Source: Clay: Calvin Colton, The Last Seven Years of the Life of Henry Clay (New York: A. S. Barnes, 1856), appendix, via the Internet Archive (lastsevenyearsof00colt); Calhoun: The Works of John C. Calhoun, ed. Richard K. Cralle, vol. 4 (New York: D. Appleton, 1854), via the Internet Archive (worksofjohnc04calhrich); Webster: The Works of Daniel Webster / Speeches, via Project Gutenberg #12606
Source URL: https://archive.org/details/lastsevenyearsof00colt
Public domain basis: Public-domain Senate speeches of February 5-6 (Clay, with his resolutions of January 29), March 4 (Calhoun, read by Senator James Mason) and March 7, 1850 (Webster). Calhoun text: https://archive.org/details/worksofjohnc04calhrich ; Webster text: https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/12606 . Clay and Calhoun texts are OCR with page heads removed.

HENRY CLAY: SPEECH ON THE COMPROMISE RESOLUTIONS (February 5-6, 1850)

RESOLUTIONS INTRODUCED IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES, BY MR. CLAY, JANUARY 29, 1850.

PREAMBLE. — It being desirable for the peace, concord, and* harmony of the Union of these States, to settle and adjust amicably all questions of controversy between them arising out of the institution of Slavery, upon a fair equality and just basi^ therefore —

1st. Resolved^ That California, with suitable boundaries, ought, upon her application, to be admitted as one of the States of this Union, without the imposition by CongTess of any restriction to the exclusion or introduction of slavery within those boundaries. •

2d. Resolved, That as slavery does not exist by law, and is not likely to be introduced into any of the territory acquired by the United States from the Republic of Mexico, it is inexpedient for Congress to provide, by law, either for its introduction into, or its exclusion from, any part of the said territory; and that appropriate territorial Governments ought to be established by Congress, in all of the said territory not assigned as the boundaries of the proposed State of California, without the addition of any restriction or condition on the subject of slavery.

3d. Resolved, That the western boundary of the State of Texas ought to be fixed on the Rio del Norte, commencing one marine league from its mouth, and running up that river to the southern line of New Mexico, thence with that line eastwardly, and continuing in the same direction, to the hne as established between the United States and Spain, excluding any portion of New Mexico, whether lying on the east or west of that river.

4th. Resolved, That it be proposed to the State of Texas that the United States will provide for the payment of all that portion of all the legitimate and bona fide public debts of that State, contracted prior to its annexation to the United States, and for which the duties on foreign imports wore pledged by the said State to its creditors, not exceeding the siun of dollars, in consideration of the duties, as pledged, having been no longer applicable to that object after tbe said annexation, but Laving tbenceforward become payable to the United States, and upon the condition also that the said State shall, by some solemn and authentic act of her Legislature, or of a convention, relinquish to the United States any claim which it has to any part of New Mexico.

5th. Resolved^ That it is inexpedient to abolish slavery in the District of Columbia, while that institution continues to exist in the State of Maryland, without the consent of that State, without the consent of the people of the District,, and without just compensation to the owners of slaves within the District.

6th. Resolved, That it is expedient to prohibit within the District the trade in slaves brought into it from States or places beyond the limits of the District, either to be sold therein, as merchandise, or to be transported to other markets without the District of Columbia.

7th. Resolved, That more effectual provision ought to be made by law according to the requirements of the Constitution, for the restitution and delivery of persons bound to service or labor, in any State, who may escape into any other State or Territory of this Union.

8th. Resolved, That Congress has no power to prohibit or obstruct the trade in slaves between the slaveholding States, and that the admission or exclusion of slaves brought from one into another of them, depends exclusively upon their own particular law.

SPEECH OF MR. CLAY ON THE FOREGOING RESOLUTIONS,

DEUVEKED FEBRUARY 5tH AND 6TH, 1850.

Mri President, never on any former occasion have I risen under feelings of such painful solicitude. I have seen many periods of great anxiety, of peril, and of danger in this country, and I have never before risen to address any assemblage so oppressed, so appalled, and so anxious ; and sir, I hope it will not be out of place to do here, what again and again I have done in my private chamber, to implore of Him who holds the desiinies of nations and individuals in His hands, to bestow upon our country His blessing, to calm the violence and rage of party, to still passion, to allow reason once more to resume its empire. And may I not ask of Him too, sir, to bestow on his humble servant, now before him, the blessing of his smiles, and of strength and ability to perform the Avork which now lies before him ? Sir, I have said that I have seen other anxious periods in the history of our country, and if I were to venture, Mr. President, to trace to their original source the cause of all our present dangers, difficulties, and distraction, I should ascribe it to the violence and intemperance of party spirit. To party spirit ! Sir, in the progress of tliis session we have had the testimony of two senators here, who, however they may differ on other matters, concur in the existence of that cause in originating the unhnppy differences wliicli prevail throughout the country, on the subject of the institution of slavery.

Parties, in their endeavors to obtain, the one ascendency over the other, catch at every passing or Heating plank in order to add strength and power to each. We have been told by the two senators to whom I have referred, that each of the parties at the North, in its turn, has moved and endeavored to obtain the assistance of a small party called Abolitionists, in order that the scale in its favor might preponderate against that of its adversary. And all around us, every where, we see too many evidences of the existence of the spirit and intemperance of party. I might go to other legislative bodies than that which is assembled in Congress, and I might draw from them illustrations of the melancholy truth vipon which I am dwelling, but I need not pass out of this Capitol itself. I say it, sir, with all deference and respect to that other portion of Congress assembled in the other wing of this Capitol ; but what have we seen there ? During this very session one whole week has been exhausted — I think about a week — in the vain endeavor to elect a doorkeeper of the House.

And, Mr. President, what was the question in this struggle to elect a doorkeeper ? It was not as to the man or the qualities of the man, or who is best adapted to the situation. It was whether the doorkeeper entertained opinions upon certain national measures coincident with this or that side of the House. That was the sole question which prevented the election of a doorkeeper for about the period of a week. Sir, I make no reproaches — none, to either portion of that House ; I state the fact ; and I state the fact to draw from it the conclusion and to express the hope that there will be an endeavor to check this violence of party.

Sir, what vicissitudes do we not pass through in this short mortal career of ours ? Eight years, or nearly eight years ago, I took my leave finally, and, as I supposed, forever, from this body. At that time I did not conceive of the possibility of ever again returning to it. And if my private wishes and particular inclinationr,, and the desire during the short renmant of my days to remain in repose and quiet, could have prevailed, you would never have seen me occupying the seat which I now occupy upon this floor. The Legislature of the State to which I belong, unsolicited by me, chose to designate me for this station, and I have come here, sir, in obedience to a sense of stern duty, with no personal objects, no j)rivate views, now or hereaftei', to gratify. I know, sir, the jealousies, the fears, the apprehensions which are engendered by the existence of that party spirit to Avhich I have referred ; but if there be in my hearing now, in or out of this Capitol, any one who hopes, in his race for honors and elevation, for higher honors and higher ele\'alion than that which he now occupies, I beg him to believe that I, at least, will never jostle him in the pursuit of those honors or that elevation. I beo- him to be perfectly persuaded that, if my wishes prevail, my name shall never be used in competition with his. I beg to assuie bim that when my service is terminated in this body, my mission, so far as respects the public affairs of tins world and upon this earth, is closed, and closed, if my wishes prevail, forever.

But, sir, it is impossible for us to be blind to the fiicts which are daily transpiring before us*. It is impossible for us not to perceive that party spirit and future elevation mix more or loss in all our afthirs, in all our deliberations. At a moment wlien the White House itself is in danger of conflagration, instead of all hands uniting to extinguish the flames, we are contending about who shall be its next occupant. When a dreadful crevasse has occurred, which threatens inundation and destruction to all around

^^^^' V . • it, we are conteTiding*imd disputing about the profits of an estate wliicli is threatened with total submeision.

Mr. P: esident, it is passion, passion — party, party, and intemperance — that is all I dread in the adjustment of the great questions which uahiippily at this time divide our distracted country. Sir, at this moment we have in the legislative bodies of this Capitol and in the States, twenty old" furnaces in full blast, emitting heat, and passion, and intemperance, and diti'using them throughout the whole extent of this broad land. Two mouths ago all was calm in comparison to the present moment. All now is uproar, confusion, and menace to the existence of the Union, and to the happiness and safety of this people. Sir, I implore senators, I entreat them, by all that they expect hereafter, and by all that is dear to them here below, to repress the ardor of these passions, to look to their country, to its interests, to listen to the voice of reason — not as it shall be attempted to be uttered by me, for I am not so presumptuous as to indulge the hope that any thing I may say will avert the effects which I have described, but to- listen to their own reason, their own judgment, their own good sense, in determining upon what is best to be done for our country in the actual posture in which we find her. Sir, to this great object have my efforts been directed during the whole session.

I have cut myself off from all the usual enjoyments of social life, I have confined myself almost entirely, with very few exceptions, to my own chamber, and from the beginning of the session to the present time my thoughts have been anxiously directed to the object of finding some plan, of proposing some mode of accommodation, which would once more restore the blessings of concord, harmony and peace to this great country. I am not vain enough to suppose that I have been successful in the accomplishment of this object, but I have presented a scheme, and allow me to say to honorable senators that, if they find in that plan any thing that is defective, if they find in it any thing that is worthy of acceptance, but is susceptible of improvement by amendment, it seems to me that the true and patriotic course is not to denounce it, but to improve it — not to reject without examination any project of accommodation having for its object the restoration of harmony in this country, but to look at it to see if it be susceptible of elaboration or improvement, so as to accomplish the object which I indulge the hope is common to all and every one of us, to restore peace and quiet, and harmony and happiness to this country.

Sir, when I came to consider this subject, there were two or three general purposes which it seemed to me to be most desirable, if possible, to accomplish. The one was, to settle all the controverted questions arising out of the subject of slavery. It seemed to me to be doing very little, if we settled one question and left other distracting questions unadjusted, it seemed to me to be doing but little, if we stopped one leak only in the ship of State, and left other leaks capable of producing danger, if not destruction, to the vessel. I therefore turned my attention to every subject connected with the institution of slavery, and out of which controverted questions had sprung, to see if it were possible or practicable to accommodate and adjust the whole of them. Another principal object which attracted my attention was, to endeavor to form such a scheme of accommodation that neither of the two classes of States into which our country is so unhappily divided should make any sacrifice of any great principle. I believCj sir, the series of resolutions which I have had the honor to present to the Senate accomphshes that object.

Sir, another purpose which I had in view was this : I was aware of the

COMPKOMISE EESOLUTIONS. 3C5 difference of opinion prevailing between these two classes of States. I was aware that, while one portion of the Union was pushing matters, as it seemed to me, to the greatest extremity, another portion of the Union was pushing them to an opposite, perhaps not less dangerous extremity. It appeared to me, then, that if any arrangement, any satisfactory adjustment could be made of the controverted questions between the two classes of States, that adjustment, that arrangement, could only be successful and eftectual by extracting from both parties some concessions — not of principle, not of principle at all, but of feeling, of opinion, in relation to matters in controversy between them. Sir, I believe the resolutions wdiich I have prepared fulfill that object: I believe, sir, that you will find, upon that careful, rational, and attentive examination of them, which I think they deserve, that neither party in some of them make any concession at all ; in others the concessions of forbearance are mutual ; and in the third place, in reference to the slaveholding States, there are resolutions making concessions to them by the opposite class of States, without any compensation whatever being rendered by them to the non-slaveholding States. I think every one of these characteristics which I have assigned, and the measures which I proposed, is susceptible of clear and satisfactory demonstration by an attentive perusal and critical examination of the resolutions themselves. Let us take up the first resolution.

The first resolution, Mr. President, as you are aware, relates to California, and it declares that California, with suitable limits, ought to be admitted as a member of this Union, without the imposition of any restriction either to interdict or to introduce slavery within her limits. Well now, is there any concession in this resolution by either party to the other ? I know that gentlemen Avho come from slaveholding States say the North gets all that it desires ; but by whom does it get it ? Does it get it by any action of Congress ? If slavery be interdicted within the limits of California, has it been done by Congress — by this Government ? No, sir. That interdiction is imposed by California herself And has it not been the doctrine of all parties that when a State is about to be admitted into the Union, the State has a right to decide for itself whether it will or will not have slavery within its limits ?

The great principle, sir, which was in contest upon the memorable occasion of the introduction of Missouri into the Union, was, Avhether it was competent or not competent for Congress to impose any restriction which should exist after she became a member of the Union. We who were in favor of the admission of Missouri, contended that no such restriction should be imposed. We contended that, whenever she was once admitted into the Union, she had all the rights and privileges of any pre-existing State in the Union, and that among these rights and privileges was one to decide for herself whether slavery should or should not exist within her limits ; that she had as much a right to decide upon the introduction of slavery or .its abolition as New York had a right to decide upon the introduction or abolition of slavery ; and that, although subsequently admitted, she stood among her peei's, equally invested with all the j^rivileges that any one of the original thirteen States had a right to enjoy.

Sir, I think that those who have been contending with so much earnestness and perseverance for the Wilmot proviso, ought to reflect that, even if they could carry their object and adopt the proviso, it ceases the moment any State or Territory to which it was applicable came to be admitted as a member of the Union. Why, sir, no one contends now, no one believes, that with regard to those North-western States to which the ordinance of

1787 applied — Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, and Michigan — no one can now believe but that any one of those States, if they thought proper to do it, have just as much right to introduce slavery within their borders, as Virginia has to maintain the existence of slavery within hers. Then, sir, if in the struggle for power and empire between the two classes of States a decision in California has taken place adverse to the wishes of the Southern States, it is a decision not made by the General Government.

It is a decision respecting which they can utter no complaint toward the General Government. It is a decision made by California herself; which California had unquestionably the right to make under the Constitution of the United States. There is, then, iu the first resolution, according to the observation which I made some time ago, a case where neither party concedes ; where the question of slavery, neither its introduction nor interdic-: tion, is decided in reference to the action of this Government ; and if it has been decided, it has been by a different body — by a dilFerent power — by California itself, which had a right to make the decision.

Mr. President, the next resolution in the series which I have offered I beg gentlemen candidly now to look at. I was aware, perfectly aware, of the perseverance with which the Wilmot proviso was insisted upon. I knew that every one of the free States in this Union, without exception, had by its Legislative body passed resolutions instructing their Senators and requesting their Representatives to get that restriction incorporated in any Territorial Government which might be established under the auspices of Congress. I knew how much, and I regretted how much, the free States had put their hearts upon the adoption of this measure. In the second resolution I call upon them to waive persisting in it. I ask them, for the sake of peace and in the spirit of mutual forbearance to other members of the Union, to give it up — to no longer insist upon it — to see, as they must see, if their eyes are open, the dangers which lie ahead, if they persevere in insisting upon it.

When I called upon them in this resolution to do this, was I not bound to offer, for a surrender of that favorite principle or measure of theirs, some compensation, not as an equivalent by any means, but some compensation in the spirit of mutual forbearance, which, animating one side, ought at the same time to actuate the other side ? Well, sir, what is it that is offered them ? It is a declaration of what I characterized, and must still characterize, with great deference to all those who entertain opposite opinions, as two truths, I will not say incontestible, but to me clear, and I think they ought to be regarded as indisputable truths. What are they ? The first is, that by law slavery no longer exists in any jjart of the acquisitions made by us from the Republic of Mexico ; and the other is, that in our opinion, according to the probabilities of the case, slavery never will be introduced into any portion of the territories so acquired from Mexico. Now, I have heard it said that this declaration of what I call these two truths is equiv- :alent to the enactment of the Wilmot proviso.

