8

3

*

J> *>

N

BANCROFT

LIBRARY <•

THE LIBRARY

OF

THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA

SPEECH

OF

MR. M. P. GENTRY, OF TENNESSEE,

ON THE

ADMISSION OF CALIFORNIA.

DELl\ ERED IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, MONDAY, JUNE 10, Io50.

The House being in Committee of the Whole, and having- under consideration the President's mes sage in relation to California,

Mr. GENTRY addressed the committee as fol lows :

Mr. CHAIRMAN: Congress has been in session six months, occupied almost exclusively with the ques tion now before this -"ommittee. Other questions of public interest, various and important in their nature, strongly claim the attention of the legisla tive branch of the Government, but are excluded from consideration. By a war with Mexico we have acquired vast territories. By the treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo we have bound ourselves to protect the people of those territories; to secure to them all the rights of citizens of the United States; itnc in due time admit them, as States, into the Union. Repeated efforts have been made to redeem our plighted faith in this regard, but in every in stance causes, which I will develop in the course of my rerrarks, have prevented legislation. We be gin to realize the truth that the policy of aggressive war — conquest and colonization — is not suited to the genius of our government. With our conquests there comes upon us thf question, shall Congress prohibit or admit slavery in the Territories we have acquired? It is a question fraught with discord and danger. It has, JM a great djegrce, alienated the northern and southern States, and made disunion a familiar word in our pofitical vocabulary. It has paralyzed the Government, and threatens its de struction. The wisest statesmen and most san guine patriots tremble for the safety of the Repub lic. What policy has brought us into these dan gers? Who is responsible for the existing state of thing;? Who forewarned the country of this cri sis? Who — what political party is it that, being solemnly forewarned, nevertheless blindly and recklessly persevered in steering the ship of state invo its present perilous condition? These areques- tiniift which I propose to discuss with candor. I intend to speak what I think.

In debating so grave a subject, I would not, if left to choose fur myself, introduce questions con nected with party politics. But the course which gentlemen on the -other side of the House have thought proper to pursue leaves me no choice in this respect. They t ave debated the subject for

GIDEON & (Jo.,

six months, and nearly all who have spoken on that side of the House have labored to fix the responsi bility for the existing state of things on the Presi dent of the United States. Differing widely as to the particular acts which are alleged to have pro duced the present state of affairs, they agree in as cribing them to him. While one gentleman urges that the existing difficulties are attributable to the position which he occupied when a candidate for the Presidency, another ascribes them to the advice which he has given to the. people of California since his election; and others contend that all would have been well with us if he had announced in his an nual message his purpose to veto any bill that might pass the two Houses of Congress inhibiting slavery in the Territories we have acquired from Mexico. The brief hour to which I am limited by a rule of the House will not permit rne to repel, specifically, these discordant imputations; but I will endeavor to vindicate the President by exhibiting the true causes of the present state of affairs, and by fixing- the responsibility where justice and truth require. I recognise the right of a representative of the peo ple in the Congress of the United States freely to canvass the official conduct of the President, and every other Executive functionary, and hold them to a rigid responsioility for their official acts. Jt is a right limited only by such restrictions as truth, justice, and honor impose. If these virtues have not lost their influence upon the public mind, the ver dict of the country will be, that the President is in no degree responsible for producing those evils which now excite the public anxiety.

To explain thoroughly and fully the causes which have produced the sectional excitements and animosities which now disturb the harmony of the Union and obstruct the legislation of Congress, it is necessary to go back to a period when the rep resentatives of the slaveholding States, mistaking the true policy of the South, violently and vehe mently opposed the reception and reference of pe titions for the abolition of slavery in the District of Columbia, emanating from northern abolition so cieties, and finally succeeding in procuring- the adoption, by this House, of a rule prohibiting the reception and reference of those petitions. Previ ous to the period to which I refer, efforts to agi tate the public mind on the subject of slavery wer«

X \

C- W

u

,

r

-<

confined to a few fanatics in the non-slaveholding States, who, organized into abolition societies, were in the habit of forwarding- to Congress, at every successive session, petitions for the abolition of sla very in the District of Columbia, where", as they contended, Congress had full power over the sub ject. They were few in number, and the great body of the northern people ', of both political par ties, neither syrnpathiztd nor co-operated with them. But the unwise course pursued by southern representatives with respect to their petitions im-

Sarted to that handful of fanatics a power and in- uence over public affairs which has largely con tributed to bring the country into its present con dition. Petitions on the same subject had, from an early period of the Government, been from time to time presented, received, and referred, creating no excitement in Congress or among1 the people. It were well for the country if the same mode of treating such petitions had been continued.

But, unfortunately, the southern members of Congress, under the lead of the late distinguished Senai< r from South Carolina, (Mr CALHOUN,) op- po.-ed the r. ception and reference of those petitions, placing- their opposition, if I remember correctly, upon the ground that the Constitution r>;d not con fer upon Congress the power to abolish slavery in the District of Columbia, and that the reception of petitions praying for such an object would be an implied assertion of the power to grant the prayer of the petitioners; that to admit the existence of such power in Congress would be fatal to the inter- eats and rights of the slaveholding States ; and that therefore the petitions ought not to be received. Their arguments prevailed; and the rule prohibit ing- the r« ception ol such petitions was established. At that time, the late ex- President John Quincy Ada ins was a member of this House. Descended from a sire who had made himsell illustrious by his put lie services-! in the Revolution— himself eminent for high ability and extensive acquirements — vene rated, especially by the people of the northern States, fo. his private virtues and public serviced — he put himself forward upon this floor, with all the weight « f influence rmtuiaily attaching to one so charnct* :nzt d and distinguished^ as the champion of me constitutional right of petition. Distinctly declaring himsell oppo-ed to grunting the pray c r ol the pi titicners, he nevertheless contended that it ' was the right of the people under the Constitution " peaceably to assemble and petition for the re- dre.-s ol grievarit es;" and that it was the duty of Congress to respectfully receive, refer, and con- sidt r their petitions. With unexampled inflexi bility ol character, he d< voted all his powers to the conti st ; and, alter a struggle characterized by the most excited and disorderly d» bates on this floor, and protracted through a petiod of several years, that rule was reseiiioetf. Si nee then, abolition pe titions, as in the olden time, have been received and relernd every day, or at least whenever any mem ber has chosen to present them, without a formal motion, and without creating the least excitement here or tlsewhere.

