged, and it is condi- and Logan of Kentucky ; Eaton and Williams, of Tennes- || tioned as to some of them, that even when they become see; Brown and Johnson, of Louisiana; Leake, of Mis- || States, slavery shall be ‘forever’ prohibitedinthem. There sissippi; King and Walker, of Alabama; Edwards and || is no hardship in this. The Territories belong to the Thomas, of I{linois. United States, and the Government may rightfully pre-

NOES—Messrs. Noble and Taylor, of Indiana; Barbour |) scribe the terms on which it will dispose of the public and Pleasants, of Virginia; Macon, of North Carolina; || lands. This great point was agreed to in the Senate, 33 Gaillard and Smith, of South Carolina; Elliott and Walker, || votes to 11; and in the House of Representatives by 134 to of Georgia ; and Williams, of Mississippi. 42, or really 139 to 37. And we trust thatit is determined

14

SS SS SS ‘forever’ in respect to the countries now subject to the || decide the question for all the territory covered by

legislation of the General Government. ”?

I ask Senators particularly to mark this:

“Tt is true the compromise is supported only by the letter of the law, repealable by the authority which enacted it; but the circumstances of the case give to this law a MORAL FORCE equal to that of a positive provision of the Constitution; and we do not hazard anything by saying that the Consti- tulion exists in its observance. Both parties have sacri- ficed much to conciliation. We wish to see the comPACT kept in good faith, and we trust that a kind Providence will open the way to relieve us of an evil which every good cit- izen deprecates as the supreme curse of the country.”?

That, sir, was the language of a Marylander, |

in 1820. He expressed the universal understand- ing of the country. Here then is a compact, com- plete, perfect, irrepealable, so far as any compact,

embodied in a legislative act, can be said to be irre- | it had the two sections of the country | for its parties, a great Territory for its subject, |

pealable.

and a permanent adjustment of a dangerous con- troversy for its object. It was forced upon the free States. It has been literally fulfilled by the free States. It is binding, indeed, only upon honor and conscience; but, in such a matter, the obligations of honor and conscience must be re- garded as even more sacred than those of consti- tutional provisions.

Mr. President, if there was any principle which prevailed in this arrangement, it was that of per- mitting the continuance of slavery in the localities where it actually existed at the time of the acqui- sition of the Territory, and prohibiting it in the

arts of Territory in which no slaves were actually

eld. ‘This was a wide departure from the ori- ginal policy which contemplated the exclusion of Slavery from territories in which it actually ex- isted at the time of acquisition. slavery could ever be introduced into free terri- tory, under the sanction of Congress, had not, as yet, entered into any man’s head.

Mr. President, I shall hasten to a conclusion. In 1848 we acquired a vast territory from Mexi- co. The freeStates demanded that this territory, free when acquired, should remain free under the Government of the United States. The Senator from Illinois tells us that he proposed the exten- sion of the Missouri compromise line through this territory, and he complains that it was re- jected by the votes of the free States. So it was. And why? Because the Missouri compromise ap-

lied to territory in which slavery was already allowed. The Missouri prohibition exempted a portion of this territory, and the larger portion,

But the idea that |

from the evil. It carried out, in respect to,that, the |

original policy of the country. But the extension

of that line through the territory acquired from |

Mexico, with the understanding which the Sen-

ator from Illinois and his friends attached to it, |

would have introduced slavery into a vast region in which slavery, at the time of acquisition, was not allowed. ‘To agree to it would have been to re- verse totally the original policy of the country and to disregard the principle upon which the Mis- sourl compromise.was based.

It is true that when the controversy in respect to this Territory came to a conclusion, the provisions of the acts by which territorial governments were organized, were in some respects worse than that proposition of the Senator. While those bills pro- fessed to leave the question of slavery or no slavery in the Territories, unaffected by their provisions, to judicial decision, they did, nevertheless, virtually

them, so far as legislation could decide it, against freedom. California, indeed, was admitted as a free State; and by her admission the scheme of extending a line of slave Stutes to the Pacific was, for the time, defeated. ‘The principle upon which northern friends of the territorial compromise acts vindicated their support of them was this: Slavery is prohibited in these Territories by Mexi- can law ;—that law is not repealed by any provision of the acts;—indeed, said many of them, slavery cannot exist in any Territory, except in virtue of a positive act of Congress—no such act allows slavery there—there is no danger, therefore, that any slaves will be taken into the Territory. South- ern supporters of the measure sustained them upon quite opposite grounds. Under the provisions of the Federal Constitution, they said, the slaveholder can hold his slaves in any Territory in spite of any prohibition of a Territorial Legislature, or even of an actof Congress. ‘The Mexican law forbidding slavery was abrogated at the moment of acquisition by the operation of the Constitution. Congress has not undertaken to impose any prohibition. We can, therefore, take our slaves there, if we please.