I have heard this asserted, but is that the case ? If the Wilmot pro^dso be adopted in Territorial Governments estabhshed over these countries acquired from Mexico, it would be a positive enactment, a prohibition, an interdiction as to the introduction of slavery within them ; but with regard to these opinions I had hoped, and I shall still indulge the hope, that those Tvho represent the free States will be inclined not to insist — indeed it would •be extremely difficult to give to these declarations the form of positive enactment. I had hoped that they would be satisfied with the simple expres- ■sion of the opinion of Congress, leaving it upon the basis of that opinion, without asking for what seems to nie ahnost impracticable, if not impossible — for any subsequent enactment to be introduced into the bill by which Territorial Governments should be established.

And [ can only say tliat the second resolution, even without the declaration of these two truths expressed, would be much more acceptable to me than with them — but I could not forget that I was proposing a scheme of arrangement and compromise, and I could not, therefore, depart from the duty which the prepaiation of such a scheme seems to me to impose, of ottering, while we ask the surrender on one side of a favorite measure, of otiering to the other side some compensation for that surrender or sacrifice. What are the truths, Mr. President ? The first is, that by law slavery does not exist within the Territories ceded to us by the Republic of Mexico. It is a misfortune, sir, in the various weighty and important topics wliich are connected with the subject that I am now addressing you upon, that any one of the five or six furnishes a theme for a lengthened speech ; and I am therefore reduced to the necessity, I think — at least in this stage of the discussion— of limiting myself rather to the expression of opinions, than going at any great length into the discussion of all these various topics.

With respect to the opinion that slavery does not exist in the Territories ceded to the United States by Mexico, I can only refer to the fact of the passage of the law by the Supreme Government of Mexico abolishing it, I think, in 1824 ; and to the subsequent passage of a law by the Legislative body of Mexico, I forget in what year, by which they proposed — what it is true they have never yet carried into full etfect — compensation to the owners of slaves for the property of which they were stripped by the act of abolition. I can only refer to the acquiescence of Mexico in the abolition of slavery, fi-om the time of its extinction down to the time of the treaty by which we acquired these countries. But all Mexico, so far as I know, acquiesced in the non-existence of slavery. Gentlemen, I know, talk about the irregularity of the law by which that act was accomplished ; but does it become us, a foreign power, to look into the mode by which an object has been accompHshed by another foreign power, when she herself is satisfied with what she has done ; and when, too, she is the exclusive judge whether an object which is local and municipal to herself, has been or has not been accomplished in conformity with her fundamental laws ? Why, Mexico upon this subject showed to the last moment, her anxiety in the documents which were laid before the country upon the subject of the negotiation of this treaty, by Mr. Trist.

In the very act, in the very negotiation by which the treaty Avas concluded, ceding to us the countries in question, the diplomatic representatives of the Mexican Republic urged the abhorrence with which Mexico would view the introduction of slavery into any portion of the Territory which she was about to cede to the United States. The clause of prohibition was not inserted in consequence of the firm ground taken by Mr. Trist, and his declaration that it was an utter impossibility to mention the subject.

I take it then, sir — and availing myself of the benefit of the discussions which took place on a former occasion on this question, and which I think have left the whole country under the impression of the non-existence of slavery within the whole of the Territory in the ceded Territories — I take it for granted that what I have said, aided by the reflection of gentlemen, will satisfy them of that first truth, that slavery does not exist ther<? by law, unless slavery was carried there the moment the treaty was ratified by the two parties, and under the operation of the Constitution of the United

States. Now, really, I must say that upon the idea that eo instanti upon the consummation of the treaty, the Constitution of the United States spread itself over the acquired Territory, and carried along with it the institution of slavery, the proposition is so irreconcilable with any comprehension or reason that I possess, that I hardly know how to meet it.

Why, these United States consist of thirty States. In fifteen of them there was slavery, in fifteen of them slavery did not exist. Well, how can it be argued that the fifteen slave States, by the operation of the Constitution of the United States, carried into the ceded Territory their institution of slavery, any more than it can be argued on the other side that, by the operation of the same Constitution, the fifteen free States carried into the ceded territory the principle of freedom which they from policy have chosen to adopt within their limits ? Why, sir, let me suppose a case. Let liie imagine that Mexico had never abolished slavery there at all — let me suppose that it was existing in- point of fact and in virtue of law, from the shores of the Pacific to those of the Gulf of Mexico, at the moment of the cession of these countries to us by the treaty in question.

With what patience would gentlemen coming from slaveholding States listen to any argument which should be urged by the free States, that notwithstanding the existence of slavery within those territories, the Constitution of the United States abolished it the moment it operated upon and took effect in the ceded territory ? Well, is there not just as much ground to contend that, where a moiety of the States is free, and the other moiety is slaveholding, the principle of freedom which prevails in the one class shall operate as much as the principle of slavery which prevails in the other ? Can you come, amid this conflict of interests, principles, and legislation which prevails in the two parts of the Union, to any other conclusion than that which I understand to be the conclusion of the public law of the world, of reason, and justice — that the status of law, as it existed at the moment of the conquest or the acquisition, remains until it is altered by the sovereign authority of the conquering or acquiring power ? That is the great principle which you can scarcely turn over a page of the public law of the world without finding recogiiized, and every where established. The laws of Mexico, as they existed at the moment of the cession of the ceded Territories to this country, remained the laws until, and unless, they were altered by that new sovereign power which this people and these Territories come under, in consequence of the treaty of cession to the United States.,

I think, then, Mr. President, that without trespassing further, or exhausting the little stock of strength which I have, and for which I shall have abundant use in the progress of the argument, I may leave that part of the subject, with two or three observations only upon the general power which I think appertains to this Government on the subject of slavery.

Sir, before I approach that subject, allow me to say that, in my humble judgment, the institution of slavery presents two questions totally distinct, and resting on entirely different grounds — slavery within the States, and slavery without the States. Congress, the General Government, has no power, under the Constitution of the United States, to touch slavery within the States, except in three specified particulars in that instrument; to adjust the subject of representation ; to impose taxes when a system of direct taxation is made ; and to perform the duty of surrendering, or causing to be delivered up, fugitive slaves that may escape from service which they owe in slave States, and take refuge in free States. And, sir, I am ready to say that if Congress were to attack, within the States, the institution of slavery, for the purpose of the overthrow or extinction of slavery, then, Mr. President, my voice would he for war; then would he made a casC^hich would justify in the sight of God, and in the presence of the nations of the earth, resistance on the part of the slave States to such an unconstitutional and usurped attempt as would be made on the supposition which I have stated.

Then we should be acting in defense of our rights, our domicils, our property, our safety, our lives; and then, I think, would be furnished a case in which the slaveholding States would be justified by all considerations which pertain to the happiness and security of man, to employ every instrument which God or nature had placed in their hamls to resist such an attempt on the part of the free States. And then, if unfortunately civil war should break out, and we should present to the nations of the earth the spectacle of one portion of this Union endeavoring to subvert an institution in violati^on of the Constitution and the most sacred obligations Avhich can bind men ; we should present the spectacle in which we should have the sympathies, the good wishes, and the desire for our success of all men who love justice and truth. Far difterent, I fear, would be our case — if unhappily we should be plunged into civil war — if the two parts of this country should beplaced in a ])osition hostile toward each other, in order to carry slaverj'- into the new Territories acquired from Mexico.

Mr. Piesident, we have heard, ail of us have read of the efforts of France to propagate — what, on the continent of Europe ? Not slavery, sir ; not slavery, but the rights of man ; and we know the fate of her eftbrts in a work of that kind. But if the two portions of this Confederacy should unhappily be involved in civil war, in which the effort on the one side would be to restrain the introduction of slavery into new Territories, and on the other side to force its introduction there, what a spectacle should we present to the contemplation of astonished mankind ! An effort not to propagate right, but I must say — though I trust it will be understood to be said with no desire to excite feeling — an effort to propagate wrong in the terrdories thus acquired from Mexico. It would be a war in which we should have no sympathy, no good wishes, and in which all manldnd would be against us, and in which our own history itself would be against us ; for, from the commencement of the Revolution down to the present time, we have constantly reproached our British ancestors for the introduction of slavery into this country ; and allow me to say that, in my opinion, it is one of the best defenses which can be made to preserve the institution in this country, that it was forced upon us against the wishes of our ancestors, our own colonial ancestors, and by the cupidity of our British commercial ancestors.

The power then, Mr, President, in my opinion — and I will extend it to the introduction as well as the prohibition of slavery in the new territories — I think the power does exist in Congress, and I think there is that important distinction between slavery outside of the Stales and slavery inside of the States, that all outside is debatable, all inside of the States is undebatable. The Government has no right to touch the institution within the States ; but whether she has, and to what extent she has the right or not to touch it outside of the States, is a question which is debatable, and u{)on which men niay honestly and fairly differ, but which, decided however it may be decided, furnishes, in my judgment, no just occasion for breaking up this happy and glorious Union of ours.

Now, I am not going to take up that part of the subject which I'clates to the power of Congress to legislate either within this District — (I shall have occasion to make some observations upon that when I approach the resolution relating to the District) — either within this District or the Territories.

But I must say, in a few words, that I think there are t\70 sources of power, either of which is, in my judgment, sufficient to warrant the exercise of the power, if it was deemed proper to exercise it, either to introduce or to keep out slavery outside the States, within the territories.

Mr. President, I shall not take up time;, of which already so much has been consumed, to show that, according to my sense of the Constitution of the United States, or rather according to the sense in which the clause has been interpreted for the last fifty years, the clause which confers on Congress the power to regulate the Territories and other property of the United States conveys the authority.

Mr. President, with my worthy friend from Michigan — and I use the term in the best and most emphatic sense, for I believe he and I have known each other longer than he and I have known any other senator in this hall — I can not concur, although I entertain the most profound respect for the opinions he has advanced upon the subject, adverse to my own ; but I must say, when a point is settled by all the elementary writers of our countiy, by all the departments of our Government, legislative, executive, and judicial — when it has been so settled for a period of fifty years, and never was seriously disturbed until recently, that I think, if we are to regard any thing as fixed and settled under the administration of this Constitution of ours, it is a question which has thus been invariably and uniformly settled in a particular way. Or are we to come to this conclusion that nothing, nothing on earth is settled under this Constitution, but that every thing is unsettled I

Mr. President, we have to recollect it is very possible — sir, it is quite likely— ^that when that Constitution was framed, the application of it to such Territories as Louisiana, Florida, California, and New Mexico was never within the contemplation of its fraraers. It will be recollected that when that Constitution was framed the whole country northwest of the river Ohio was unpeopled ; and it will be recollected also, that the exercise and the assertion of the power to make governments for Territories in their infant state, are, in the nature of the power, temporaiy, and to terminate whenever they have acquired a population competent for self-government. Sixty thousand is the number fixed by the ordinance of 1Y87. Now, sir, recollect that when this Constitution was adopted, and that Territory was unpeopled, is it possible that Congress, to whom it had been ceded by the States for the common benefit of the ceding State and all other members of the Union — is it possible that Congress had no right whatever to declare what description of settlers should occupy the public lands ?

Suppose they took up the opinion that the introduction of slavery would enhance the value of the land, and enable them to command for the public treasury a greater amount from that source of levenue than by the exclusion of slaves, would they not have had the right to say, in fixing the rules, regulations, or whatever you choose to call them, for the government of that Territory, that any one that chooses to bring slaves may bring them, if it will enhance the value of the property, in the dealing and cultivation of the soil, and add to the importance of the country ? Or take the reverse '.' — Suppose Congress had thought that a greater amount of revenue would be derived from the waste lands beyond the Ohio river by the interdiction of slavery, would they not have had a right to interdict it ? Why, sir, remember how these settlements were made, and what was their progiess. They began with a few. I believe that about .Marietta the first settlement was made.

It was a settlement of some two or three hundred persons from New

England. Cincinnati, I believe, was the next point where a settlement was made. It was settled perhaps by a few persons from New Jersey, or some other State. Did those few settlers, the moment they arrived there, acquire sovereign rights ? Had those few pei'sons power to dispose of these territories ? Had they even power to govern themselves — the handlul of men who established themselves at Marietta or Cincinnati? No, sir, the contemplation of the Constitution no doubt was, that, inasmuch as this power was temporary, as it is applicable to unpeopled territory, and as that territorywill become peopled gradually, insensibly, until it reaches a population which may entitle it to the benefit of self-government, in the mean time it is right and proper that Congress, who owns the soil, should regulate the settlement of the soil, and govern the settlers on the soil, until those settlers acquire number and capacity to govern themselves.

Sir, I will not further dwell upon this part of the subject ; but I said there is another source of power equally satisfactory, equally conclusive in my mind, as that wdiich relates to the territories, and that is the treaty-making power — the acquiring power. Now, I put it to gentlemen, is there not at this moment a jjower somewhere existing either to admit or exclude slavery from the ceded territory ? It is not an annihilated power. This is impossible. It is a subsisting, actual, existing power ; and where does it exist • It existed, I presume no one will controvert, in Mexico prior to the cession of these territories. Mexico could have abolished slavery or introduced slavery either in California or New Mexico. That must be conceded. Who will controvert this position ? Well, Mexico has parted from the territory and from the sovereignty over the territory ; and to Avhom did she transfer it? She transferred the territory and the sovereignty of .the territory to the Government of the United States.

The Government of the United States acquires in sovereigiity and in territory over California and New Mexico, all, either in sovereignty or territory, that Mexico held in California or New Mexico, by the cession of those territories. Sir, dispute that who can. The power exists or it does not; no one will contend for its annihilation. It existed in Mexico. No one, I think, can deny that. Mexico alienates the sovereignty over the territory, and her alienee is the Government of the United States. The Government of the United States, then, possesses all power wdiich Mexico possessed over the ceded territories, and the Government of the United States can do in reference to them — within, I admit, certain limits of the Constitution — whatever Mexico could have done. There are prohibitions upon the power of Congress within the Constitution, which proliibitions, I admit, must apply to Congress whenever she legislates, wdiether for the old States or for new territories * but, within those prohibitions, the powers of the United States over the ceded territories are co-extensive and equal to the powers of Mexico in the ceded territories, prior to the cession.

Sir, in regard to this treaty-making power, all who have any occasion to examine into its character and to the possible extent to which it may be can led, know that it is a power unlimited in its nature, except in so far as any limitation may be found in the Constitution of the United States; and upon this subject there is no limitation which prescribes the extent to which the powers should be exercised. I know, sir, it is argued that there is no grant of power in the Constitution, in specific terms, over the subject of slavery any where; and there is no grant in the Constitution to Congress specifically over the subject of a vast variety of matters upon which (he poweis of Congress may unquestionably o^jerate. The major includes the minor. The general grant of power comprehends all the particulars and elements of which that power consists. The power of acquisition by treaty draws after it the power of government of the country acquired.

If there be a power to acquire, there must be, to use the language of the tribunal that sits below, a power to govern. I think, therefore, sir, without, at least for the present, dwelling further on this part of the subject, that to the two sources of authority in Congress to which I have referred, and especially to the last, may be traced the power of Congress to act in the territories in question ; and, sir, I go to the extent, and I think it is a power in Congress equal to the introduction or exclusion of slavery. I admit the ■ argument in both its forms ; I admit if the argument be maintained that the power exists to exclude slavery, it necessarily follows that the power must exist, if Congress choose to exercise it, to tolerate or introduce slavery within the territories.

But, sir, I have been drawn off so far from the second resolution — not from the object of it, but from a particular view of it — that it has almost gone out of my recollection. The resolution asserts —

" That as slavery does not exist by law, and is not likely to be introduced into any of the territory acquired by the United States from the Republic of Mexico, it is inexpedient for Congress to provide by law either for its introduction into or exclusion from any part of the said territory ; and that appropriate territorial governments ought to be established by Congress in all of the said territory, not assigned as the boundaries of the proposed State of California, without the adoption of any restriction or condition on the subject of slavery."