In ih- progri ss of that struggle thousands, aye, hundreds of th.ou--.ands, of the people of the non- slav< holding Sta'es, who had previously scoffed and derided the Abolitionists, found themselves brought into sympathetic association and zealous co-opera tion with them. The unwise opposition of the pub lic men of the South to the reception of their peti tion.- had raised ihu Abolitionists into respectable and honorable associations, and enabled them to appropriate to (heir objects the seeming champion ship ol Mr. Adams, and to identify themselves with a question thtt addressed itself powerfully to popu lar sympathies. Aided by the circumstances to which 1 have referred, they were enabled to give such a direction to political discussions as tended to

deepen, and strengthen, and diffuse, far and wide, the abstract sentiment of hostility to slavery pre existing in the minds of the northern people. Meanwhile, southern demagogues, under the im pulse of motives not dissimilar to those which ac tuated the Abolitionists, had been equally energetic and successful in arousing sectional passions and creatingsectional hostility It was when demagogues and fanatics had thus "inflamed and excited the prejudices and passions of the North and the South, that the question of annexing the Republic of Texas to the U:.'-ed States was introduced into the politics of this country. Texas had proposed to annex her self to the United States during- the administration of President Jackson, by whom the proposition was promptly rejected. She renewed the proposition during President Van Huron's administration, who likewise promptly rejected it.

In the year 1840 William Henry Harrison was elected President of the United States, and John Tyler Vice President. In one month after he was inaugurated President Harrison died, and the Vice President became the President of the United States. I need not dwell upon the political events which followed that occurrence. They are fresh in the r- collection of all who have paid aqy attention to public affairs. Mr. Tyler ref Js< d to co-operate with the political pa/ty which elected him, and; by a se ries of Executive vetoes, prevented the adoption of measures of public policy for which that party con sidered itself pledged to the country. They de nounced him for dishonorable political infidel ity; and, with the exception of some half dozen gentlemen, the Whig members of Congress placed themselves in hostile opposition to the President. Fierce and angry denunciations, criminations and recririiinations. became the order of the day. In the midst of those exciting scenes, a distinguished Whig, who adhered to Mr. Tyler in that co tro- versy, made a remark to me which produced a strong impression- on my mind. Between that gen tleman and myself very friendly relations had ex isted. He haa exhibited some anxi» ty for me to take position with him in sustaining Mr. Tyler. In the conversation to which I am referring, tie had been seeking to ascertain the disposition of my mind as to the policy of annexing Texas to the United States, and while speculating on that sub ject, he remarked, with great vehemence of man ner, " Mr. Tyler holds in h;s hands a political question with which he can at any time destroy the present organization of political parties." The full meaning of this remark was ex^biined when Mr, Tyler concluded a treaty with Texas, by the pro visions of which that republic agreed to surrender its nationality, and become one of the States of this Union, and when other developments showed con clusively that it was his aim, by means of Execu tive patronage, and the question of Texas annexa tion, to abstract from 4 he Whig and Democratic parties materials for a third political party, by the support of which he hoped to be eluded to the high station to which an accident had elevated him. The treaty being conducted and submitted to the Senate for its ratification, that body, after long debate, re fused to raiify it. It was supported and opposed, indiscriminately, by Whigs and Democrats. It disturbed, but did not destroy, the existing party organizations.

The period was approaching when the political parties of the country were to assemble in conven tion for the purpose of nominating candidates for the Presidency and Vice Presidency. For this pur pose the Whig party and the Democratic par ty, respectively , assembled in convention at Baltimore; and Mr. Tyler mustered an assemblage there also, about as numerous and respectable as that famous company with which Falstaff was ashamed to march through Coventry. Previous to the assembling of

the conventions, the universal sentiment of the Whig- party had designated Mr. Clay as their can didate for the Presidency; and, with equal unanim ity, Mr. Van Buren had been indicated as the fa vorite of the Democratic party. Each of these dis tinguished gentlemen were requested to make known to the public their views as to the poliry of annexing- Texas to the United States; and both of them proclaimed their opposition to that measure. The Democratic convention, seeing- that, without some new question capable of unsettling- the opin ions and purposes of the people with respect to po litical parties and public men, they were, doomed to defe-it, repudiated Mr. Van Buren and nomi nated Mr. Polk, because he had expressed himself in favor of annexing- Texas. The Whig conven tion, without a dissenting- voice, nominated Mr. Clay. Mr. Tyler's ••onvontion performed the work for which they were convened by nominating- him; but when that gentleman discovered that the Dem ocratic party had robbed him of the hobby with which he had expected to ride triumphantly into the Presidency, he withdrew from the canvass. The Democratic party entered upon the canvass with the motto inscribed upon their party banner: "THE WHOLE OF OaEGON AND THE ANNEXATION OF TEXAS "