The committee tell us that this question was

left in doubt by the Territorial bills.

What, then, was the principle, if any, upon which this controversy was adjusted? Clearly this: That when free territory 1s acquired, that partof it which is ready to come in as a free State shall be admitted into the Union, and that part which is not ready shall be organized into terri- torial governments, and its condition in respect to slavery or freedom shall be left in doubt during the whole period of its territorial existence.

It is quite obvious, Mr. President, how very prejudicial such a doubt must be to the settlement and improvement of the territory. But I must not pause upon this.

The truth is, that the Compromise acts of 1850 were not intended to introduce any principle of territorial organization applicable to any other Territory except that covered by them. ‘The pro- fessed object of the friends of the compromise acts was to compose the whole slavery agitation. There were various matters of complaint. The non-sur- render of fugitives from service was one. The existence of slavery and the slave trade here in this District and elsewhere, under the exclusive juris- diction of Congress, was another. The appre- hended introduction or prohibition of slavery in the Territories furnished other grounds of contro- versy. ‘The slave States complained of the free States, and the free States complained of the slave States. It was supposed by some that this whole

‘agitation might be stayed, and finally put at rest

by skillfully adjusted legislation. So, sir, we had the omnibus bill and its appendages, the fugi- tive slave bill, and the District slave trade suppres- sion bill. To please the North—to please the free States—California was to be admitted, and the slave depdts here in the District were to be broken up. To please the slaves States, a stringent fugitive slave act was to be passed, and slaver

was to have a chance to get into the new Terri- tories. The support of the Senators and Repre- sentatives from Texas was to be gained by aliberal adjustment of boundary, and by the assumption of a large portion of their State debt. The general

15

—

result contemplated was a complete and final ad- justment of all questions relating to slavery. The acts passed. A number of the friends of the acts signed a compact, pledging themselves to support no man for any office who would in any way renew the agitation. The country was required to ac- quiesce in the settlement as an absolute finality. No man concerned in carrying those measures through Congress, and least of all the distinguished man whose efforts mainly contributed to their suc- cess, ever imagined that in the territorial acts which formed a part of the series, they were plant- ing the germs of a new agitation. Indeed, | have proved that one of these acts contains an express stipulation which precludes the revival of the agi- tation in the form in which it is now thrust upon the country, without manifest disregard of the pro- visions of those acts themselves.

I have thus proved beyond controversy that the averment of the bill, which my amendment pro- poses to strike out, is untrue. Senators, will you unite in a statement which you know to be contra- dicted by the history of the country? Will you in- corporate into a public statute an affirmation which is contradicted by every event which attended or fol- lowed the adoption of the compromise acts? Will oe here, acting under your high responsibility as

enators of the States, assert as fact, by a solemn vote, that which the personal recollection of every Senator who was here during the discussion of those compromise acts disproves? I will not be- lieve it untill see it. If you wish to break up the time-honored compact embodied in the Mis- souri compromise, transferred into the joint reso- lution for the annexation of Texas, preserved and affirmed by these compromise acts themselves, do it openly—do it boldly. Repeal the Missouri pro- hibition. Repeal it by a direct vote. Do not re- peal it by indirection. Do not ‘declare’? it ‘* in- operative,’’ ‘* because superseded by the principles of the legislation of 1850.”’ c

Mr. President, three great Eras have marked the history of this country, in respecttoslavery. The first may be characterized as the Era of ENFRAN- CHISEMENT. Itcommenced with the earliest strug-

les for national independence. The spirit which inspired it animated the hearts and prompted the efiorts of Washington, of Jefferson, of Patrick Henry, of Wythe, of Adams, of Jay, of Hamil- ton, of Morris, in short, of all the great men of our early history. All these hoped—all these labored for—all these believed in the final deliverance of the country from the curse of slavery. That spirit burned in the Declaration of Independence, and inspired the provisions of the Constitution, and the Ordinance of 1787. Under its influence, when in full vigor, State after State provided for the emancipation of the slaves within their limits,

rior to the adoption of the Constitution. Under its feebler influence at a later period, and during the administration of Mr. Jefferson, the impor- tation of slaves was prohibited into Mississippi and Louisiana, in the faint hope that those territo- ries might finally become free States. Gradually that spirit ceased to influence our public councils, and lost its control over the American heart and the American policy. Another era. succeeded,

but* by such imperceptible gradations that the|

lines which separate the two cannot be traced with absolute precision.. The facts of the two eras meet and mingle as the currents of confluent

: |

streams mix so imperceptibly that the observer cannot fix the spot where the meeting waters blend.