The other truth which I respectfully and with great deference conceive to exist, and which is announced in this resolution, is, that slavery is not likely to be introduced into any of these territories. Well, sir, is not that a fact? Is there a member who hears me that will not confiim the fact? What has occurred within the last three months ? In California, more than in any other portion of the ceded territory, was it most probable, if slavery was adapted to the interests of the industrial pursuits of the inhabitants, that slavery would have been introduced. Yet, within the space of three or four months, California herself has declared, by a unanimous vote of her convention, against the introduction of slavery within her limits. And, as I remarked on a former occasion, this declaration was not confined to non-slaveholders.

There were persons from the slaveholding States who concurred in that declaration. Thus this fact which is asserted in the resolution is responded to by the act of California. Then, sir, if we come down to those mountain regions which are* to be found in New Mexico, the nature of its soil and country, its barrenness, its unproductive character, every thing which relates to it, and every thing which we hear of it and about it, must necessarily lead to the conclusion which I have mentioned, that slavery is not likely to be introduced into them. — Well, sir, if it be true that by law slavery does not now exist in the ceded territories, and that it is not likely to be introduced into the ceded territories — if you, senators, agree to these truths, or a majority of you, as I am persuaded a large majority of you must agree to them — where is the objection or the difficulty to your announcing them to the whole world ? Why should you hesitate or falter in the promulgation of incontestable truths ? On the other hand, with regard to senators coming from the free States, allow me here to make, with reference to California, one or two observations.

When this feeling within the limits of your States was gotten up ; when the Wilmot proviso was disseminated through them, and your people and yourselves attfiched themselves to that proviso, what was the state of facts ? The state of facts at the time was, that you apprehended the introduction of slavery there. You did not know much — very few of us now know much — about those very territories. They were far distant from you. You were ap]>]'ehensive that slavery niiu'lit be introduced there. You wanted as a protection to introduce the interdiction called the Wilmot proviso. It was in this state of want of inf irniation that the whole North blazed up in beh;df of this Wilmot proviso. It was under the apprehension that slavery might be introduced there (hat you left your constituents. For when you came from home, at the time you left your respective residence's, you did not know the fact, which has only reached us since the commencement of the session of Congress, that a constitution has been unanimously adopted by the people of California, excluding slavery from their Territory.

Well, now, let me suppose that two years ago it had been known in the free States that such a constitution would be adopted ; let me suppose that it had been believed that in no other portion of these ceded territories would slavery be introluced; let me suppose that upon this great subject of solicitude, negro slavery, the people of the North had been perfectly satisfied that there was no danger; let me also suppose that they had foreseen the excitement, the danger, the irritation, the resolutions which have been adopted by Southern Legislatures, and the manifestations of opinion by the people of the slaveholding States — let me suppose that all this had been known at the North at the time when the agitation was first got up upon the subject of this Wilmot proviso — do you believe that it would have ever reached the height to which it has attained? Do any of you believe it? And if, prior to your departure from your respective homes, you had had an o]iportunity of conferring with your constituents upon this most leading and important tact — of the adoption of a constitution excluding slavery in California — do you not believe, senators and representatives coming from the free States, that if you had the advantage of that fact told in serious, calm, fire-side conversation with your constituents, they Avould not have told you to come here and to settle all these agitating questions without, danger to this Union ?

What do you want ? What do you want who reside in the free States ? You want that there shall be no slavery introduced into the territories acquired from Mexico. Well, have not you got it in California ali-eady, if admitted as a State ? Have not you got it in New Mexico, in all human probability, also ? What more do you want ? You have got what is worth a thousand Wilmot provisos. You have got nature itself on your side. You have the fact itself on your side. You have the truth staring you in the face that no slavery is existing there. Well, if you are men ; if you can rise from the mud and sloug-h of party struggles and elevate yourselves to the height of patriots, what will you do ? You will look at the fact as it • exists. You will say, this fact was unknown to my people. You will say, they acted on one set of facts, we have got another set of facts here influencing us, and we will act as pati-iots, as responsible men, as lovers of unity and above all of this Union. We will act on the altered set of facts im known to our constituents, and we will appeal to their justice, their honor, their magnanimity, to concur with us on this occasion, for establishing concord and harmony, and maintaining the existence of this glorious Union.

Well, Mr. President, I think, entertaining these views, that there was nothing extravagant in the hope in which I indulged when these resolu' lions were prepared and offered — nothing extravagant in the hope that the

Novth might content itself even with striking out as unnecessary these two declarations. They are unnecessary for any purpose the free States have in view. At all events, if they should insist upon Congress expressing the opinions which are here asserted, they should limit their wishes to the simple assertion of them, without insisting on their being incorporated in any terriiOiiar Government which Congress may establish in the territories.

I pass on from the second resolution to the third and fourth, which relate to Texas : and allow me to say, Mr. President, that I approach the subject with a full knowledge of all its difficulties ; and of all the questions connected with or growing out of this institution of slavery, which Congress is called upon to i^ass upon and decide, there are "none so difficult and troublesome as those which relate to Texas, because, sir, Texas has a question of boundary to settle, and the question of slavery, or the feelings connected with it, run into the question of boundary. The North, perhaps, will be anxious to contract Texas within the narrowest possible limits, in order to exclude all beyond her to make it a free territory ; the South, on the contrary, may be anxious to extend those sources of Rio Grande, for the purpose of creating an additional theater for slavery; and thus, to the question of the limits of Texas, and the settlement of her boundary, the slavery question, with all its troubles and difficulties, is added, meeting us at every step we take.

There is, sir, a third question, also, adding to the difficulty. By the resolution of annexation, slavery was interdicted in all north of 36° 30'; but of New Mexico, that portion of it which lies north of 36° 30' embraces, I think, . about one third of the whole of New Mexico east of the Rio Grande ; so that you have free and slave territory mixed, boundary and slavery mixed together, and all these difficulties are to be encountered. And allow me to say, sir, that among the considerations which induced me to think it was necessary to settle all these questions, was the state of things that now exists in New Mexico, and the state of things to be apprehended both there and in other portions of the territories. Why, sir, at this moment — and T think I shall have the concurrence of the two senators from that State when I announce the fact — at this moment there is a feeling approximating to abhorrence on the part of the people of New Mexico at the idea of any union with Texas.

Mr. Rusk. Only, sir, on the part of the office-seekers and army followers, who have settled there, and attempted to mislead the people.

Mr. Clay. Ah ! sir, that may be, and I am afraid that New Mexico is not the only place where this class composes a majority of the whole population of the country. — [Laughter.]

Now, sir, if the questions are not settled which relate to Texas, her boundaries, and so forth, and to the territory now claimed by Texas and disputed bv New Mexico — the territories beyond New Mexico which are excluded from California — if these questions are not all settled, I think they will give rise to future confusion, disorder and anarchy there, and to agitation here. There will be, I have no doubt, a party still at the North crying out, if these questions are not settled this session, for the Wilmot proviso, or some other restriction upon them, and we shall absolutely do nothing, in my opinion, if we do not accommodate all these difficulties and provide against the recurrence of all these dangers.

Sir, with respect to the state of things in New Mexico, allow me to call the attention of the Senate to what I consider as the highest authority I could offer to them as to the state of things there existing. I mean the acts of their Convention, unless that Convention happens to have been composed altogether of office-seekers, office-holders, and so forih. Now, sir, I call your attention to what they say in dej)icting their own situation.

Mr. Underwood, at Mr. Clay's request, read the followiiio- extract fi'om instructions adopted by the Convention, appended to the journal of tlie Convention of the Territory of New Mexico, held at the city of Santa Fe, in September, 1849.

" We, the people of New Mexico, in Convention assembled, having elected a delegate to represent this Territory in the Congress of the United States, and to urge upon the Supreme Government a redress of our grievances, and the protection due to us as citizens of our common country, under the Constitution, instruct him as follows : That whereas, for the ];;st three years we have suffered under the paralyzing effects of a government undeiined and doubtful in its character, inefficient to protect the rights of the people, or to discharge the high and absolute dut5' of every Government, the enforcement and regular administration of its own laws, in consequence of which, industry and enterprise are paralyzed and discontent and confusion prevail throughout the laud. The want of proper protection against the various barbarous tribes of Indians that surround us on every side has prevented the extension of settlements upon our valuable public domain, and rendered utterly futile every attempt to explore or develop the great resources of the territory.

" Surrounded by the Utahs, Camanches, and Apaches, on the North, East and South, by the Navajos on the West, with Jicarillas within our limits, and without any adequate protection against their hostile inroads, our flocks and herds are driven off by thousands, our fellow-ci'.izens, men, women, and children, are murdered or carried into captivity. Many of our citizens, of all ages and sexes, are at this moment suffering all the horrors of barbarian bondage, and it is utterly out of our power to obtain their release from a condition to which death would be preferable. The wealth of our territory is being diminished. We have neither the means nor any adopted plan of Government for the education of the rising generation. In fine, with a government temporary, doubtful, uncertain, and inefficient^ in character and in operation, surrounded and despoiled by barbarous foes, ruin appears inevitably before us, unle?s speedy and eflectual protection be extended to us by the Congress of the United States."

There is a series of resolutions, Mr. Piesident, which any gentleman may look at, if he chooses ; but I think it is not worth while to take up the time of the Senate in reading them.

That is the condition, sir, of New Mexico. Well, I suspect that to go beyond it, to go beyond the Rio Grande to the territory wdiich is not claimed by Texas, you will not find a much belter state of things. In fact, sir, I can not for a moment reconcile it to my sense of duty to suft'er Congress to adjourn without an efibrt, at least, being made to extend the benefits, the blessings of government to those people who have recently been acquired by us.

Sir, with regard to that portion of New Mexico which lies east of the Rio Grande, undoubtedly, if it is conceded to Texas, while slie has two parties, disliking each other as much as those office-holders and officeseekers alluded" to by the senator from Texag, if they could })Ossibly be drawn together and governed quietly, peaceably, and comfovtably, there raiglit be a remedy, so far as relates to the country east of the Rio Giaude; but all beyond il: — Deseret and. the North of Califoinia — would be still open and liable to all the consequences of disunion, confusion and anarchy, without some stable government emanating from the authority of the nation of which they now compose a part, and with which they are but little acquainted. I think, therefore, that all these questions, difficult and troublesome as they may be, ought to be met — met in a spirit of candor and calmness, and decided upon as a matter of duty.

]S<"ow, these two resolutions which we have immediately under consideration propose a decision of these questions. I have said, sir, that there is scarcely a resolution in the series which 1 have offered that does not contain some mutual concession or evidence of mutual forbearance, where the concession was not altogether from the non-slaveholding to the slaveholding States.

Now, with respect to this resolution proposing a boundary for Texas, what is it? We know the difference of o])inion which has existed in this country with respect to that boundary. We know that a very large portion of the peo2:)le of the United States have supposed that the western limit of Texas was the Nueces, and that it did not extend to the Rio Grande. We know, by the resolution of annexation, tliat the question of what is the western limit and the northern limit of Texas was an open question — that it has been all along an open question. It was an open question when the boundary was run, in virtue of the Act of 1838, making the boundary between the United States and Texas. Sir, at that lime the boundary authorized by the Act of 1838 was a boundary commencing at the mouth of the Sabine an 1 running up to its head, thence to Red River, thence westwardly with Red River to, I think, the hundredth degree of west longitude. Well, sir, that did not go so far as Texas now claims, and why? Because it was an open question. War was yet raging between Texas and Mexico ; it was not foreseen exactly what might be her ultimate limits. But, sir, we will come to the question of what was done at the time of her annexation.

The whole resolution which relates to the question of boundary, from beginning to end, assumes an open boundary, an unascertained, unfixed boundary to -Texas on the West. Sir, what is the first part of the resolution ? It is that "Congress doth consent that the Territory properly included within and rightfully belonging to the Republic of Texas may be erected into a new State." Properly including — rightfully belonging to. The resolution specifies no boundary. It could specify none. It has specified no western or noithern boundary for Texas. It has assumed in this state of uncertainty what we know in point of fact existed. But then the latter part of it : " Said State to be formed subject to the adjustment of all questions of boundary that may arise with other Governments, and the constitution thereof," &c. That is to say, she is annexed with her rightful and proper boundaries, without a specification of them ; but inasmuch as it was known that these boundaries at the west and the north were unsettled, the Government of the United States retained to itself the j^ower of settling with any foreign nation what the boundary should- be.

Now, sir, it is impossible for me to go into the whole questioi;! and to argue it fully. I mean to exj^ress opinions or impressions, rather than to go into the entire argument. The western and northern limit of Texas being unsettled, and the Government of the United States having retained the power of settUng it, I ask, suppose the power had been exercised, and that there had been no cession of territory by Mexico to the United States, but that the negotiations between the countries had been limited simply to the fixation of the western and northern limits of Texas, could it not have been done by the United States and Mexico conjointly ? Will any one dispute it ? Suppose there had been a treaty of hmits of Texas concluded between Mexico and the United States, fixing the Nueces as tlie western limit of Texas, would not Texas Iiuvl' been bound by it ? Why, by the express tenns of the resolution she would have been bound by it ; or if it had been the Colorado or the Rio Chande, or any other boundary, wluitever western limit had been fixed by the joint action of tlie two powers, would have been binding- and obligatory upon Texas by the express terms of the resolution by which she was admitted into the' Union. Now, sir, Mexico and the United States conjointly, by treaty, might have fixed upon the western and northern limits of Texas, and if the" United States have acquired by treaty all the subjects upon which the limits of Texas might have operated, have not the United States now the power solely and exclusively which Mexico and the United States conjointly possessed prior to the late treaty between the two countries ? It seems to me, sir, that this conclusion and reasoning are perfectly irresistible. If Mexico and the United States could have fixed upon any western limit for Texas, and did not do it, and if the United States have acquired to themselves, or acquired by the treaty in question, all the territory upon which the western limit must have been fixed, when it was fixed, it seems to me that no one can resist the logical conclusion, that the United States now have themselves a power to do what the United States and Mexico conjointly could have done.

Sir, I admit it is a delicate power — an extremely delicate power. I admit that it ought to be exercised in a spirit of justice, liberality, and generosity toward this the youngest member of the great American family. But here the power is. Possibly, sir, upon that question — however I offer no positive opinion — possibly, if the United States were to fix it in a way unjust in the opinion of Texas, and contrary to her rights, she iniglit bring the question before the Suj^reme Court of the United States, and have it there again investigated and decided. I say possibly, sir, because I am not one of that class of politicians who believe that every question is a competent and proper question for the Supreme Court of the United States. There are questions too large for any tribunal of that kind to try ; great political questions, national territorial questions, which transcend their limits ; for such questions their powers are utterly incompetent. Whether this be one of those questions or not, I shall not decide ; but I will maintain that the United States are now invested solely and exclusively with that power which was common to both nations — to fix, ascertain, and settle the western and northern limits of Texas.

Sir, the other -day my honorable friend who represents so well the State of Texas said that we had no more right to touch the limits of Texas than we had to touch the limits of Kentucky. I think that was the illustration' he gave us — that a State is one and indivisible, and that the General Government has no right to sever it. I agree with him, sir, in that ; where the limits are ascertained and certain, where they are imdisputed and indisputable. The General Government has no right, nor has any other earthly power the right, to interfere with the limits of a State whose boundaries are thus fixed, thus ascertained, known, and recognized. The whole power, at least, to interfere with it is volunt;ny. The extreme case may be put — one which I trust in God may never happen in this nation — of a conquered nation, and of a constitution adapting itself to the state of subjugation or conquest to which it has been reduced ; and giving up whole States, as well as parts of States, in order to save from the conquering arms of the invader what remains. I say such a power in case of extremity may exist. But I admit that, short of such extremity, voluntarily, the General Government has no right to separate a State — to take a portion of its territory from it, or to regard it otherwise than as integral, one and indivisible, and not to be aff'ected by any legislation of ours. But, then, I assume what does not exist in the case of Texas, and these boundaries must be known, ascertained, and indisputable. With regard to Texas, all was open, all was unfixed ; all is unfixed at this moment, with respect to her limits west and north of the Nueces.