Mr. Chairman, I am endeavoring to exhibit the causes which* have brought the country into its present difficulties, and to tix the responsibility for the existing- state of things where truth and justice require it U> be fixed. Want of time will not per mit me to present all the facts needful to a full com prehension of the argument. I beg gentlemen to remember ail that the i on rule of this House pre^ vents me from detailing. They will remember the position occup ed by thrs Whig party with respect to the annexation of Texas, when, in the manner I have described, that was made a purely party ques- tinn in the Presidential canvas of lt>44. They will remember the views put forth by the Whigcandi date (Mr. Clay) in his Raleigh letter. They well remember that the prominent men of the Whig party, with few exceptions, everywhere opposed that measure, upon the ground that annexation %vould be a breach of faith with Mexico; that it would probably involve the United Slatis in a w<- r with that govern in at; thu it would create among our people an appetite lor territorial aggrandize ment that would be insatiable; that it would engen der between the States sectional animosities, and imperil if not destroy the Union. What was pro pht-cy then is history now. Their warnings were unheeded. Mr. Polk was elected to the Presidency, and, under h.s auspices, the measure ol annexation was consummated. Mr Calhoun, who was Secre tary oi State when the treaty wiih Texas was nego tiated, placed the policy of that measure upon the ground that it was necessary as a means of giving additional security to slavery, by increasing the political power or the slavenolcling States. The northern States, opposed in sentiment to slavery, and unwilling to concede preponderance of politi cal power to ihe southern Siaus, were naturally hostile to annexation; and although they sullenly acquiesced in the consummation of that measure, it was obvious to all that a deep feeling of discon tent rankled in their bosoms.

The war with Mexico followed close upon the heels of annexation, and it was soon manifest that the Presidenj, was resolved upon the acquisition of territory; and when a bill appropriating three mil lions of dollars, to enable the President to negotiate a treaty of peace, was under consideration, the gentleman from Pennsylvania, (Mr. WILMOT,) moved to amend it by attaching the proviso, which has since figured so prominently in our political discussions. This House, by a large majority, sus tained his motion, but the Senate tailed lor want of

time to act upon the bill; and it did not become a law. When Congress assembled at the succeeding session, our armies had defeat d and destroyed those of Mexico; and our commanders in California and New Mexico were in quiet possession of those provinces They had issued proclamations an nouncing to the people of tho-«e provinces tiiat they were "annexed" to the United State-; thus disclos ing, beyond the possibility ol*a doubt, th-it the President had. from the beginning, prosecuted the war with Mexico for the purpose of conquest. In his message to Congress, he assumed that all who questioned the propriety of his conduct in this re spect were, in effect, opposed o their country, and were "giving aid and comfort to the enemy." On the motion to refer the President's menage a de bate arose, during which his supporters on this floor reiterated the same idea. Having participated in that debate, and, inasmuch as what I .-aid on that o< casion supports the position which I ;un now en deavoring to establish, I hope I will be pardoned for reading a short extract from the speech which I then delivered:

"It is the duty of Congress, and I invoke the per formance ofthat duty, to limit and cotr.rol the dis cretion of the President in relation to the further prosecution of the war. If Congress believes it to be expedient and just to wagA a war of conquest for the acquisition ol territory, let that fa<-t bo de clared; arid if Congress believes it to be inexpedi ent, let it assert the constitutional right of the legis lative branch of the Government, by saying to the President, 'thus far shah thou go, and no tar- ther.'

******

"It is moral cowardice, when the great interests of the Republic are in p<Til, to -hut our eyes, and shrink front a contemplation uf the dangers with whkh we are threatened. * * *

"He must be blind to all the signs of the times who do. s not perceive that there is a fix^-d and al most universal determination in the northern States not to acquiesce in a lurther extent-ion of tenitory, without attaching to such ext« nsion the prohibition to which 1 fjftve refer rid. iiow shall we overcome this difficulty, when the question shall conn: before Congress permanently to annex the t onqu-'ats of the President? We have already seen, by a vote of this House, that the nun slavehol ing States \vill insist upon prohibiting slavery in those Tenitories. Will the southern States consent to the admission of free States south aud west of Texas? What will Texas say? What will Louisiana say? What will the whole South say? All the dangers growiug.out of this question of slavery, which we ,.rtve met and overcome heretofore, are as nothing compared with ttiose which will arise when ihac question shall come upas the consequence of' Mr. Pole's conquests and annexations.

"Mr. Chairman, in my opinion, there are bad men in the North and the South, who desire a dis solution of the Union, and who, without avowing their object, are laboring diligently to pioduce that end. The President is diiving the ship of state into a most stormy and dangerous sea; and if Con gress fails to act in the lofty spirit ol patriotism which the occasion demands — if it fails to assert the constitutional rights and perform Unconstitutional duties which properly belong and attach to the legislative branch of the Government, by putting a limit to Executive discretion in the lurther prose cution of this \var with Mexico, in my opinion the day is not distant^when it will require all the vir tue, intelligence, and patriotism of the country to preserve the Union and save the public liberty."

Mr. Chairman, these remarks brought down upon me a storm of denunciation. Among others, my colleagues on the other side of the House made themselves prominent in attacking my course.

4

They impeached my patriotism. They arraigned me lor introducing- the firebrand of slavery into the councils of the nation, for the purpose of impairing its energy in the prosecution of a "just and glo rious war." This storm of denunciation was hurled against me for weeks, and until I was rescued by a movement of the honorable gentleman from New York, (Mr. PRESTO^ KING,) who sits before me. On the morning of Jan. 5, 1847, that gentleman en tered this hall with a roll of manuscript in his hand, and obtaining the floor, proceeded to "define the position" of the Democratic party of the northern States with respect to the war with Mexico. Want of time will not permit me to read that important paper; but if I make misstatements with respect to- it, I will thank the gentleman to correct me. In substance it said: "The Democrats of the non- slaveholding States intend to vote men and money, to any extent needful, for the vigorous and suc cessful prosecution of the war with Mexico. They are in favor of acquiring territory to indemnify the United States for the expenses of that war; but it is with them a fixed principle, a. settled purpose, not to permit the existence of slavery in any terri iory that may be acquired."