This second era was the Era of consERvATISM. Its great maxim was to preserve the existing con- dition. Men said, let things remain as they are; let slavery stay where it is; exclude it where it is not; refrain from disturbing the public quiet by agitation; adjust all differences that arise, not by the application of principles, but by compro- mises.

It was during this period that the Senator tells us that slavery was maintained in Illinois, both while a Territory and after it became a State, in despite of the provisions of the ordinance. It is true, sir, that the slaves held in the Illinois coun- try, under the French law, were not regarded as absolutely emancipated by the provisions of the ordinance. But full effect was given to the ordi- nance in excluding the introduction of slaves, and thus the Territory was preserved from eventually becoming a slave State. The few slaveholders in the Territory of Indiana, which then included I]- linois, succeeded in obtaining such an ascendency in its affairs, that repeated applications were made not merely by conventions of delegates, but by the Territorial Legislature itself, fora suspension of the clause in the ordinance prohibiting slavery. These applications were reported upon by John Randolph, of Virginia, in the House, and by Mr. Franklin in the Senate. Both the reports were against sus- pension. The grounds stated by Randolph are specially worthy of being considered now. They are thus stated in the report:

‘¢ That the committee deem it highly dangerous and inex- pedient to impair a provision wisely calculated to promote the happiness and prosperity of the northwestern country, and to give strength and security to that extensive frontier. In the salutary operation of this sagacious and benevolent restraint, it is believed that the inhabitants of Indiana will, at no very distant day, find ample remuneration for a tem- porary privation of labor and of emigration.”?

Sir, these reports, made in 1803 and 1807, and the action of Congress upon them, in conformity with their recommendation, saved Illinois, and perhaps Indiana, from becoming slave States. When the people of Illinois formed their State constitution, they incorporated into it a section providing that neither slavery nor involuntary servitude shall be hereafter introduced into this State. The constitution made provision for the continued service of the few persons who were originally held as slaves, and then bound to ser- vice under the territorial laws, and for the free- dom of their children, and thus secured the final extinction of slavery. The Senator thinks that this result is not attributable to the ordinance. I differ from him. But for the ordinance, I haveno doubt slavery would have been introduced into Indiana, Illinois, and Ohio. Itis something to the credit of the era of conservatism, uniting its influ- ences with those of the expiring era of enfranchise- ment, that it maintained the ordinance of 1787 in the northwest. .

The Era of conservatism passed, also by im- perceptible gradations, into the Era of sLavery PROPAGANDISM. Under the influences of this new spirit we opened the whole territory acquired from Mexico, except California, to the ingress of sla- very. Every foot of it was covered by a Mexican prohibition; and yet, by the legislation of 1850, we consented to expose it to the introduction of

16

ec etna cn ret nc tn hh SN TEES pain ARNO ALICANTE A NDT Lee eT ETT TT TT EL TIS SSNS NSE SSIS SS SS nc

slaves. Some, I believe, have actually been car- ried into Utah and into New Mexico. They may be few, perhaps, but a few are enough to affect materially the probable character of their future governments. Under the evil influences of the same spirit, we are now called upon to reverse the original policy of the Republic; to subvert even a solemn compact of the conservative period, and open Nebraska to slavery.

Sir, I believe that we are upon the verge of another era. tion. The introduction of this question here, and its discussion, will greatly hasten its advent. We, who insist upon the denationalization of slavery, and upon the absolute divorce of the General Gov- ernment from all connection with it, will stand with the men who favored the compromise acts, and who yet wish to adhere to them, in their letter and

in their spirit, against the repeal of the Missouri

prohibition. But you may pass ithere. You may | It may become law. |

send it to the other House. But its effect will be to satisfy all thinking men

that no compromises with slavery will stand, ex- |

cept so long as they serve the interests of slavery; and that there is no safeand honorable ground for non-slaveholders to .stand upon, except that of restricting slavery within State limits, and ex- cluding itabsolutely from the whole sphere of Fed- eral jurisdiction. The old questions between po- litical parties are at rest. thoroughly possesses the public mind as this of slavery. This discussion will hasten the inevit- able reorganization of parties upon the new issues which our circumstances suggest. It will light up a fire in the country which may, perhaps, consume those who kindle it.