But, sir, we gave fifteen millions of dollars for this territory that we bought, and God knows what a costly bargain to this now distracted coimtry it has been ! We gave fifteen millions of dollars for the territory ceded to us by Mexico. Can Texas justly, fairly, and honorably cpme into the Union and claim all that she asserted a right to, without paying any portion of the fifteen millions of dollars which constituted the consideration of the grant by the ceding nation to the United States ? She proposes no such thing. She talks, indeed, about the United States having been her agent, her trustee. Why, sir, the United States was no more her agent or her trustee than she was the agent or trustee of the whole people of the United States. Texas involved herself in war — (I mean to make this no reproach — none — none — upon the past) — Texas brought herself into a state of war, and when she got into that war, it was not the war of Texas and Mexico, but it was the war of the whole thirty United States and Mexico ; it was a war in which the Government of the United States, which created the hostilities, was as much the trustee and agent of the twenty-nine other States composing the Union as she was the trustee and agent of Texas. ' And, sir, with respect to all these circumstances — such, for example, as a treaty with a map annexed, as in the case of the recent treaty with ]\'Iexico ; such as the opinion of individuals highly respected and eminent, like the lamented Mr. Polk, late President of the United States, whose opinion was that he had no right, as President of the United States, or in any character otherwise than as negotiating with Mexico — and in that the Senate would have to act in concurrence with him — that he had no right to fix the boundary ; and as to the map attached to the treaty, it is sufiicieut to say that the treaty itself is silent from beginning to end on the subject of the fixation of the boundary of Texas. The annexation of the map to the treaty was a matter of no utility, for the treaty is not strengthened by it ; it no more affirms the truth of any thing delineated upon the map in relation to Texas than it does any thing in relation to any other geographical subject that composed the map.

Mr. President, I have said that I think the power has been concentrated in the Government of the United States to fix upon the limits of the State of Texas. I have said also that this power ought to be exercised in a spirit of great liberality and justice ; and I put it to you, sir, to say, in reference to this second resolution of mine," whether that liberality and justice have not been displayed in the resolution which I have proposed. In the resolution, what is proposed? To confine her to the Nueces? No, sir. To extend her boundary to the mouth of the Rio Grande, and thence up that river to the southern limit of New Mexico ; and thence along that limit to the boundaiy between the United States and Spain, as marked under the treaty of 1819.

Why, sir, here is a vast country. I believe — although I have made no estimate about it — that it is not inferior in extent of land, of acres, of square miles, to what Texas east of the river Nueces, extending to the Sabine, had before. And who is there can say with truth and justice that there is no reciprocity, nor mutuality, no concession in this resolution, made to Texas, even in reference to the question of boundary alone ? You

COMPROMISE RESOLUTIONS. ' 819 give her a vast country, equal, I repeat, in extent nearly to what slie indisputably possessed before ; a country sufficiently larcje, with her consent, hereafter to carve out of it some two or three additional States when the condition of the population may render it expedient to make new States. Sir, is there not in this resolution concession, liberality, justice ? But this is not all that we propose to do. The second resolution proposes to pay otf a certain amount of the debt of Texas. A bhmk is left in the resolution, because I have not heretofore been able to ascertain the amount.

Mr. FooTE — Will the honoral)le Senator allow me to suggest that it may be agreeable to him to finish his remarks to-morrow ? If such be the case, I will move that the Senate now go into Executive session.

Mr. Clay — I am obliged to the worthy Senator front Mississippi ; I do not think it possible for me to conclude to-day, and I will yield with great pleasure it^ —

Mr. FooTE — I now move- Mr. Clay — If the Senator will permit me to conclude what I have to say in relation to Texas, I will then cheerfully yield the floor for his motion.

I was about to remark that, independently of this most liberal and generous boundary which is tendered to Texas, we propose to offer her in this second resolution a sum which the worthy Senator from Texas thinks will not be less than three milHons of dollars — the exact amount neither he nor I can furnish, not having the materials at hand upon which to make a statement. Well, sir, you get this large boundary and three millions of your debt paid. I shall not repeat the argument which I urged upon a former occasion, as to the obligation of the United States to pay a portion of this debt, but was struck the other day, upon reading the treaty of limits, first between the United States and Mexico, and next the treaty of limits between the United States and Texas, to find, in the preamble of both those treaties, a direct recognition of the principle from which I think springs our obligation to pay a portion of this debt, for the payment of which the revenue of Texas was pledged before her annexation. The principle asserted in the treaty of limits v/ith Mexico is, that whereas by the treaty of 1819, between Spain and the United States, a limit was fixed between Mexico and the United States, Mexico comprising then a portion of the possessions of the Spanish Government, although Mexico was at the date of the treaty severed from the crown of Spain, yet she, as having been a part of the possessions of the crown of Spain when the teaty of i819 was made, was bound by that treaty as much as if it had been made by herself instead of Spain — in other words, that the severance of no part of a common empire can exonerate either portion of that empire from the obligations contracted when the empire was entire and unsevered. And, sir, the same principle is asserted in the treaty of 1838, between Texas and the United States. The principle asserted is, that the treaty of 1828 between Mexico and the United States having been made when Texas was a part of Mexico, and that now Texas being dissevered from Mexico, she nevertheless remains Bound by that treaty as much as if no such severance had taken place. In other words, the principle is this — that when an independent power creates an obligation or debt, no subsequent political misfortune, no subsequent severance of the territories of that power, can exonerate it from the obligation that Avas created while an integral and independent power ; in other words, to bring it down and apply it to this specific case— that, Texas being an independent power, ami having a right to make loans and to make pledges, having raise! a loan and pledged specifically the revenues arising from tlie customs to the public creditor, the public creditor became invested with a right to that fund ; and it is a right of which he could not be divested by any other act than one to which his own consent was given — it could be divested by no political change which Texas might think proper to make. In consequence of the absorption or merging of Texas into the United States, the creditor, being no party to the treaty which was formed, does not lose his right — he retains his right to demand the fulfillment of the pledge that was made upon this specific fund, just as if there had not been any annexation of Texas to the United States.

That was the foundation upon which I arrived at the conclusion expressed in the resolution — that the United States having appropiiated to themselves the revenue arising from the imports, which revenue had been pledged to the creditor of Texas, the United States as an honorable and just power ought now to pay the debt for which those duties were solemnly pledged by a power independent in itself, and competent to make the pledge. Well, sir, I think that when you consider the large boundary which is assigned to Texas — and when you take into view the abhorrence, for I think I am warranted in using this expression — with which the people of New Mexico east of the Rio Grande will look upon any political connection with Texas — and when, in addition to this, you take into view the large gTant of money that we propose to make, and our liberality in exonerating her from a portion of her public debt, equal to that grant — when we take all these circumstances into consideration, I think I liave presented a case in regard to which I confess I shall be greatly surprised if the people of Texas themselves, when they come to deliberate upon these liberal offers, hesitate a moment to accede to them.

I have now got through with what I had to say in reference to this resolution, and if the Senator from Mississippi wishes it, I will give way for a motion for adjournment.

On motion of Mr. Foote the further consideration of the resolution was postponed, and on motion,

The Senate adjourned.

Wednesday, Feb. 6.

Mr. Clay — Mr. President, if there be in this vast assembly of beauty, grace, elegance, and intelligence, any who have come here under an expectation that the humble individual who now addresses you means to attempt any display, any use of ambitious language, any extraordinary ornament or decoration of speech, they will be utterly disappointed. The season of the year, and my own season of life, both admonish me to abstain from the use of any such ornaments ; but, above all, Mr. President, the awful subject upon which it is my duty to address the Senate and the countrj^ forbids my saying any thing but what pertains strictly to that subject, and my sole desire is to make myself, in seriousness, soberness, and plainness, understood by you and by those who think proper to listen to me.

When, yesterday, the adjournment of the Senate took place, at that stage of the discussion of the resolutions which I had submitted which related to Texas and her boundary, I thought I had concluded the whole subject, but I was reminded by a fiiend that perhaps I was not sufficiently explicit on a single point, and that is, the relation of Texas and the Government of the United States, and that portion of the debt of Texas for which I think a responsibility exists on the part of the Government of the United States.

Sir, it was said that perhaps it might be understood, in regard to the proposed grant of three milHons, or whatever may be the sum when ascertained, to Texns, in consideration of tlie surrender of lier title to jSTew Mexico this side of the Rio Grande, that we g-ianted notliino' — \h;d wo nuM-ely discharged an obligation which existed upon the Government of tho United States, in consequence of the appro]:»riation of the imports receivable in the ports of Texas while she was an independent power. But that is not my understanding, Mr. President. As between Texas and the United States, the obligation on the part of Texas to pay her portion of the debt referred to, is complete and unqualified, and there is, as between these two parties, no obligation on the part of the United States to pay one dollar of the debt of Texas. On the contrary, by an express stipulation in the resolutions of admission, it is declared and jH'ovided that in no event do the United States become liable or charged with any portion of the debt or liabilities of Texas.

It is not, therefore, for any responsibility which exists to the State of Texas, on the part of the Government of the United States, that I think provision ought to be made for that debt. No such thing. As between those two parties, the responsibility on the part of Texas is complete to pay the debt, and there is no responsibility on the part of the United States to pay one cent. But there is a third party, who was no party to the annexation whatever — that is to say, the creditor of Texas, who advanced the money on the faith of solemn pledges made by Texas to him, to reimburse the loan by the appropriation of the duties received on foreign impoits ; and he, and ho alone, is the party to whom we are bound, ac.eording to the view which I have presented of the subject. Nor can the other creditors of Texas complain tliat provision is made only for a particular portion of the debt, leaving the residue of the debt unprovided for by the Government of the United States, because, in so tar as we may extinguish any portion of the debt of Texas under wliich she is now bound, in so far will it contribute to diminish the residue of the debts of Texas, and leave the funds derived from the public lands held by Texas, and what other resources she may have, applicable to the payment of these debts, with more etiect than if tho entire debt, including the pledged portion as well as the unpledged portion, was obligatory upon her, and she stood bound by it. Nor can the creditors complain, for another reason.

Texas has all the resources which she had when an independent power, with the exception of the duties receivable in her ports upon foreign imports, and she is exempted from certain charges, expenditures, and responsibilities which she would have had to encounter if she had remained a separate and independent power : for example, she would have had to provide for a certain amount of naval force and for a certain amount perhaps of military force, in order to protect herself against Mexico or against any foreign enemy whatever. But by her annexation to the United States she became liberated from all these charges, and, of course, her entire revenues may be applicable to the payment of her debts, those only excepted which are necfessary to the support and maintenance of the Go\ernment of Texas.

With this explanation upon tliat part of the subject, I pass to the consideration of the next resolution in the series whicli I have had the lionor to submit, and which relates, if I am not mistaken, to this District.

^^Mcsoh'ed, That it is inexpedient to abolish slavery in the District of Columbia, while that institution continues to exist in the 'State of Maryland, without the consent of that State, without the consent of the people of the District, and without just compensation to the owners of slaves within the District."

Mr. President, an objection at the moment was made to this resohition, by some honorable senator on the other side of the body, that it did not contain an assertion of the unconstitutionality of the exercise of the power of abolition.' I said then, as I have uniformly maintained in this body, as I contended for in 1838, and ever have done, that the power to abolish slavery within the District of Columbia has been vested in Congress by lang-uage too clear and explicit to admit, in my judgment, of any rational doubt whatever. What, sir, is the language of the Constitution? "To exercise exclusive legislation, in all cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten miles square) as may, by cession of particular States and the acceptance of Congress, become the seat of the Government of the United States." Now, sir. Congress, by this grant of power, is invested with ail legislation whatsoever over the District.

Can we conceive of human language more broad and comprehensive than that which invests a legislative body with exclusive power, in all cases whatsoever, of legislation over a given district of tenitory or country? Let me ask, sir, is there any power to abolish slaveiy in this District ? Let me suppose, in addition to what I suggested the other day, that slavery had been abolished in Maryland and Virginia — let me add to it the supposition that it was abolished in all the States in the Union ; is there any power then to abolish slavery within the district of Columbia, or is slavery planted here to all eternity, without the possibility of the exercise of any legislative power for its abolition ? It can not be invested in Maryland, because the power with which Congress is invested is exclusive. Maryland, therefore, is excluded, and so all the other States of the Union are excluded. It is here, or it is nowhere.

This was the view which I took in 1838, and I think there is nothing in the resolution which I offered on that occasion incompatible Avith the view which I now present, and which the resolution contains. While I admitted the power to exist in Congress, and exclusively in Congress, to legislate in all cases whatsoever, and consequently in the case of the abolition of slavery in this District, if it is deemed j^roper to do so, I admitted on that occasion, as I contend now, that it is a power which Congress can not, in conscience and good faith, exercise while the institution of slavery continues within the State of Maryland. The case, sir, is a good deal altered now ii'om what it was twelve years ago, Avhen the resolution to which I allude was adopted by the Senate.

Upon that occasion Virginia and Maryland both were concerned in the exercise of the power ; but, by the retrocession of that portion of the District which lies south of the Potomac, Virginia became no more interested in the question of the abolition of slavery within the residue of the District than any other slaveholding State in the Union is interested in its abolition. The question now is confined to Maryland. I said on that occasion that, although the grant of power is complete, and coixqirehends the right to abolish slavery within the District, yet it was a thing which never could have entered into the conception of Maryland or Virginia that slavery would be abolished here while slavery continued to exist in either of those two ceding States. I say, moreover, what the grant of power itself indicates, that, although exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever over the District was vested in Congress within the ten miles square, it was to make it the seat of Government of the United States. That was the great, prominent, substantial object of the grant, and that, in exercising all the powers with which we are invested, complete and full as they may be, yet the great purpose — that of the cession having been made in order to create a su'italjle seat of Government — ought to be the leading and controlling idea with Congress in the exercise of this power.

Ant] it is not necessarj^, in order to render it a proper and suitable seat of Government for the United States, that slavery should be abolished within the limits of the ten miles square. And inasmuch as at the time of the cession — when, in a spirit of generosity, immediately after the formation of the Constitution — when all was peace, and harmony, and concord — when brotherly affection and fraternal feeling prevailed throughout this whole Union — when JMaryland and Virginia, in a moment of generous impulse, and with feelings of high regard toward the members of this Union, chose to make this grant, neither party could have suspected that, at some distant future period, upon the agitation of this unfortunate subject, their generous grant without equivalent was to be turned against them, and that the sword was to be uplifted, as it were, in their bosoms, to strike at their own hearts ; thus this implied faith, this honorable obligation, this necessity and propriety of keeping in constant view the great object of cession. Those were considerations which in 18-38 governed me, as they now influence me, in submitting the I'easons which I have submitted to your consideration.

Now, as then, I do not thinlc Congress ought ever, as an honorable body, acting bona fide, in good faith, and. according to the nature and purposes, and objects of the cession, at the time it was made — and, looking at the condition of the ceding States at that time, Congress can not, without the forfeiture of all those obligations of honor which men of honor and nations of honor respect as much as if found literally in so many words in the bond itself — Congress can not interfere with the institution of slavery in this District without the violation of all these obligations, not in my opinion less sacred and less binding than if inserted in the constitutional instrument itself.