Mr. McCLEBNAND. I beg- leave to say that I, for one, objected to the manifesto of the gentleman from New York, and urged him not to offer it.

Mr. G. resumed. It is not my purpose to do in justice to any one. I remember that the gentle man from Illinois, (Mr. McCtERNAND,) and, per haps, two or three others on that side of the House, dissented from that manifesto ; but their number was quite too small to impair in any degree the force of the fact which I am presenting. When the gentleman from New York read his manifesto, the storm, which had been so long and so furiously beating upon me, ceased.

The Whigs of the northern States also defined their position. They proclaimed that they were opposed to extending the limits of the United States; opposed to the acquisition of territory north or south; but, said they, if we are overruled — if, against our counsels and votes, you insist upon ac quiring territory, we will co-operate in preventing the introduction of slavery therein.

When we of the South were thus forewarned by the Whigs and Democrats of the non-slaveholding States, my friend from Georgia (Mr. STEPHENS) introduced a resolution, declaring the legitimate objects of the war with Mexico, and restricting the discretion of the President, by inhibiting the ac quisition of territory. When I made the speech from which I have ventured to read an extract, I had in the drawer of my table a resolution, similar to that offered by my friend from Georgia, which I intended to offer at a suitable time. He antici pated me in the execution of my purpose. I had hoped when those developments should be made to which I have referred, that the Democratic members of this House from the southern States would c^-operate with the Whigs to prevent the acquisition of territory. I was disappointed in this reasonable expectation. When the House voted on the resolution offered by my friend from Georgia, every northern and south ern Whig voted for it; every northern and southern Democrat voted against it.

Mr. STEPHENS. No; Mr. Cobb, of Alabama, voted with us.

Mr. GENTRY. A friend informs me that Mr. Cobb, of Alabama, voted with us on the question to which I am referring. If my friend is correct in his recollection, I must do the gentleman from Ala bama the justice to say, that he stands "solitary and alone," honorably isolated from his political party. In the Senate, Mr. BERRIEN introduced a resolution similar to that introduced here, and the vote upon it was precisely like that in this House; every Whig from the North and the South, with

perhaps, one exception, voted for it; and every Dem ocrat from the North and the South voted against it.

Mr. Chairman, what causes have produced the present state of things? What policy? Who is re sponsible? Is it the President? The incontroverti ble truths of history which I have presented vindi cate him from that false and unjust imputation, and fix the responsibility where an honorable gen tleman from Mississippi, (Mr. THOMPSON,) more candid than most of those who have spoken on that side of the House, says it ought to rest.

That gentleman, in a speech which he made a few days ago/ claimed for the Democratic party, of which he is a member, the glory of annexing Tex as; the glory of the war which followed that event; and the^glory of adding to the Territories of the United States California and New Mexico. And he admitted, that all the responsibilities resulting from these achievements rested upon the Demo cratic party; and that, therefore, that party is bound to come to the rescue and extricate the Re public from the difficulties and dangers in which Democratic measures have involved it.

It has been my aim to prove the correctness of the admissions so c-.ai'didly made by the g-entleman from Mississippi, and to show, beyond the possibil ity of doubt or cavil, that the policy and measures opposed by this side of the House, and supported and carried through by that, have* brought the country into its present dangers. Come what may, our skirts are clear. If the political equilibrium between the slaveholding and non-slaveholding States is lost, never to be regained; if the property of the southern States is thereby rendered insecure; if faction and discord reign where patriotism and wisdom ought to rule; if the Union, and the liberty and happiness which it guaranties, are imperilled, the causes which have produced these evils are manifest, and the good sense of the country \vill correctly decide where responsibility rightfully rests.

But though, as I have shown, we can, on this side of the House, justly claim to be free from all re sponsibility for the present state of things, I hold that every patriot is equally bound to exert himself to save the country from the dangers by which it is now environed. The Wilmot proviso, which reared its front in this hall whilst the war with Mexico was raging, has reappeared at every period since the treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, when an attempt has been made to redeem the obligations which this Government assumed by the stipulations of that treaty; and the faith which we solemnly plighted to Mexico yet stands unredeemed. Meanwhile, as if to prepare the hearts of the people for bloodshed, civil war, and a dissolution of the Union, agitators, fanatics, and factionists in the northern and south ern States have- been busily and successfully en gaged in inflaming and rousing into activity sec tional prejudices, passions, and hostilities, whoso loud roar, borne to our ears by every breeze thai comes from the North or the South, bodes nothing but evil to the republic. Six months of the session of Congress have been spent in angry debate as to what measures of legislation shall be adopted with respect to the Territories which we have conquered from Mexico, and there is now as little prospect of union and harmony on that question as at the be ginning of the session; and it has been distinctly threatened that, in certain specified contingencies, faction will so display itself here as to defeat the ap propriation bills, and thus arrest, if not destroy, the government.

Mr. Chairman, this is a deplorable, humiliating, and dangerous state of affairs, calling imperiously upon us till to hold our passions and prejudices in strict subordination to patriotism and reason, that \ve may devote ourselves with effective energy to the service of the country. What shall we do?

To what remedy shall we resort? Where is the path that wisdom bids us tread? What line of poli cy will shield the country, and save it harmless from impending1 dangers? What measure, founded injustice and wisdom, can we adopt that will har monize conflicting1 interests and prejudices, and o-ive quiet and tranquillity to this great family of .States? The consideration of Congress and the at tention of the public have been for some time directed • to three propositions: 1st. That recommended by the - dent; 2d, the Compromise bill reported by the committee of thirteen in the Senate; and 3d, the

mi i compromise line.