I cannot believe that the people of this country have so far lost sight of the maxims and principles

of the Revolution, or are so insensible to the obli- |

gations which those maxims and principles im- pose, as to acquiesce in the violation of this com- pact. Sir, the Senator from Illinois tellsyus that he proposes a final settlement of all territorial questions in respect to slavery, by the application of the principle of popular sovereignty. What

kind of popular sovereignty is that which allows | one portion of the people to enslave another por- | || of the Revolution; honestly carry into their le-

tion? Is thatthe doctrine of equal rights? Is that exact justice? Is that the teaching of enlightened, liberal, progressive Democracy? There can be no real democracy which does not fully maintain the rightsof man, asman. Living, practical, earnest democracy imperatively requires us, while carefully ‘abstaining from unconstitu- tional interference with the internal regulations of any State upon the subject of slavery, or any other subject, to insist upon the practical application of its great principles inall the legislation of Congress.

I repeat, sir, that we who maintain these princi- ples will stand shoulder to shoulder with the men who, differing from us upon other questions, will

et unite with us in opposition to the violation of plighted faith contemplated by this bill. There are men, and not a few, who are willing to adhere to the compromise of 1850. If the Missouri prohibi- tion, which those compromises incorporates and preserves among its own provisions, shall be re- pealed, abrogated, broken up, thousands will say, Away with all compromises; they are not worth the paper on which they are printed; we will return to the old principles of the Constitu-

That era will be the Era of rwac-'!

No great question so |

No, sir; no! |

|

|

/

| accident.

tion. We will assert the ancient doctrine, that no person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or prop- erty, by the legislation of Congress, without due process of law. Carrying out that principle into its practical applications, we will not cease our efforts until slavery shall cease to exist wherever it can be reached by the constitutional action of the Government. i

Sir, I have faith in Progress. I have faith in nation, upon this western continent, was not an The establishment of the American Government, upon the sublime principles of the Declaration of Independence, and the organization of the union of these States, under our existing Constitution, was the work of great men, inspired by great ideas, guided by Divine Providence. These men, the fathers of the Republic, have be-

| queathed to us the great duty of so administering

the Government which they organized, as to pro- tect the rights, to guard the interests, and promote the well-being of all persons within its jurisdic-

_tion, and thus present to the nations of the earth

a noble example of wise and just self-government. Sir, 1 have faith enough to believe that we shall yet fulfill this high duty. Let me borrow the in- spiration of Mitron, while I declare my belief that we have yet a country ‘* not degenerated nor drooping to.a fata! decay, but destined, by casting off the old and wrinkled skin of corruption, to out- live these pangs, and wax young again, and, enter- ing the GLORIOUS WAYS OF TRUTH AND PROSPEROUS

| VIRTUE, BECOME GREAT AND HONORABLE IN THESE

LATTER AGES. Methinks I see inmy mind a great and puissant nation rousing herself like a strong man after sleep, and shaking her invincible locks. Methinks I see her as an eagle mewing her mighty youth, and kindling her undazzled eyes AT THE FULL MID-DAY BEAM; purging and unscaling her long- abused sight AT THE FOUNTAIN ITSELF OF HEAVEN- LY RADIANCE; while the whole noise of timorous

|Democracy. The planting and growth of this -

a

and flocking birds, with those also that love the

twilight, flutter about, amazed at\what she means, and in their envious gabble would prognosticate a year of sects and schisms.”

Sir, we may fulfil this sublime destiny if we

will but faithfully adhere to the great maxims

gitimate practical applications the high principles of Democracy; and preserve inviolate plighted faith and solemn compacts. Let us do this, put- ting our trust in the God of our fathers, and there is no dream of national prosperity, power, and glory which ancient or modern builders of ideal commonwealths ever conceived, which we may nothopetorealize. Butif weturn aside from. these ways of honor to walk in the by-paths of temporary expedients, compromising with wrong, abetting oppression, and repudiating faith, the wisdom and devotion and labors of our fathers will have been all—all in vain. Sir, I trust that the result of this discussion will show that the American Senate will sanction no breach of compact. Let us strike from the bill that statement which historical facts and our per- sonal recollections disprove, and then reject the whole proposition which looks toward a violation

‘of the plighted faith and solemn compact which

our fathers made, and which we, their sons, are bound by every tie of obligation sacredly to main- tain.