Well, sir, what does the resolution propose ? The resolution neitheraffirms nor disaffirms the constitutionality of the exercise of the power of abolition in this District. It is silent upon the subject. It soys it is inexpedient to do it, but upon certain conditions. And what are these considerations ? Why, first, that the State of Maryland shall give its consent ; in other words, that the State of Maryland shall release the United States ' from the obligation of the implied faith which I contend is connected with the act of cession by Maryland to the United States. Well, sir, if Maryland, the only State now that ceded any portion of the territory which remains to us, gives us her full consent ; in other words, if she releases Congress from all obligations growing out of the cession, with regard to slavery, I consider it is removing one of the obstacles to the exercise of the power, if it were deemed expedient to exercise the power. But it is removing only one of them. There are two other conditions which are inserted in this resolution. The first is the consent of the people of the District.

Mr. President, the condition of the people of this District is anomalous. It is a condition in violation of the great principles which lie at the bottom of our own free institutions, and all free institutions, because it is tlie case of a people v.dio are acted upon by legislative authority, and taxed by legislative authority, without having any voice or representation in the taxing or legislative boly. The; Government of the United States, in respect to the people of this District, is a tyranny, an absolute Government— not exercised hitherto, I almit, and I hope it never will be exercised, tyrannically or arbitrarily ; but it is in the nature of all arbitrary power, because, if I were to give a definition of arbitrary power, I would say that it is that power which is exercised by an authority over any people who have no voice, no representation in the assembly whose edicts or laws go forth to act upon the unrepresented people to whom I have referred.

Well, sir, that being their condition, and this question of the abolition of slavery affecting them in all the relations wliich we can imagine — of prosperity, society, comfort, peace, and happiness — I have required as another condition, upon which alone this power should be exercised, the consent of the people of the District. But, sir, I have not stopped there. This I'esolution requires still another and a third condition, and that is, that slavery shall not be abolished within the District of Columbia, although Maryland consents, although the people of the District themselves consent, without the third condition of making compensation to the owners of the slaves within the District. Sir, it is immaterial to me upon what basis tliis obligation to compensate for the slaves who may be liberated by the authority of Congress is placed. There is a clause in the Constitution of the United States, of the amjcndments to the Constitution, which declares that no private property shall be taken for public use, without just compensation being made to the owner of the property.

Well, I think, in a just and liberal interpretation of that clause, we are restrained from taking the property of the peojDle of this District, in slaves, on considerations of any public policy, or for any conceivable or imaginable use of the public, without a full and fair compensation to the people of this Disti'ict. But, without the obligation of any constitutional restriction, such as is contained in the amendment to which I refer — without that, upon the principles of eternal justice itself, we ought not to deprive those who have property in slaves, in this District, of their property, without compensating them for their full value. Why, sir, no one of the European powers, Great Britain, France, or any other of the powers which undertook to abolish slavery in their respective colonies, has ever ventured to do it without making compensation. They Avere under no obligation arising out of any written or other constitution to do it, but under that obligation to which all men ought to bow with homage^ — that obligation of eternal justice, which declares that no man ought to be deprived of his property without a full and just compensation for its value.

I know it has been argued that the clause of the Constitution which requires compensation for property taken by the public, for its use, would not apply to the case of the abolition of slavery in the District, because the property is not taken for the use of the public. Literally, perhaps, it would not be taken for the use of the public ; but it would be taken in consideration of a policy and purpose adopted by the public, as one which it Avas deemed expedient to carry into full effect and operation ; and, by a liberal interpretation of the clause, it ought to be so far regarded as taken for the use of the public, at the instance of the public, as to demand compensation to the extent of the value of the property.

If that is not a restriction as to the power of Congress over the subject of slavery in the District, then the power of Congress stands unrestricted, and that would not be a better condition for the slaveholder in the District than to assume the restriction contained in the amendment. I say it would be unrestricted by constitutional operation or injunction. The great restrictions resulting from the obligations of justice would remain, and they are sufBcieut to exact from Congress the duty of ascertaining, prior to the abolition of slavery, the value of the property in slaves in the District, and of makhig full, fair, and just compensation for that property.

Well, Mr. President, I said yesterday, there was not a resolution, except the tirs' (which contained no concession by either party), that did not cither contain some mutual concession by the two {)Mrties, or did not coutaiu co'.icossions alto^'cther froui the North to the South.

Now with respect to the resoUilion under consideration. The Nortli has contended tliat tlie power exists under the Constitution to abohsh slavery. The South, I am aware, has oppose 1 it, and most, at least a great portion of till' Soulh, have contended for the opposite construction. What does the res )lutio:i do ? It asks of both parties to forbear ui-ging their respective opinions, the one to the exclusion of the other, but it concedes to the South all that the South, it appears to me, upon this subject, ouglit in reason to demand, in so fir as it requires such conditions as amount to an absolu'e security for property in slaves in the District; such conditions as will probably make the existence of slavery Avithin the District co-eval and co-exteasive with its existence in any of the Slates out of and beyond the District. But, sir, the secon;;! clause of this resolution provides " that it is expedient to prohibit within the District the trade in slaves brought into it from Sates or ])laces beyond the limits of the District, either to be sold therein as merchandise, or to be transported to other markets."

Well, Mr. President, if the concession be made that Congress has the power of legislation, and exclusive legislation, in all cases whatsoever, how can it be doubted that Congress has authority to prohibit what is called the slave-trade in the District of Columbia? Sir, my interpretation of the Constitution is this ; th.it, with regard to all parts of it which operate upon the States, Congress can exe.'cise uo power which is not granted, or which is not a necessary implication from a granted power. Tliat is the rule for the action of Congress in relation to its legislation upon the States, but in relation to its legislation upon this District, the reve-.se. I take it to he the true rule that Congress has all power over the District which is not prohibited by some part of the Constitution of the United States; in_ other words, that Congress has a power within the District equivalent to, and coextensive with, the power which any State itself possesses within its own limits. Well, sir, does any one doubt the power and the right of any slaveholding State in th's Union to f a'bid the introduction, as merchandise, of slaves within their limits? Why, sir, almost every slaveholding State in the Union has exercised its power to prohibit the introduction of slaves as merchandise.

It was in the Constitution of my own State ; and, notwithstanding all the excitement and agitation upon the subject of slavery which occurred during the past year in the State of Kentucky, the same pvinciple is incorporated in the new Constitution. It is in the Constitution, I know, of Mississippi. That State prohibits the introduction of slaves within its limits as merciiandise. I believe it to be in the Constitution or in the laws of Maryland — in the laws of Virginia^n the laws of most of the slaveholding States. It is true that the policy of the different slaveholding States upon this subject has somewhat vacillated — they sometimes adopted it and sometimes excluded it — but there has been no diversity of opinion, uo departure from the great priuci[)le, that every one of them has the power and authority to ])rohibit the introtluction of slaves within their respective limits, if they choose to exercise it. Well, then, sii', I really, do not think that this resolution, which proposes to abolish that trade, ought to be considered as a concession by either class of the States to the other class.

I think it should be regarded as a common object, acceptable to both, and conformable to the wishes and feelings of both ; and yet, sir, in these

826 ' SPEECH ON THE times of fearful and alarming excitement — in these times wlien every night that I go to sleep and awake up in the morning, it is with the apprehension of some new and fearful and dreadful tidings upon this agitating subject — I have seen in the act of a neighboring State, among the various contingencies which are enumerated, upon the happening of any one of which delegates are to be sent to the famous Convention -which is to assemble at Nashville in June next, that among other substantive grounds for the appointment of delegates to that Convention — of delegates from the State to which I refer — one is, that if Congress abolish the slave-trade in the District of Columbia, that shall be cause fDr a Convention — in other words, it is cause for considering whether this Union ought to be dissolved or not. Is it possible to portray a greater extent of extravagance to which men may be carried by the indulgence of their passions ?

Sir, the power exists; the duty, in my opinion, exists; and there has been no time — as I may say, in language coincident with that used by the honorable senator from Alabama — there has been no time in my public life when I Avas not willing to concur in the abolition of the slave-trade in this District. I was willing to do it when Virginia's portion of the District was retrocedecl, that lying south of the Potomac. There is still less ground for objection to doing it now, when the District is limited to the portion this side of the Potomac, and when the motive or reason for concentrating slaves here in a depot, for the purpose of transportation to distant foreign markets, is lessened with the diminution of the District, by the retrocession of that portion to Virginia.

Why should slave-traders Avho buy their slaves in Maryland or Vh'ginia, come here with their slaves in order to transport them to New Orleans or other Southern markets? Why not transport them from the States in which they are purchased ? Why are the feelings of citizens heie outraged by the scenes exhibited, and the corteges which pass along our avenues, of manacled human beina's, not collected at all in our own neiahborhoocl, but brought from distant parts of neighboring States ? Why should they be outraged ? And who is there, that has a heart, that does not contemplate a spectacle of that kind with horror and indignation ? Why should they be outraged by a scene so inexcusable and detectable as this ?

Sir, it is no concession, I repeat, from one class of States or from the other. It is an object in which both of them, it seems to me, should heartily unite, and which the one side as much as the other should rejoice in adopting, inasmuch as it lessens one of the causes of inquietude and dissatisfaction which are connected with this District. Abolis!i the slave-trade in this District; reassert the doctrine of the resolution of 1838, that by an implied assent on the part of Cong ess slavery ought not to be abolished in the District of Columbia, while it remains in the State of Maryland ; reassert the principle of that resolution, and adopt the other healing measures — or other fcimilar or more healing measures — for I am not attached to any thing that is the production of my own hand, if any thing better should be ottered by an} body else — adopt the other healing meisures Vvdiich are proposed, and which are required by the distracted condition of the country, and I venture to say that, as we have had peace and quiet for the last twenty years, since the termination of the Missouri controversy, we shall have, in all human probability, peace for a longer period to come upon this unhappy subject of slavery.

The next resolution is :

" That more effectual provision ought to be made by law, according to the requirement of the Constitution, for the restitution and delivery of persons bound to service or labor in any State, who may escape into any other State or Teri'itory in the Union."

Now, Mr. President, upon that subject I go with him wlio goes furtliest in the interpretation of that chiuse in the Constitution. In my humble opinion, sir, it is a requirement by the Constitution of the United States which is not limited in its operation to the Congress of the United States, but extends to every State in the Union and to the officers of every State in the Union ; and I go one step further ; it extends to every man in the Union, and devolves upon them all an obligation to assist in the recovery of a fugitive from labor v.dio takes refuge in or escapes into one of the free States. And, sir, I think I can maintain all this by a fair interpretation of the Constitution. It provides —

" That no person held to service or labor in one State, under the laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in consequence of any law or regulation therein, be discharged from service or labor, but shall be delivered up on claim of the party to whom such service or labor may be due."

It will be observed, Mr. President, that this clause in the Constitution is not among the enumerated powers granted to Congress, for, if that had been the case, it might have been urged that Congress alone could legislate to carry it into effect ; but it is one of the general powers, or one of the general rights secured by this constitutional instrument, and it addresses itself to all who are bound by the Constitution of the United States, Now, sir, the officers of the General Government are bound to take an oath to support the Constitution of the United States. All State officers are required by the Constitution to take an oath to support the Constitution of the United States ; and all men who love their country and are obedient to its laws, are bound to assist in the execution of those laws, Avhether they are fundamental or derivative. I do not say that a private individual is bound to make the tour of his State in order to assist an owner of a slave to recover his property ; but I do say, if he is present when the owner of a slave is about to assert his rights and endeavor to obtain possession of his property, every man present, whether he be an officer of the General Government or the State Government, or a private individual, is bound to assist, if men are bound at all to assist in the execution of the laws of their <;ountry.

Now what is this provision ? It is that such fugitives shall be delivered upon claim of the party to whom such service or labor may be due. As has been already remarked in the course of the debate upon the bill upon this subject which is now pending, the language used in regard to fugitives fi-om criminal offenses and fugitives from labor is pi'ecisely the same. The fugitive from justice is to be delivered up, and to be removed to the State having jurisdiction; the fugitive from labor is to be delivered up on claim of the party to whom such service is due. Well, has it ever been contended on the part of any State that she is not bound to surrender a fugitive fi-om justice, upon demand from the State from which he fled? I believe not. There have been some exceptions to the performance of this duty, but they have not denied the general right ; and if they have refused in any instance to give up the person demanded, it has been upon some technical or legal gTound, not at all questioning the general right to have the fugitive sun-endered, or the obligation to deliver him up as intended by the Constitution.

I tliiidv, then, Mr. President, that with regard to the true interpretation of this provision of the Constitution there can be no doubt. It imposes an obligation upon all the States, free or slaveholding ; it imposes an obliga-

328 • ' SPEECH ON THE tioa upou all officers of the Government, State, or Federal ; and, I will add, upon all the people of the United States, under particular circumstances, to assist in the surrender and recovery of a fugitive slave from his master.

Tbere has been some confusion, and, I think, some misconception, on this subject, in consequence of a recent decision of the Supreme Court of the Uuited States. I think that decision has been entirely misapprehended. There is a vast differenec between imposing impediments and affording facilities for the recovery of fugitive slaves. The Supreme Court of the United States has only decided that all laws of impediment ave unconstitutional. I know there are some general expressions in the opinion to which I have referred — the case of Maryland against Pennsylvania — that seem to import otherwise ; but I think, when you come attentively to read the whole opinion, and the opinion pronounced by all the judges, especially if you take the trouble of doing what I have done, to converse with them as to what their real meaning v^as, you will find that the whole extent of the authority which they intended to establish was that any laws of impediment enacted by the States were laws that were forbidden by the provision of the Constitution to which I refer; that the General Government had no light, by an act of the Congress of the United States, to impose obligations upon State officers not iinposed by the authority of their own Constitution and laws. It is impossible the decision could have been otherwise. It would have been perfectly extrajudicial. The Court had no right to decide the question whether the laws of facility were or were not unconstitutional.

The only question before the Court was the law of impediment passed by the Legislature of Pennsylvania ; and if they had gone beyond the case before them, and undertaken to decide upon a case not before them, a principle which was not fairly comprehended within the case before them, it would be what, the lawyers term an obiter dictum, and is not binding either on that Court itself or any other tribunal. I say it was not possible that, with the case before the Court of a law for gi^'ing facility to the holder of the slave to recover his property again, it was utterly impossible that any tribunal should pronounce a decision that such aid and assistance, rendered by the authority of the State, under this provision of the Constitution of the United States, is unconstitutional and void. The Court has not said so, or if they have said so, they have transcended their authoiity and gone beyond the case which was before them. Laws passed by States, in order to assist the General Government, so far from being laws repugnant to the Constitution, would every where be regarded as laws carrying out, enforcing, and fulfilling the constitutional duties which are created by that instrument.

Why, sir, as well might it be contended that if Congress were to declare war — and no one will doubt the power to declare war is vested exclusively in Congress ; no State has the right to do it — no one will contend seriously, I apprehend, that after the declaration of war it would be unconstitutional on the part of any of the States to assist in the vigorous and effective prosecution of that war ; and yet it would be just as unconstitutional to lend their aid to the successful and glorious termination of the war in which we might be embarked, as it would be to assist in the perfoniiance of a high duty which addresses itself to all the States and all the people of all the States.

Mr. President, I do think that that whole class of Legislation, beginning in the Northern States and extending to some of the Western

COMPROMISE RESOLUTIONS. " 329

States, by wliicli obstructions and impediments have been thrown in the way of the I'ec^overy of fiig-itive slaves, is unconstitutional, and has originated in a spirit which I trust will correct itself when those States coaie cahnly to consider the natu;e and extent of theii' federal obligations. Of all the StJites in this Union, unless it be Virginia, the State of which I am a resident suffers most by the escape of their slaves to adjoining S-ates.