The, last mentioned proposition is supported chieriy by those gentlemen from the southern States who have heretofore been most zealous and vehe ment in insisting upon the constitutional right of the slaveholding States to an unrestricted partici pation in the territories acquired from Mexico; and who have denied the power of Congress to prohibit or establish slavery, or otherwise legislate upon that subject in the Territories of the United States. I have never, in the course of my experience, known so glaring an exhibition of inconsistency by intel ligent public men. To understand the effect of ap plying the Missouri compromise to the territory acquired from Mexico, it must be remembered that slavery existed by la\v in all the Louisiana territo ry acquired from France, and that the Missouri compromise abolished and prohibited slavery in all that territory north of 36° 30' of north latitude, and permitted slavery south of that line. It was literally the enactment of the Wilmot proviso north of the line 36° 30', and non-intervention south of that line. Jt wad a distinct and most effective assertion and ex ercise by Congress •of the power to legislate upon the subject ofeiavery in the Territories of the Uni ted States. To extend the Missouri compromise line through our recent acquisitions to the Pacific, would be to enact the Wilmot proviso in about four- fifth;? of the territory, and leave the residue, south of that line, subject to the operation of those Mexican laws which abolished slavery previous to our conquest, and which, according to the opinion of a large majority of jurists, remain in full force and effect. I am aware that gentlemen Distinguished for legal learning hold that the Mexican laws are null and void; but whilst this question is undecided by competent judicial authority, slavery is as ef fectually excluded as if Congress had prohibited it by express provisions of law. No slaveholder would take his slaves into that country with the certainty of subjecting himself to a long am', expensive law suit, that w uld most probably eventuate in the. emancipation of his r-laves. But no one believes that it is possible for such a proposition to pass in either House of Congress, and therefore it is a waste ol time to discuss it. A fair apportionment of ac quired territory between toe slaveholding and non-slaveholding States constitutes thr principle of the Missouri compromise, and to apply this principle to the territories acquired from Mexico, inasmuch as California !:as, by her constitution, prohibited slavery, all Ixws which prevent its in troduction in the residue of our Mexican territory should be repealed by Congress.

The Compromise bill ot the Senate proposes to admit California as a State into the Union, to or ganize territorial governments for New Mexicoand Uuh without the Wilmot proviso, and to settle the disputed question of boundary between Texas and N'i'-v Mexico, by giving to Texas a consideration in money to relinquish her claim. With respect to the admission or non-admission of slavery into those Territories, it adopts the principle of non-in tervention, leivn'g t.'ie hual u. • ;-<'>it of that tion to the people when they adopt constitutions preparatory to their admission into the Union as states.

If it be true that the laws of Mexico which abol ished slavery in those Territories remain in force until repealed, then by the provisions of the Com promise bill slavery will be excluded from those Territories during- the continuance of the territo rial governments which it proposes to establish, for it expressly inhibits the repeal of those laws. It does not secure to the slaveholding1 States what most of their public men have claimed as their con stitutional right. The people of the southern States are not insulted by a direct enactment of the Wil mot proviso, but for this forbearance they are re quired to be content with a state of things which as effectually excludes slavery from thoae Territo ries as if the bill contained the proviso in express terms.

The difficulty of devising measures of legislation suited to the condition of the Territories which we have acquired, and acceptable to the people of the different sections of the Union, results, in my opin ion, chiefly from the extreme zeal, violence, and passion, with which erroneous opinions have been inculcated, by political partisans, in the non-slave- holding and slaveholding Spates of the Union. There is a struggle between these two classes of States for political power. At present, the Union consists of thirty Stales, in one- half of which slavery exists; and each State being entitled by the Con stitution to two Senators, there is, therefore, in the Senate an exact balance of power between the slaveholding and the non-slaveholding States. The territory which we have acquired from Mexico is sufficient in extent to form, "when it shall be peo pled, several new States; and as these shall be slave States or free States, so will the preponder ance of political power be determined in this gov ernment. And this I apprehend is the true source of the sectional controversy that now afflicts the country. In the North the opinion has been con stantly propagated that prohibitory legislation was necessary to prevent the extension of slavery and the formation of additional slave States; while in the South it has been urged with equal zeal that such indeed would be the result, but for the obsta cles interposed bv northern agitation arid the threat of hostile legislation.

In my opinion, causes which exist — and which legislation cannot change — make it impossible for slavery to obtain a permanent foothold in the Ter ritories acquired from Mexico. The character and sentiments of the people who now inhabit them, and who are likely to emigrate thither — the char acter of the country, its soil and climate, all con spire to make such a result impossible. A recog nition and candid admission of this truth by the North and the South would, it seems to me, mode rate the irrational excitement which exists on this subject in both sections, and remove one of the principal causes that now embarrass this Govern ment and disturb the public tranquillity.

When I say that slavery will be forever excluded from the Territories which we have acquired from Mexico, by causes that exist independent of Con gressional ie^i-lation. I am only repeating an opin ion which has heretofore been expressed by the late Secretary of the Treasury, Mr R.J.Walker; by Mr. Caes, in hi? Nicholson letter; by the late Secretary of State, Mr. Buchanan; and by Mr. Webster, in his recent great speech in the Senate; and I think I am safe in saying, that I am only uttering a truth which every intelligent, man in this republic be lieves, who has examined the subject with the pur pose of arriving at correct conclusions. I arn sup ported in this opinion, also, by the Committee of Thirteen which reported the Compromise bill, as the following extract from the report accompa nying that bfll will show :

"Ihe bill for establishing the two Territories, it will be observed, omits the Wilmot proviso on the

one hand, and, on {he other, makes no provision for the introduction of slavery into any part of the new Territories. That proviso has been the fruit ful source of distraction and Agitation. If it were adopted and applied to any Territory, it would cease to have any obligatory force as soon as such Territory were admitted as a State in the Union. There was never any occasion for it, to accomplish the professed object with which it was originally offered. This has been clearly demonstrated by the current of events. Cal fornia, of all the recent territorial acquisitions from Mexico, was that in which, if anywhere within them, the introduction of slavery was most likely to take place; and the " constitution of California, by the unanimous vote of her convention, has expressly interdicted it. There is the .highest degree of probability that Utah and New Mexico will, when they come to be admitted as States, follow the example."

Mr. Chairman, if I have succeeded in establish ing the positions I have assumed, in any degree proportionate to my own deep conviction of their truth, the conclusion will follow, that in deciding- the comparative merits of the several measures now under consideration in this and the other end of the Capitol, we ought to be governed, not ex clusively by our individual opinions 01 the specific provisions of those measures, but that our estimate of their adaptation as remedies for existing evils ought to be in a great degree influenced by the fa vor and support extended to them by the Repre sentatives of conflicting sentiments and opinions. When the various matters in controversy be tween the northern and southern sections of the Union were referred by the Senate to a committee, composed of Senators eminent, for talents and pa triotism, and selected, in equal numbers, from the two great political parties, and from the slavehold- ing and non-slaveholding States, the hope naturally arose in the public mind, that the high character of that committee would impart an influence to its re commendations that would take these questions out of the vortex of party politics, and commend its recommendations to the general acceptance and approval of the whole country. This expectation has not been realized. Since the report of the com mittee the Senate itself has been converted into a scene of discord — an arena of sectional strife. Southern Senators oppose the report of the commit tee because it yields every thing in controversy to the North, and, on the other hand, northern Sena tors oppose it because it yields every thing in con troversy to the South. Its supporters in the South obviously intend to assume that it secures the ad mission of slavery into the Territories acquired from Mexico, whilst it is equally obvious that its northern supporters will assume that it excludes slavery from those Territories. Can a measure susceptible of such contradictory construction tran- quilize the public mind, and restore harmony to the Union ? If it be passed into a law by Congress, is it not to be feared that the same conflict of opinion which has marked the debate in the S<nate will be transferred to the popular forum, in the North and South ; and that protracted agitation, and deeper and more dangerous sectional excitements, will be the consequence ? In the midst of this conflict of opinion, it now hangs suspended in the Senate — no man claiming to be able to foretell its fate. Should it receive such modifications as to make it pass the Senate, is it not to be apprehended that, when it ' comes into this Hall, it will encounter the same fate which every attempt heretofore made to estab lish territorial governments for our Mexican terri tories has encountered? Will not some ardent " Free-soiler" rise in. his place, and move to amend, by attaching the Wilrnot proviso, pro hibiting slavery in those Territories? And will not that proposition, as heretofore, command a

majority of votes in this House, and will not increased sectional exasperation and excitement follow as a consequence ? It was undoubtedly well- founded apprehensions of this kind, that induced the President to recommend Congress to confine its action, for the. present, to the admission of Cali fornia into the Union as a State, and leave the resi due of territory to the government of existing1 laws and the temporary governments which ha.ve been established.

This recommendation of the President contem plates the early admission of New Mexico, as a State into the Union, and refers the question of the existence or non-existence of slavery therein to the decision of the people, when they form a State con stitution, preparatory to their application for ad mission. He recommends the North to waive the proviso, so offensive to the South, and he recom mends the South and the North mutually to con sent to a reference of the question in dispute be tween them to the decision of that tribunal which, in the last resort, must have jurisdiction, whatever plan of temporary adjustment may be adopted by Congress. He recommends a "compromise" which gives a triumph neither to the one section nor the other, and which requires neither section to sacri fice its principles, its pride, or its rights. The fact having been developed by repeated unsuccessful attempts, that Congress cannot, by any act of legis lation, adjust the question in dispute to the satis faction of the parties to that dispute, the President recommends them to refer its decision to that great American principle which recognises the right of every political community to choose and decide for itself what shall be the character of its institutions and laws.

But it is urged that there were irregularities, in formalities, departures from established usages, in the proceedings in California, which resulted in the formation of a State constitution and an applica tion for admission into the Union, that constitute sufficient grounds for rejecting her application. These objections are so trivial that I will not waste time in refuting them. No one entertains the ex pectation that California will be remanded info a territorial condition, and the question of her a'd mis sion is merely a question of time. It may be de layed, but cannot and ought not to be prevented. More plausible objections are urged against the early admission of New Mexico into the Union as a State; one of which is, that the population, unac customed to self-government, is not sufficiently civilized and intelligent to comprehend and perform the duties that would attach to them as a State. I admit the force of this objection, and frankly de clare that, but for the peculiar circumstances under which we are to act, 1 would be in favor of holding New Mexico to a long period of territorial pupil age, before admitting her as a State into the Union; but wnen we compare the evils which may result from her admission as a State with those likely to flow from a prolongation of present difficulties, they sink into insignificance. Gentlemen from the slavehokling States found their opposition to the early admission of New Mexico upon the assump tion that the sentiments and opinions of that people are sufficiently known to make it certain that they will incorporate a prohibition of slavery into their constitution.