I have very little doubt, indeed, that the extent of loss to tJie State of Kentucky, in consequence of the escape of her slaves is greater, at least, in proportion to the total number of slaves which are held wiihin that commonwealth, even than in Virginia. I know full well, and so does the honorable Senator from Ohio k'low, that it is at the utmost hazard, and insecurity to life itself, that a Kantuckian can cross tlie river and go into the interior to take back his fugitive slave to the place from whence he lied. Recently an example occurred even in the city of Oinciun:iti, in respect to one of our most respectable citizens. Not having visited Ohio at all, but Covington, on the opposite side of the river, a httle slave of his escaped over to Cincinnati. He pursued it; he found it in the house in which it was concealed ; he took it out, and it was rescued by the violence and force of a negro uiob fiom his possession — the police of the city standing by, and either unwilling or unable to atibrd the assistance whicli was requisite to enable him to recover his property.

Upon this subject I do ihink that we have just and serious cause of complaint against the free States. I think they fail in fulfilling a great obligation, and the fliilure is precisely upon one of those subjects which in its nature is the most irritating and inflaming to those who Uve in the slave States.

Now, sir, I think it is a mark of no good neighborhood, of no kindness, of no couitesy, that a man living in a slave State can not now, with any sort of safety, travel in the free States with his servants, although he has no purpose whatever of stopping there longer than a short time. And on this whole subject, sir, how has the legislation of the free States altered for the worse within the cou:sc of the last twenty or thirty years? Why, sir, most of those States, until within a period of the last twenty or thiity years, bad laws for the benefit of sojourners, as they were called, passing through or abiding for the moment in the free States, with their servants. Sir, I recollect a case that occurre;.! during the war. My fiiend, Mr, Cheves, of South Cai'olina, instead of going home iii the vacation, went to Philadelphia, taking his family seivants with hinj. Some of the Abolitionists of that city took out a habeas corpus, seized the slaves, and the question was brought before the Supreme Court of the State of Pennsylvania, where it was argued for days.

It was necessary, during the progress of the arguments, to refer to a great variety of statutes passed from time to time by the Legislature of Pennsylvania, on behalf of the sojourner, guaranteeing and securing to him the possession of his property during his tempory passage or abode within the limits of that commonwealth. Finally, the court gave their opinion seriatim — each judge his separate opinion, until it came to Judge Bieckeuridge to deliver his, who was the youngest judge, I think, on the bench. During the progress of the delivery of their opinions they had frequently occasic^n to refer to the acts ])assed for the benefit of sojourners; anil each of the judges who preceded Mi'. Breckeniidge always pronounced the word "sudgeners." When it came to Judge IJreckenridge to deliver his opinion, he said, " I agree in all that my learned brethien have pronounced upon this occasion, except in their pronunciation of the word ' sojourner.' They pronounced it ' sudgener ;' but I call it ' sojourner.' " [Laughter.] Well, now, sir, all these laws in behalf of these sojournei's through the free States are swept away, except I believe in the State of Rhode Island. Mr. Dayton — And New Jersey.

Mr. Clay — Ay, and in' New Jersey. I am happy to hear it ; but in most of the large States, in most, if not all, of the New England States, these laws have been abolished, showing the progressive tendency of bad. neighborhood and unkind action on the part of the free States toward the slaveholding States.

. Mr. Piesident, I do not mean to contest the ground — I am not going to argue the question, whether, if a man carries his slave voluntarily into the free States and he is not a fugitive, whether that slave, by the voluntary action of the master, does or does not become instantly entitled to his freedom. I am not going to argue that question. I know what the decision has been at the North, but I mean to say it is unkind, it is unneighborly, it is not in the spirit of fraternal connection which exists between the members of this confederacy, to execute a strict legal principle in the way suggested, even supposing it to be right so to do. But where there is no purpose of permaneut abode, no intention of settHng finally and conclusively, and planting his slaves within the commonwealth, it is but right, and a proof of good neighborhood and kind and friendly feeling, to allow the owner of the slave to pass with his property unmolested through your State.

' Allow me to say upon the subject, though it is perhaps going further into detail than is necessary, that of all the exercise of power of those who attempt to seduce from their owners their slaves, there is no instance in which it is exercised so injuriously to the objects of their chaiity and benevolence as in the case of the seduction of family slaves from the service of their owner. The slaves in a family are treated with all the kindness that the children of the fauiily receive. Every thing which they want for their comfort is given them with the most liberal indulgence; and, sir, I have known more instances than one where, by this practice of the seduction of fauiily servants from their owners, they have been rendered wretched and unhappy in the free States ; and in my own family, a slave who had been seduced away, addressed her mistress and begged and implored of her the means of getting back from the state of freedom to which she had been seduced, to the state of slavery in which she was so much more happy ; and in the case to which I have referred the means were aftbrded her, and she returned to the State of Kentucky to her mistress.

Then, Mr. President, I think that the existing laws upon the subject, for the recovery of fugitive slaves, and the restoration and delivering of them up to their owners, being found inadequate and ineflective, it is incumbent on Congress — and I hope hereaiter, in a better state of feeling, when more harmony and good-will prevail among the members of this confedera/y, it will be regarded by the free States themselves as a part of their duy also — to assist in allaying this irritating and disturbing subject to the peace of our Union ; but, at all events, whether they do it or not, it is our duiy to do it. It is our duty to make the law more efiective, and I shall go with the senator from the Soutli who goes furthest in making ■penal laws and imposing the heaviest sanctions for the recovery of fugitive slaves, and the restoration of them to their owners.

Mr. President, upon this part of the subject,, however, allow me to make an observation or two. I do not think the States, as States, ought to be responsible for all the misconduct of particular individuals within those

States. I think that the States are only to he held responsihle when they act in their sovereio'ii cajiacity. If there are few pei'sons, indiscreet, mad, if you clioose — fanatics, if you choose so to call them — who are for dissolving this Union, as we know there are some at the Norlh, and for dissolving- it in consequence of the connection which exists betwecTi the free and slaveholding States, I do not think that any State in which such madmen as they ai'e to be found, ought to be held responsible for the doctrines they propagate, unless the State itself adopts those doctrines.

Sir, there have been, perhaps, mutual causes of complaint ; and I know, at least I have heard, that Massachusetts, for some of her unfriendly laws on the subject of the recovery of fugitive slaves, urges as tlie motive for the passage of those laws the treatment which a certain minister of hers experienced in Charleston some years ago. Mr. Hoar, I think, is the name of tlie individual who was sent to South Carolina to take care of the free negroes of Massachusetts that might pass to Charleston in the vessels of Massachusetts. I think it was a mission that it was hardly worthy of Massachusetts to create. I think she might have omitted to send Mr. Hoar upon any such mission ; but she thought it right to send him, and he went there for the purpose of asserting, as he said, the rights of those free people of color before the courts of justice, and of testing the validity of certain laws in South Carolina with regard to the prohibition of free negroes from coming into her ports. I believe that Avas the object, that was the purpose of his mission. He went there to create no disturbance, as I understand, except so far as assei'ting those rights and privileges, in the sense in which Massachusetts held them, might create disturbance. He was virtually driven out of Charleston, as I believe he or some other emissary of the same kind was driven out of New Orleans. I do not mean to say ■whether it was right or wrong to expel him. What I mean to say is, that Massachusetts, or some of her citizens, has said, that, after finding this treatment toward those whom she chooses to consider citizens, on the part of South Carolina, she determined on that course of legislation by which she has withdrawn all aid and assistance for the recovery of fugitives, and interposes obstacles ; and then she pleads the treatment of Mr. Hoar as an apology. I think that furnished her Avith no sufficient apology. If South Carolina treated her ill, it is no reason why she should ill ti'eat Kentucky and Virginia, and other slaveholding States that had done her no wrong. But she thought so.

I mention both cases — the case of the expulsion of Mr. Hoar from Charleston, and the passage of the laws of Massachusetts — not by way of approbation of either, but to show that there have been, unhappily, mutual causes of agitation, furnished by one class of States as well as by the other; though, I admit, not in the same degree by the slave States as by the free States. And I admit, also, that the free States have much less cause for anxiety and solicitude on this subject of slavery 4han the slave States, and that far moi e extensive excuses, if not justification, ought to be extended to the slave than the free States, on account of the dift'erence of the condition of the respective parlies.

Mr. President, passing from that resolution, I will add only a single observation, that when the bill comes up to be finally acted on, I will vote most cordially and heartily for it.

Mr. Davis, of Massachusetts — Will the honorable Senator permit me to interiupt him ftjr a moment? I want to say one word in behalf of the State of Massachusetts, with his permission.

Mr. Clay — Certainly, certainly.

Mr. Davis — I have never, althougli most likely he may have, heard the apology stated by the honorable senator for passing , the law to which he has referred ; but on the contrary I have always understood that the law which Massachusetts had for restoring fugitive slaves, was repealed because the courts below, as they understood it, had pronounced their law unconstitutional. That is the ground which they took ; whether they were wise in the legislation they adopted I shall not undertake to say. But I wHsh to say one word in regard to the mission, as it is termed by the honorable senator from Kentucky, to South Carolina.

If I call the tacts to my recollection correctly, they are these. We are the owners of much shipping ; we employ many sailors, and among them we employ free colored men — men whom we in Massachusetts acknowledge to be citizens of the United States and citizens of the commonwealth, and entitled to the rights of citizens. These citizens were taken from our vessels when they arrived in South Carohna, and were held in custody till the vessels sailed again. This our citizens complained of, whether justly or unjustly, .that it was an encroachment, in the first place, upon the rights of citizens, and, in the next place, that it was a great inconvenience to men engaged in commerce. If I remember rightly, and I think I do, the State of Massachusetts authorized its Governor to propose, at the expense of the State, to some suitable and proper person, who was a citizen of South Carolina, to test the right to hold her citizens in custody in this way, in the courts of the State, or in the courts of the United States. If I remember rightly, that was declined by one or more citizens of South Carolina. Then the mission, to which the honorable Senator refeis, was instituted, and the termination of it I believe he has correctly stated.

I wish it to appear that Massachusetts had no aggressive purpose whatever, but simply wished that the judiciary should decide the question existing between them. She wanted nothing more, asked nothing more.

Mr. Clay — Mr. President, I hear with much pleasure this explanation. I have been informed, however, by an eminent citizen of Massachusetts, whose name it is unnecessary to mention — he is not a member of this body — that the motive for the repeal of these laws, or for the passage of these laws, at least one of the motives, was the treatment of Mr. Hoar in Chaileston. However, I am glad to hear that it proceeded from another cause, and that is what I conceive to be a misconception of what the trjie opinion of the judges of the Supreme Court was. When the true exposition of that opinion comes to be known in Massachusetts, I trust that the Legislature of that State will restore the laws facilitating the recovery of fugitive slaves, which she repealed in consequence of that misconception.

Ml'. President, I have a great deal yet to say, and I shall, therefore, pass from the consideration of this seventh resolution with the observation, which I beheve I have partly made before, that the most stringent provision upon this subject which can be devised will meet with my heai'ty concurrence and co-operation, in the passage of the bill which is under the consideration of the Senate. The last i-esolution declares —

"That Congress has no power to prohibit or obstruct the trade in slaves between the slaveholding States ; but that the admission or exclusion of slaves brought from one into another of them, depends exclusively upon their own particular laws."

This is a concession, not, I admit, of any real constitutional provision, but a concession from the North to the South of what is undeistood, I believe, by a great number at the North, to be a constitutional pi'ovision. If the resolution should be adopted, take away the decision of the Supreme

COMPEOMISE llESOLUTIONS. 833 ,

Court of the United States on tin's subject, and tliere is a great deal, I know, that might be sj'id on both sides, as to the right of Congress to regulate the trade between the States, and, consequently, the trade in shives between the States ; but I tliink the decision of tlie Supreme Court has been founded upon correct principles, and I trust it will forever put an end to the question whether Congress has or has not the power to regulate the intercourse and trade in slaves between the difterent States.

Sucli, Mr, President, is the series of resolutions which in an earnest and anxious desire to present the olive branch to both parts of this distracted, and at the present moment unhappy country, I have thought it my duty to offer. Of all men upon earth I am the least attached to any productions of my own mind. No man upon earth is more ready than I am 1o surrender any thing which I have proposed, and to accept in lieu of it any thing that is better ; but I put it to the candor of honorable senators on the other side and upon all sides of the House, whether their duty Avill be performed by simply limiting themselves to objections to any one or to all of the series of resolutions that I have offered. If my plan of peace, and accommodation, and harmony, is not right, present us your plan. Let us see the counter project. Let us see how all the questions that have arisen out of this unhappy subject of slavery can be better settled, more fairly and justly settled to all quarters of the Union, than on the plan proposed in the resolutions which I have offered. Present me such a scheme, and I will hail it with pleasure, and will accept it without the slightest feeling of regret that my own was abandoned. Sir, while I was engaged in anxious consideration upon this subject, the idea of the Missouri Compromise, as it has been termed, came under my review, was considered by me, and finally rejected as in my judgment less worthy of the common acceptance of both parts of this Union than the project which I have offered for your consideration.

Before I enter into a particular examination, however, of that Missouri Compromise, I beg to be allowed to correct a great error which is prevailing, not merely inthis Senate, but throughout the whole country, in respect to my agency in the Missouri Compromise, or rather in respect to the line of 36° 30' which was established in 1820 by an act of Congress. I do not know whether any thing has excited more surprise in ray mind, as to the rapidity with which important historical transactions are obliterated and pass from the mind, than when I understood every where that I had been the author of the line of 36° 30', which was established upon the occasion of the admission of Missouri into the Union. It would take too much time to go over the whole of that important era in the public affairs of the country. I shall not do it, although I have got ample mateiials before me, derived from a careful examination of the journals of both Houses. I will not occupy your time by going in detail through the whole transaction, but I will content myself with saying that so far from my having presented as a proposition this line of 36° 30', upon the occasion of the consideration whether Missouri should be aihuilted into the Union or not, it did not originate in the House of which I was a member.

It oiiginated in this body, as those who will cast their recollection back, and I am sure the honorable senator from Missouri, (Mr. Benton), more correctly than any body else, must bring to his recollection the fact that at the Congress when the proposition was first made to admit JMissouri — or rather to allow her to hold a convention and frame a constitution and decide whether she should or should not be admitted into the Union— the bill failed by a disagreement between the two Houses, the House insisting o84 SPEECH ON THE on arid the Senate dissenting from the provisions contained in the ordinance of 1787. The House insisting on the interdiction of slavery, and the Senate rejecting the proposition of the interdiction of slavery, the bill fell through ; it did not pass at that session of Congress. At the next session it was renewed, and at the time of its renewal Maine was knocking at our door to be admitted into the Union. In the House there was a majority for the restriction as to slavery in Missouri ; in the Senate there was a majority opposed to all restriction. In the Senate, thei'efore, in order to carry through the Missouri bill, or the provision for her admission — or rather authorizing her to determine the question of her admission — that bill was coupled with the bill for the admission of Maine. They were connected together, and the Senate said to the House, " You want a bill for the admission of Maine passed, but you shall not have it, unless you take along with it a bill for the admission of Missouri also." There was a majority, a very large one, in the Senate, for coupling both together.