Admitting the truth of this assumption, it does not constitute a sufficient reason for rejecting the policy which I am advocating. I have already ex pressed the opinion that the same result would ul timately obtain, whatever may be the legislation of Congress; and a brief postponement of that result would not compensate for the evils likely to flow from a continuation of the strife and agitation which now distracts the country. And, as the peo ple, when in convention to form a State constitu-

tion, can alone finally decide the question which is the cause of that strife and agitation, every consid eration of policy, having1 reference to the harmony and stability of the Union, urg-es most powerfully its immediate reference to them. Let the peoole of New Mexico decide the question to suit themselves, and whatever their decision may be, the people of the United States will acquiesce. If they adopt a constitution prohibiting- slavery, what right will the southern States have to complain? If they adopt a constitution which establishes slavery, what right will the northern States have to complain? The North and the South will recognise the right of New Mexico to deride conformably to her own convictions; and whether that decision shall accord with the preference of the one or the other section, they will acquiesce; and their patriotism will sig nally rebuke any attempt, by those who are hostile to the Union and seek its destruction, to make the decision of New Mexico, on this subject, conducive to the accomplishment of their traitorous purposes. It ifi a feature in the plan of adjustment recom mended by the President, which more than any thing1 else commends it to my support, that it set tles, by the only mode practicable, finally and for ever, this unhappy controversy between the North and the South, and puts an end to sectional agita tion on that subject.

Having expressed my approval of the policy re commended by the President. I feel myself called upon to.answer another objection urged against it; which is, that by its adoption the United States would fail to redeem the obligations incurred by the treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo. The ninth sec tion of that treaty provides that —

"Mexican^who, in the Territories aforesaid, shall not preW've the character of citizens of the Mexican republic, conformably with what is stipu lated in the preceding article, SHALL BE INCOHPO-

RATED INTO THE UNION OF THE UfclTED STATES,

and be admitted at I lie proper time (to be judged of by the Congress of the United States) to the enjoy ment of all the rights of citizens of the United Slates, according to the principles of the Constitution, and in the mean time shall be maintained and protected in the free enjoyment of their liberty and property, and secured in the free exercise of their religion, without restriction.

Now, I think it is a manifest truth, that the poli cy recommended by the President to admit Califor nia as a State immediately, and New Mexico at an early day, more fully and completely redeems our treaty obligations, with respect to those Territories, than any which has been suggested. But it is contended that this policy leaves the people of those Territories, during the time preceding their admis sion into the Union as States, subject to the tyran ny of military government; and that it is, there fore, repugnant to American ideas of liberty. Surely th' se who urge this objection have not read th official documents which have been communi cated to Congress, and laid upon our tables. It was the boast of Mr. Polk's administration that it had, while 4he war with Mexico was yet raging, waived the rights of conquest, as defined by the law of nations, and generously given to Cahiornia and New Mexico civil governments, instead of subject ing them to the rigors of military law.

Nothing like military government exists in either of those Territories. The military arm of the Uni ted States is there to protect, not to rule. Tht; Sec retary of War, in his annual report, referring to the delicate duties imposed upon the army by the pe culiar state of things existing in California and New Mexico, says, "one of its assigned duties is to aid civil functionaries, when required, in the pres ervation of public tranquillity;" and, in a commu nication addressed to General Reily, acting civil

governor of California, dated June 26, 1849, he says:

"It is equally true that all laws existing and of force in California at the period of the conquer, are still operative-, with the limitation that they are not repugnant to*the Constitution and laws of the Uni ted States. In my opinion these constitute the whole code of laws now of force in California. I should add, that thia opinion does not infringe on the right of communities to make necessary regu lations for the police and security of persons and property. Such regulations must necessarily be temporary, as they are presumed to be voluntary, and designed to meet emergencies and difficulties which the sovereign power will take the earliest oc casion to remove."

General Reily, writing to the Secretary of War, under date of August 30th, 1849, says:

"Before leaving Monterey, I heard numerous ru mors of irregularities and crimes among those work ing in the placers; but, on visiting the mining re gions, I was agreeably surprised to learn that every thing was quite the reverse from what had been represented, and that order and regularity were preserved throughout almost the entire extent of the mineral districts. In each little settlement or tented town, the miners have elected their local al caldes and constables, whose judicial decisions and official acts are sustained by the people, and en forced with much regularity and energy."

Colonel Washington, as acting governor of New Mexico, writes to Mr. Marcy, Secretary of War, under date of November 8, 1843, as follows:

"The system of government now in force in New Mexico is that which was established in 1846, and embraces what is commonly termed Kearny's code, to which the people, through their representatives lately assembled in convention, have happily expi'essed their assent, as will be seen by their memorial to Con gress, and is considered adiquate to the wants of the country until another can be provided."

These extracts, from official documents, conclu sively show that our Mexican Territories are not subject to military government in the obnoxious sense of that term. Pre-existing laws have not been superseded by martial law; judicial tribunals have not been rfupersedeci by courts martial. General Reily describes "each little settlement or tented town" as a miniature democracy, making laws adapted to its condition, and administering them by agents chosen by the people; thus giving pro tection and security to " life, liberty, and happi ness," and gloriously illustrating the capacity of man to enjoy and exercise the great right of self- government. Although it is true that the duties of civil governor of New Mexico have bf.en devolved upon a military officer, it does not follow, as a con- si quence, that the people of that Territory are sub ject to a military government. It would be quite as logical to conclude that the people of the United States are subject to a military government, be-" cause the Chief Magistrate of the Republic is also commander in-chief of its army and navy.

Mr. Chairman, let California be admitted into the Union, and the cause which distracts the na tional councils will be vastly diminished in magni tude, and the public mind will tranquilize in a cor responding degree; and thereupon a state of senti ment and opinion in the country will ensue, which will enable Congress to adopt such measures, with respect to the residue of the territory acquired from Mexico as may be necessary and proper, without the apprehension of dangerous excitements and convulsions in the Union. But though J believe the legislation recommended by the President to be the safest and wisest for the country, all things considered, yet it is not my purpose obstinately to withhold my support from any other plan of ad justment which, repudiating the Wiunot proviso^

8

offensive to the people I represent, can command such confidence and support from the representa tives of northern and southern sentiment and opin ion, as to inspire a reasonable confidence in its ca pacity to put an end to sectional agitation, and re store harmony and fraternal feeling to the States of this Union.

Mr. Chairman, when the combination of causes which have prevented the recommendation of the President from receiving a fair and just considera tion in the two Houses of Congress shall be fully comprehended, the mists which now dim the public vision will dissipate, and it will be seen and admit ted that it is a recomendation founded in a wise ap preciation of the difficulties that surround the sub ject — a recommendation worthy of one whose deeds, under the flag of his country, have carried its mil itary glory to the farthest confines of civilization, and whose patriotism, bounded by no sectioned lines, is co-extensive with the limits of that great Re public, which, justly appreciating his merit, has made him its Chief Magistrate. And notwithstand ing the extraordinary efforts that have been and may be made, to force the adoption of some plan of adjustment differing from that recommended by the Pi '••side tit, yet it is by no means certain that these efforts may not be defeated by the same causes that have hitherto proved fatal to legislation on this subject. Aside from the fact, admitted by all, that a large majority of Congress are in favor of admitting California as a State into the Union, nothing is settled, nothing is known, nothing can be foretold; and it may so happen that the question will at last be narrowed down to the admission or non-admission of that State.

At an early period of the session, the honorable gentleman from North Carolina, (Mr. CLING- MAN,) anticipating this as a possible occurrence, threatened that the minority would, in such event, defeat that measure by demanding the ayes and noes on motions to adjourn, and motions for calls of the House, and, by constantly alternating and re peating- these motions, consume the entire session of Congress, preventing- thereby, not only the ad mission of California, but also the passing of those appropriation bills indispensably necessary to carry on the Government. And the honorable gentleman very distinctly intimated that, to ac complish this object, as a last resort, a Bowie-knife tragedy might be enacted on this floor, reducing the members of this House to a number below a constitutional quorum. This would be rebellion in its worst form— a factious attempt by a minority of Congress to usurp that control over legislation which the Constitution confers upon a majority. Should the contemplated contingency arise, I trust the majority of this House will not be frightened from its propriety by this offensive appeal to its fears, but that it will maintain its constitutional right to control legislation with calmness, dignity, and firmness ; and ^avoiding all disorderly and un becoming- exhibitions of excitement, it will, ii needful, adjourn from day to day, even to the end of the session, that public opinion and the ballot- box may come to the rescue, and properly rebuke so daring and reckless an assault upon the funda mental principle of republican government. But I trust no such necessity will arise. I have respected and esteemed the honorable gentleman from North Carolina so much, that I cannot otherwise regard his declarations than as an ebullition of excited feeling, rather than evidence of a settled purpose. I am sure that his self-respect and his love of coun try will make it impossible for him to attempt the execution of a threat, made in the heat of debate, and uiidanctioned, I hope, by his subsequent calmer reflections.

Mr. Chairman, we are so constituted that we of ten resist the conviction and admission of unpalata

ble truths, even when they stand revealed to our mental vision in unmistakable reality. The equi librium of political power, which has heretofore been maintained between the slaveholding and non-slaveholding States of the Union, will present ly be a fact "consigned to the receptacle of things lost upon earth;" and the preponderance of politi cal power under this Government will pass, never to be regained, to the non-slaveholding States. Jn my judgment, the best interests of this Republic require, that this truth should be frankly declared* by public men, and recognised by the people. It- is a truth which raises a question the gravest and most important that any people were ever called upon to consider and decide. That question is, Shall the Union be maintained or dissolved? Is it wiser for the southern States to quietly acquiesce in this inevitable transfer of political power to the northern States, and trust for their safety and the security of their property to the justice and patriot ism of their co-States, and the guaranties of the Constitution, "or to take arms against a sea" of apprehended dangers, and, by dissolving the Union, seek security and safety in the organization of a southern confederacy? "To this complexion it mu.": last." This is even no iv the real

lion. I have, in a preceding part of my remarks, endeavored to show what and whose policy has destroyed that equilibrium of power, the destruc tion of which now creates so much anxiety in the slaveholding States; and it is needless for me to re peat what I nave already said upon that subject. I submit to the results of a policy, the consequences of which I foresaw, and which I labored in vain to defeat. I will trust to the guaranties of the Con stitution, and to the justice and patriotism of those who are henceforth to wield the^jower which it confers. Not until this reliance fan, will I permit myself to look to a dissolution of the Union as a remedy for existing evils, or those which are ap prehended. *I am a citizen of a slaveholding State — I am the representative 'of a slaveholding constituency — and come what may, in connexion with this subject, their fate shall be my fate, their destiny my destiny. Identified with them, and bound to them by all ties that are sacred and strong, I declare it as my opinion that, while the happiness, welfare, and liberty of all the States are involved in the maintenance of the Union, the southern States are pre-eminently interested in its preservation. And if my voice could reach the slave-owners of the South, I would tell them that the Union is the only effective safeguard for the security of that peculiar property with regard to which they are now so anxious; and, if I could, I would proclaim to them, "in a voice of sevenfold thunder," that those are practically their worst ene mies who counsel them to any course of action whit it tends to its destruction. --.- - - •'- '-• • Y; J ;

Mr. Chairman, it must be a source of happiness to every man who( loves his country to perceive that, although speeches of a sectional and inflam matory character have been for six months sent forth Irom this Capitol, and scattered broadcast over the land, their effect seems to have been to tranquilize rather than excite the public mind. The people pause, as well they may, when, the vortex of disunion and civil war is opened to their view. They refuse to volunteer or be impressed into the service of disunionists. They will not enlist under that banner. They will not march to that music. They have given unmistakable evidence that they are devoted to the Constitution of their country, and that they are determined to sustain and uphold the Government bequeathed to them by their ancestors, and make it, in all time to come, what it has been in time past — the beacon light of liberty, guiding the nations of the earth to political redemption, as the star of Bethlehem guided to the Redeemer.