Well, sir, the bill went through all the usual stages of disagreement of committees of conference, and there were two committees of conference on the occasion before the matter was finally settled. And it was finally settled to disconnect the two bills — to admit Maine separately, without any connection with Missouri, and to insert in the Missouri bill a clause proposed in the Senate of the United States by Mr. Thomas, Senator from Illinois, restricting slavery north of the line 36° 30', and lea-\ang it open south of that line, either to admit it or not to admit it. Well, sir, the bill finally passed. The committees of conference of the two Houses recommended the detachment of the two cases, and the passage of the Missouri bill with the clause 36° 30' in it ; and so it passed, so it went to Missouri, so it for a moment quieted the country, by means of the introduction of the clause 36° 30'. You will find, I repeat, sir, if you will take the trouble to look at /the journals, that on as many as three or four different occasions Mr. Thomas in every instance presented the proposition of 36° 30'. It was finally agreed to ; and I take occasion to say that among those who voted for the 36° 30' were the majority of the Southern members — my friend from Alabama (Mr. King), in the Senate, Mr. Pinckney, from Maryland, and indeed the majority of the Southern Senators voted in favor of the line 36° 30'; and the majority of the Southern members in the other House, at the head of whom was Mr. Lowndes himself, voted also for that line. I have no doubt I did also ; but, as I was Speaker of the House at the time, and the journal does not show how the Speaker votes except in the case of a tie, I was not able to ascertain, by a resort to the records, how I did vote ; but I have very little doubt that I voted, in common with my other Southern friends, for the adoption, in a spirit of compromise, it is true, of the line 36° 30'.

Well, sir, so the matter ended in 1820. During that j-ear Missouri held her convention, adopted her constitution, sent her delegates to Congress, seeking to be admitted into the Union ; but she had inserted a clause in her constitution containing a prohibition of free people of color from that State. She came here with her constitution containing that prohibition, and immediately the Northern members took exception to it. The flame which had been repressed during the previous session now burst forth with double violence throughout the Avhole Union. Legislative bodies all got in motion to keep out Missouri, in consequence of her interdiction of free people of color from within her limits. I did not arrive at Congress that session till January, and when I got here I found both bodies completely paralyzed in consequence of the struggle to exclude Missouri from the Union on account of that prohibition.

Wt'II, sir, T made the first eti'ort in the House to settle it. I asked for a committee of thirteen, and a committee of thirteen was granted to me, representing all the old States of the Union. The committee met. I presented to them a resolution, which was adopted by the committee and reported to the House — not unlike the one to which I will presently call the attention of the Senate — and we should have carried it in the House but for the votes of Mr. Randolph, of Virginia ; Mr. Edwards, of North Carolina ; and Mr. Burton, of North Carolina — two of the three, I beheve, no longer living. These three Southern votes were all cast against the compromise which was prepared by the committee, or rather by myself, as chairman of the committee of thirteen, and defeated it.

Well, sir, in that condition the thing remained for several days. The greatest anxiety pervaded the country — the public mind was unsettled — men were unhappy — there was a large majority of the House then, as I hope and trust there is now a large majority in Congress, in tavor of an equitable accommodation or settlement of the question ; and the resolution would have been adopted, I believe, but when it came .to the vote of yeas and nays, unfortunately then — more unfortunately then, I hope, than now, if there should be occasion for it now — there were few Curtiuses and Leonidases willing to risk themselves for the safety and security of their country. I endeavored to avail myself of that good feeling, as far as I could ; and, after a few days had elapsed, I brought forward another proposition ; a new one, perfectly uupracticed in this country, either before or since, as far as I know.

I proposed a joint committee of the two houses ; that of the House to consist of twenty-three members (the number of the Senate committee I do not recollect), and that this committee should be appointed by ballot ; for at that time Mr. Taylor, of New York, was in the chair, and Mi'. Taylor was the very man who had first proposed the restriction upon Missouri. He proposed that she should only be admitted on the principle of 'the ordinance of 1787 ; I proposed, therefore, that the connnittee be appointed by ballot. Well, sir, my motion was carried by a large mnjoritj^ ; and members came to me from all quarters of the House, and said, " Whom, Mr. Clay, do you want to have with you on the committee ?" I made out my list of twenty-three members, and I venture to say that that happened on that occasion which will hardly ever happen again, eighteen of the twenty-three were elected on the first ballot, and the remaining five on my hst having the largest number of votes, but not the majority, I moved to dispense with any further balloting, and that these five should be added to the eighteen, thus completing the committee of twenty-three. One or two gentlemen, Mr. Livermore, of New Hampshire, and one or two others, declined to serve on the committee ; and, very much to my regret, and somewhat to my annoyance, the lamented Mr. Randolph and another person were placed in their situation — I forget Avhether done by ballot or by the Speaker — it is enough to say they were put on the committee.

Well, sir, the Senate immediately agreed to the proposition, appointi'd its committee, and we met in this hall on the Sabbath day, within two or three days of the close of the session, when the whole nation wns waiting with breathless anxiety for some final and healing measure ujion tlie distracting subject which occui)ied our attention. We met here on that day, and, accordingly, the moment we met, Mr. Rnndolph made a suggestion which I knew would be attended with the o:reatest embarrassment and difficulty. He contended that over the two committees of the two houses tlie chairman o,f the House committee had a right to preside, and he was about to insist at some length that* the two committees should be blended together, and that I should preside over both. I instantly interposed, and said that I did not think that was the correct mode, but that the chairman of the committee of each house should preside over his own committee, and that when the committee of one house matured and adopted a proposition, it . should be submitted to the other committee, and if agreed to by them, it should then be reported to the two liouses, and its adO()tion recommended. That course was agreed upon, and Mr. Holmes, I believe, of Maine, presided over the committee of the Senate, and I presided over the committee of the House. I did then, what I have protested I would not do at this session, take too much the lead in the discussion.

I brought forward the proposition which I will refer to presently ; and I did more, I took the trouble to ascertain the views of each member of the committee — I polled the committee, if I may use the expression, I said, now, gentlemen, we do not want a proposition carried here by a simple majority and reported to the House, there to be rejected. I am for something practical, something conclusive, something decisive upon this agitating question, and it should be carried by a good majority. How will you vote, Mr. A. ? how will you vote, Mr. B. ? how will you vote, Mr, C. ? and T polled them in that way. Well, sir, to my very great happiness, a sufficient number responded affirmatively, that they would vote for the proposition, to enable me to know that, if they continued to vote that way in the two houses, of which I had not a particle of doubt in the world, the proposition would be carried in the tv/o houses. Accordingly, it having been agreed upon by both committees, and reported to their respective houses, it was finally adopted.

This joint resolution for the admission of Missouri was passed in 1821. (I find I have been furnished with one which was proposed, but not adopted. The right one is contained in the statutes at large ; I have seen it there.)

Well, sir, the resolution was finally adopted. I can state, without reading it, what: its provisions are. It declares that, if there be any provision in the constitution of Missouri, incompatible with the Constitution of the United States, Missouri shall forbear to enforce the repugnant provisions of ' her constitution, and that she shall by some solemn and authentic act declare that she will not enforce any provisions of her constitution which are incompatible with the Constitution of the United States ; and upon her passage of such a solemn and authentic act, the President of the United States — who was at that time Mr. Monroe^shall make proclamation of the fact ; and thereupon, and without any further legislation of Congress, Missouri shall be admitted into the Union.

Now, sir, I want to call your attention to this period of history, and to the transactions which took place during the progress of the discussion upon the resolution.

During the discussion which took place in the House at that time, from day to day, and from night to night — for the discussion frequently ran into the night— we who were for admitting Missouri into the Union said to our brethren from the North, " Why, gentlemen, if there be any provision in the constitution of Missouri which is repugnant to the Constitution of the United States, it is a nullity. The Constitution of the United States, by \'irtue of its own operation — its own self operation — vacates it. Any tribunal on earth, before whicli the question may be brought, must pronounce the Constitution of the United States paramount, and must pro-

Tiounce invalid the ropug-nant provisions of the constitution of Missouri." Well, sir, tlie argument was turned, and twisted, and used in every possible variety of form. All was in vain. An inflexible m:ijority stood out to the last against the alraissiou of Missouri ; and yet the resolution —

Mr. Underwood — I have it here.

Mr. Clay — li you will I'ead it, I shall be obliged to you.

Mr. Underwood read the resolution as follows :

"resolution providing for the admission op the state of MISSOURI INTO THE UNION ON A CERTAIN CONDITION.

" Resolved hy the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled^ That Missouri shall be admitted into this Union on an equal footing with the original States in. all respects whatever, upon the fundamental condition that the fourth clause of the 26th section of the third article of the Constitution, submitted on the part of said State to Congress, shall never be construed to authorize the passage of any law, and that no law shall be passed in conformity thereto, by which ' any citizen of either of the States of this Union shall be excluded from the enjoyment of any of the privileges and immunities to which such citizen is entitled under the Constitution of the United States : Provided^ That the Legislature of the said State, by a solemn pubhc act, shall declare the assent of the said State to the said fundamental condition, and shall transmit to the President of the United States, on or before the fourth Monday in November next, an authentic copy of the said act; upon the receipt whereof the President, by proclamation, shall announce the fact ; whereupon, and without any further proceeding on the part of Congress, the admission of the said State into the Union shall be considered as complete.

" [Approved March 2, 1822.] "

Mr. Clat — There is the resolution, sir, and you see it is precisely what I have stated. After all this excitement throughout the country, reaching to such an alarming point that the Union itself was supposed to be in the most imminent peril and danger, the parties were satisfied hy the declaration of an incontestable principle of constitutional law, that when the Constitution of a State is violative in its provisions of the Constitution of the United States, the Constitution of the United States is paramount, and the Constitution of the State in that particular is a nullity and void. That was all. They w-anted something as a justification, and this appeared, at least, a justification of the course they took. There is a great deal of language there of a high-sounding character — that it shall be a fundamental act, a solemn act, an authentic act ; but, after all, when you come to strip it of its verbiage, it is nothing but the announcement of the principle that the Constitution of the United States is paramount over the local Constitution of any one of the States of the Union.

Mr. President, I may draw from that transaction in our history which we are now examining, this moral ; that now, as then, if we Avill only suffer our reason to have its scope and sway, and to still and hush the passion and excitement that has been ci'eated by the occasion, the difficulty will be more than half removed, in the settlement, upon just and amicable principles, of any queyiions which unhappily divide us at this moment.

But, sir, I wish to contrast the plan of accommodation which is proposed by me with that which is offered by the Missouri compromise line being extended to the Pacific Ocean, and to ask of gentlemen from the South, and gentlemen from the North, too, Avhich is most proper, which most just, and to which there is the least cause of objection '^

Now, sir, what was done by the Missouri line ? Slavery was positively interdicted north of that line. The question of the admission or exclusion of slavery south of that line was not settled. There was no provision that slavery should be introduced or established south of that line. In point of fact, it existed in all the territory south of the line of 36° 30', embracing Arkansas and Louisiana. It was not necessary then, it is true, to insert a clause admitting slavery at that time. But, sir, if there is a power to interdict, there is a power to admit ; and I put it to gentlemen from the South, are they prepared to be satisfied with the line of 36° 30', interdicting slavery to the north of it, and giving them no guaranty for the possession of slavery south of that line ? The honorable senator from Mississippi told us the other day that he was not prepared to be satisfied with that compromise line. He told us, if I understand him rightly, that nothing short of a positive introduction —

Mr. FooTE — Recognition.

Mr. Clay — That nothing short of a positive recognition of slavery south of the line of 36° 30' would satisfy him. Well, is there any body who believes that you could get twenty votes in this body, or a proportional number in the other House, to a declaration in favor of the recognition of slavery south of the line of 36° 30'? It is impossible. All that you can get, all that you can expect to get, all that was proposed at the last session, was action on the north of the line, and non-action as regards slavery south of that line. It is interdicted on one side, without any corresponding provision for its admission on the other side of the line of 36° 30'.

Now, sir, when I came to consider the subject, and to compare the provisions of the line of 36° 30' — the Missouri compromise line — with the plan which I propose for the accommodation of this question, what said I to myself? Why, if I ofii"er the line of 36° 30', interdicting slavery north of it, and leaving the question open south of that line, I offer that which is illusory to the South ; I offer that which will deceive them, if they suppose that slavery will be introduced south of that line. It is better for them, I said to myself — it is better for the whole South, that there should be non-action on both sides, than that there should be action interdicting slavery on one side, without action for the admission of slavery on the other side of the line. Is it not so ? What, then, is gained by the South, if the Missouri line is extended to the Pacific, with an interdiction of slavery north of it ? Why, sir, one of the very arguments which have been most often and most seriously urged by the South has been this, that wo do not want you to legislate upon the subject at all ; you ought not to touch it ; you have no power over it. I do not concur, as is well known from what I have said upon this occasion, in this view of the subject. But that is the Southern argument. We do not want you to legislate at all on the subject of slavery ; but if you adopt the Missouri line and extend it to the Pacific, and interdict slavery north of that line, you do legislate upon the subject of slavery, and you legislate without a corresponding equivalent of legislation on the subject of slavery south of the line. For, if there be legislation interdicting slavery north of the line, the principle of equality would require that there should be legislation admitting slavery south of the line.

Sir, I have said that I never could vote for it, and I repeat that I never can, and never will vote for it ; and no earthly power shall ever make me vote to plant slavery where slavery does not exist. Still, if there be a majority — and there ought to be such a majority — for interdicting slavery north of the line, there ought to be an equal majority — if equality and justice be done to the South — to admit slavery south of the line. And if there be a majority ready to accomplish both of these purposes, thoug-h ] can not concur in the action, yet I would be one of the last to create any disturbance, I would be one of the first to acquiesce in such legislation, though it is contrary to my own judgment and my own conscience. 1 think, then, it would be better to keep the whole of these territories untouched by any legislation by Congress on the subject of slavery, leaving it open, undecided, without any action of Congress in relation to it ; that it would be best for the South, and best for all the views which the South has, from time to time, disclosed to us as correspondent v/ith her wishes.

I know it may be said with regard to these ceded territories, as it is said with regard to California, that non-legislation implies the same thing as the exclusion of slavery. That we can not help. That Congress is not reproachable for. If nature has pronounced the doom of slavery upon those territories — if she has declared, by her immutable laws, that slavery can not and shall not be introduced there, whom can you reproach but nature or nature's God ? Congress you can not ; Congress abstains ; Congress is passive ; Congress is non-active in regard to the subject of slavery south and north of the line ; or rather Congress, according to the plan which proposes to extend no line, leaves the entire theater of these territories untouched by legislative enactment, either to exclude or admit slavery.

Well, sir, I ask again — if you will listen to the voice of calm and dispassionate reason — I ask of any man from the South to rise and tell me if it is not better for his section of the Union that Congress should remain passive, on both sides of any ideal line, than that it should interdict slavery on one side of the line and be passive in regard to it on the other side of the hne.

Sir, I am taxing both the physical and intellectual powers which a kind Providence has bestowed upon me, too much — too much hj far — though I beg to be pei'mitted, if the Senate will have patience with me, to conclude what I have to say, for I do not desire to trespass another day upon your time and patience, as I am approaching, though I have not yet nearly arrived at the conclusion.

Mr. Mangum — If the senator will permit me, I will move an adjourn- . nient.

Mr. Clay — No, sir, no ; I will conclude. I think I can get on better to-day than I shall be able to do if the subject be postponed.

Sir, this Union is threatened with subversion. I want, Mr. President, to take a very rapid glance at the course of public measures in this Union presently. I want, however, before I do that, to ask the Senate to look back upon the career wdiich this country has run since the adoption of this Constitution down to the present day. Was there ever a nation upon which the sun of heaven has shone that has exhibited so much of prosperity ? At the commencement of this Government our population amounted to about four millions ; it has now reached upward of twenty millions. Our territory was limited chiefly and principally to the border upon the Atlantic ocean, and that which includes the southern shores of the interior lakes of our country.

Our country now extends from the Northern provinces of Great Britain to the Rio Grande and the (.xulf of ^lexico on one side, and from the xVtlantic Ocean to the Pacific on the other side — the largest extent of territory under any Government tlmt exists on the face of the earth, with only two solitary exceptions. Our tonnage, from being nothing, has risen in

840 SPEECH ON" THE magnitude and amount so as to rival that of the nation who has been proudly characterized " the mistress of the ocean." We have gone through many wars — wars, too, with the very nation from whom we broke off' in 1*776, as weak and feeble colonies, and asserted our independence as a member of the family of nations. And, sir, we came out of that struggle, unequal as it was — armed as she was at all points, in consequence of just having come out of her long struggles with other European nations, and unarmed as we were at all points, in consequence of the habits and nature of our country and its institutions — we came, I say, out of that war without any loss of honor whatev^er — we emerged from it gloriously.

In every Indian war — and we have been engaged in many of them — our armies have triumphed ; and without speaking at all as to the causes of the recent war with Mexico, whether it was right or wrong, and abstaining from any expression of opinion as to the justice or propriety of the war, when once commenced all must admit that, with respect to the gallantry of our armies, the glory of our triumphs, there is no page or pages of history which record more brilliant successes. With respect to one commander of an important portion of our army I need say nothing here ; no praise is necessary in behalf of one who has been elevated by the voice of his country to the highest station she could place him in, mainly on account of his glorious military career. And of another, less fortunate in' many respects than some other military commanders, I must take the opportunity of saying, that for skill, for science, for strategy, for ability, and daring fighting, for chi\-alry of individuals and of masses, that portion of the American army which was conducted by the gallant Scott, as the chief ^ commander, stands unrivaled either by the deeds of Cortez himself, or by those of any other commander in ancient or modern times.

Sir, our prosperity is unbounded — nay, Mr. President, I sometimes fear that it is in the wantonness of that prosperity that many of the threatening ills of the moment have arisen. Wild and erratic schemes have sprung up throughout the whole country, some of which have even found their way into legislative halls ; and there is a restlessness existing among us which I fear will require the chastisement of Heaven to bring us back to a sense of the immeasurable benefits and blessings which have been bestowed upon us by Providence. At this moment — with the exception of here and there a particular department in the manufacturing business of the country— all is prosperity and j^eace, and the nation is rich and powerful. Our country has grown to a magnitude, to a power and greatness, such as to conmiand the respect, if it does not awe the apprehensions, of the powers of the earth, with whom we come in contact.

Sir, do I depict with colors too lively the prosperity which has resulted to us from the operations of this Union ? Have I exaggerated in any particular her power, her prosperity, or her greatness ? And now, sir, let me go a little into detail with respect to sway in the councils of the nation, whether from the North or the South, during the sixty years of unparalleled prosperity that we have enjoyed. During the first twelve years of the administration of the Government Northern counsels rather prevailed ; and out of them sprang the Bank of the United States, the assumption of the State debts, bounties to the fisheries, protection to our domestic manufactures— I alUide to the act of 1789 — neutrality in the Avars of Europe, Jay's treaty, the alien and sedition laws, and war with France. I do not say, sir, that these, the leading and prominent measures which were adopted during the administrations of Washington and the elder Adams, were carried exclusively by Northern counsels — they could not have been — but mainly by the ascendency wliich Northern counsels had obtained in the afhiirs of the nation. So, sii', of tlie later period — for the last fifty years.

I do not Tnean to say that Southern counsels alone have carried the measures which I am about to enumerate. I know they could not exclusively have c u'ried them, but I say that they have been carried by their preponderatino- influence, with the co-o])eration, it is true — the large cooperation in some instances — of the Northern section of the Union. And what are those measures ? During that fif.y years, or nearly that period, in which Southern counsels have preponderated, the embargo and other commercial restrictions of non-intercourse and non-im])ortation were imposed ; war with Great Britain, the Bank of the United States overthrown, protection enlarged and extended to domestic manufectures — I allude to the passage of the act of 1815 or 1816 — the Bank of the United States re-established, the same bank ])ut down, re-established by Southern counsels and put down by Southern counsels, Louisiana acquired, Florida bought, Texas annexed, war with Mexico, California and other territories acquired from Mexico by conquest and purchase, })rotection supei'seded, and free trade established, Indians removed Avest of the Mississippi, and fifteen new States admitted into the Union. It is very possible, sii-, that in this enumeration I may have omitted some of the important measures which have been adopted duung this later period of time — the' last fifty years — but these I believe to be the most prominent ones.

Now, sir, I do not deduce from the enumeration of the measures adopted by the one side or the other any just cause of reproach either upon one side or the other ; though one side or the other has predominated in the two periods to which I have referied. These measures were, to say the least, the joint work of both parties, and neither of them have any just cause to reproach the other. But, sir, I must say, in all kindness and sincerity, that least of all ought the South to reproach the North, when we look at the long list of measures which, rmder her sway in the counsels of the nation, have been adopted ; when we reflect that even opposite doctrines have been from time to time advanced by her ; that the establishment of the Bank of the United States, which was done imder the administration of Mr. Madison, met with the co-operation of the South — I do not say the whole South — I do not, when I speak of the South or the North, speak of the entire South or the entire North ; I speak of the prominent and la'ger proportion of Southei'n and Northern men. It was during Mr. Madison's administration that the Bank of the United States was established. My friend, whose sickness — which I very much deplore — prevents us from having his attendance upon this occasion (Mr. Calhoun), was the chairman of the committee, and carried the measuie through Congress. I voted for it with all my heart. Although I had been insti'umental with other Southern votes in putting down the Baidc of the United States, I changed my opinion and co-operated in the establishment of the Bank of 1816. The same bank was again put down by Southern counsels, with General Jackson at their head, at a later period. Again, with lespect to the policy of protection. The South in 1815 — I mean the prominent Southern men, the lamented Lowndes, Mr. Calhoun, and others — united in extending a certain measure of protection to domestic manufactures as well as the North.

We find a few years afterward (he South interposing most serious objections to this policy, and one member of the South, threatening on that occasion, a dissolution of the Um'on or separation. Now, sir, let us take another view of the question — and I would remark that all these views are brought forward not in a spirit of reproach, but of conciliation — not to

8.42 SPEECH ON THE provoke or exasperate, but to quiet, to produce liarmony and repose, if possible. What have been the territorial acquisitions made by this country, and to what interests have they conduced i Florida, where slavery exists, has been introduced ; Louisiana, or all the most valuable part of that State —for although there is a large extent of territory north of the line 36° 30', in' point of intiinsic value and importance, I would not give the single State of Louisiana for the whole of it — all Louisiana, I say, with the exception of that which lies north of 36° 30', including Oregon, to which we obtained title mainly on the ground of its being a part of the acquisition of Louisiana ; all Texas ; all the territories which have been acquired by the Government of the United States during its sixty years' operation have been slave territories, the theater of slavery, with the exception that I have mentioned of that lying north of the line 36° 30'.

And here, in the case of a war made essentially by the South — growing out of the annexation of Texas, which was a measure proposed by the South in the councils of the country, and which led to the war with Mexico — I do not say all of the South, but the mnjor portion of the South pressed the annexation of Texas upon the country — that measure, as I have said, led to the war with Mexico, and the war with Mexico led to the acquisition of those territories which now constitute the bone of contention between the different members of the Confederacy. And now, sir, for the first time after the three great acquisitions of Texas, Florida, and Louisiana have been made and have redounded to the benefit of the South — now, for the first time, when three territories are attempted to be introduced without the institution of slavery, I put it to the hearts of my countrymen of the South, if it is right to press matters to the disastrous consequences which have been indicated no longer ago than this very morning, on the occasion of the ])resentation of certain resolutions — even extending to a dissolution of the Union, Mr. President, I can not beheve it.

Mr. Underwood — Will the Senator give way for an adjournment ?

Ml'. Clay — Oh, no ; if I do not weary the patience of the Senate, I prefer to go on. I think I can begin to see land. I shall soon come to the conclusion of what I have to say.. Such is the Union, and such are the glorious fruits which aie now threatened with subversion and destruction. Well, sir, the first question which naturally arises is, supposing the Union to be dissolved for any of the causes or grievances which are complained of, how far will dissolution furnish a remedy for those grievances ? If the Union is to be dissolved for any existing cause, it will be because slavery is interdicted or not allowed to be introduced into the ceded territories ; or because slavery is threatened to be abolished in the District of Columbia ; or because fugitive slaves are not restored, as in my opinion they ought to be, to their masters. These, I beheve, would be the causes, if there be any causes which can lead to the dreadful event to which I have referred. Let us suppose the Union dissolved ; what remedy does it, in a severed state, furnish for the grievances complained of in its united condition ? Will you be able at the South to push slavery into the ceded territory ? How are you to do it, supposing the North, or all the States north of the Potomac, in possession of the navy and army of the United States ? Can you expect, I say, under these circumstances, that if there is a dissolution of the Union you can carry slavery into California and New Mexico ? Sir, you can not dream of such an occurrence.

If it were abohshed in the District of Columbia and the Union were dissolved, would the dissolution of the Union restore slavery in the District of Columbia? Is your chance for the recovery of your fugitive slaves safer in a state of dissolution or of severance of the Union than when in the Union itself? Why, sir, what is the state of the fact? .In the Union you lose some slaves and recover others ; but here let me revert to a fact which I ought to have noticed before, because it is highly creditable to the courts and juries of the free States. In every instance, as far as my information extends, in which an appeal has been made to the courts of justice to recover penalties from those who have assisted in decoying slaves from theii' masters — in every instance, as tar as I have heard, the court has asserted the rights of the owner, and the jury has promptly returned an adequate verdict on his belialf. Well, sii', there is then some remedy while you are a part of the Union for the recovery of your slaves, and some indemnification for their loss. What would you have, if the Union was severed ? Why, then the several parts would be independent of each other — foreign countries — and slaves escaping from one to the other would be like slaves escaping from the United States to Canada. There would be no right of extradition, no right to demand your slaves ; no right to appeal to the courts of justice to indemnify you for the loss of your slaves. Where one slave escapes now by running away from his master, hundreds and thousands would escape if the Union were dissevered — I cave not how or where you run the line, or whether independent sovereignties be estabhshed. Well, sir, finally, will you, in case of a dissolution of the Union, be safer with your slaves within the separated portions of the States than you are now ? Mr. President, that they will escape much more frequently from the border States no one will deny.

And, sir, I must take ocjcasion here to say that in my opinion there is no right on the part of any one or more of the States to secede from the Union. War and dissolution of the Union are identical and inevitable, in my opinion. There can be a dissolution of the Union only by consent or by war. Consent no one can anticipate, from any existing state of things, is likely to be given, and war is the only alternative by which a dissolution could be accomplished. If consent were given — if it were possible that we were to be separated by one great line — in less than sixty days after such consent was eiven war would break out between the slaveholuing and non-slaveholding portions of this Union — between the two independent parts into which it would be erected in virtue of the act of separation. In less than sixty days, I believe, our slaves from Kentucky, flocking over in numbers to the other side of the river, would be pursued by their owners. Our hot and ardent spirits would be restrained by no sense of the right which appertains to the independence of the other side of the river, should that be the line of separation. They would pursue their slaves into the adjacent free States ; they would be repelled, and the consequence would be that, in less than sixty days, war would be blazing in every part of this now happy and peaceful land.

And, si)', how are you going to separate the States of this Confederacy? In my humble opinion, Mr. President, we should begin with at least three separate Confederacies. There would be a Confederacy of the North, a Confederacy of the Southern Atlantic slaveholding States, and a Confederacy of the valley of the Mississippi. My life upon it, that the vast population which has already concentrated and will concentrate on the head-waters and the tributaries of the Mississippi will never give their consent that the mouth of that river shall be held subject to the power of any foreign State or community whatever. Such, I believe, would be the consequences of a dissolution of the Union, immediately ensuing; but other Confederacies would spring up from time to time, as dissatisfaction and discontent were

34A SPEECH ON THE disseminated througliout the country — the Confederacy of the lakes, perhaps the Confederacy of New England, or of the middle States. Ah, sir, the vail which covers these sad and disastrous events that lie beyond it, is too thick to be penetrated or lifted by any mortal eye or hand.

Mr. President, I am directly opposed to any purpose of secession or separation. I am for staying within the Union, and defying any portion of this Confederacy to expel me or drive me out of the Union. I am for staying within the Union and fighting for my rights, if necessary, with the sword, within the bounds and under the safeguard of the Union. I am for vindicating those rights, not by being driven out of the Union harshly and unceremoniously by any portion of this Confederacy. Here I am within it, and here I mean to stand and die, as far as my individual wishes or purposes can go — within it to protect my property and defend myself, defying all the power on earth to expel me or drive me from the situation in which I am placed. And would there not be more safety in lighting within the Union than out of it ? Suppose your rights to be violated,- suppose wrong to be done you, aggressions to be perpetrated upon you, can you not better vindicate them — if you have occasion to resort to the last necessity, the sword, for a restoration of those rights — within, and with the sympathies of a large i:)ortion of the population of the Union, than by being without the Union, when a large portion of the population have sympathies adverse to your own ? You can vindicate your rights within the Union better than if expelled from the Union, and driven from it without ceremony and "without authority.

Sir, I have said that I thought there was no light on the part of one or more States to secede from the Union. I think so. The Constitution of the United States Avas made not merely for the generation that then existed, but for posterity — unlimited, undefined, endless, perpetual posterity. And every State that then came into the Union, and every State that has since come into the Union, came into it binding itself, by indissoluble bands, to remain within the Union itself, and to remain within it by its posterity forever. Like another of the sacred connections, in private life, it is a marriage which no human authority can dissolve or divorce the parties from. And if I may be allowed to refer to some examples in private life, let me say to the North and to the South, what husband and wife say to each otlier. We have mutual faults ; neither of us is perfect ; nothing in the form of humanity is perfect; let us, then, be kind to each other — forbearing, forgiving each other's faults — and above all, let us live in happiness and peace together.

Mr. President, I have said, what I solemnly believe, that dissolution of the Union and war are identical and inevitable ; and they are convertible terms ; and such a war as it would be, following a dissolution of the Union ! Sir, we may search the pages of history, and none so ferocious, so bloody, so implacable, so exterminating — not even the wars of Greece, including those of the Commoners of England and the revolutions of France — none, none of them all would rage with such violence, or be characterized with such bloodshed and enormities as would the war which must succeed, if that event ever happens, the dissolution of the Union. And what would be its termination ? Standing armies, and navies, to an extent stretching the revenues of each portion of the dissevered members, would take place. An exterminating war would follow — not, sir, a war of two or three years' duration, but a war of interminable duration — and exterminating wars would ensue, until, after the struggles and exhaustion of both parties, some Philip or Alexander, some Csesai' or Napoleon, would arise and cut the

Gordian knot, and solve the problem of the capacity of man for self-government, and crush the liberties of both the severed portions of this common empire. Can you doubt it 1

Look at all history — consult her pages, ancient or modern — look at human nature ; look at the contest in which you would be engaged in the supposition of war following upon the dissolution of the Union, such as I have suggested ; and I ask you if it is possible for you to doubt that the final disposition of the whole would be some despot treading down the liberties of the people — the final result would be the extinction of this last and glorious light which is leading all mankind, who ai'e gazing upon it, in the hope and anxious expectation that the liberty which prevails here will sooner or later be diftused throughout the whole of the- civilized world. Sir, can you lightly contemplate these consequences ? Can you yield yourself to the tyranny of passion, amid dangers which I have de])icted in colors far too tame of what the result would be if that direful event to which I have referred should ever occur ? Sir, I implore gentlemen, I adjure them, whether from the South or the North, by all that they hold dear in this world — by all their love of liberty — by all their veneration for their ancestors — by all their regard for posterity — by all their gratitude to Him who has bestowed on them such unnumbered and countless blessings — by all the duties which they owe to mankind — and by all the duties which they owe to themselves, to pause, solemnly to pause at the edge of the precipice, before the fearful and dangerous leap be taken into tlie yawning abyss below, from which none who ever take it shall return in safety.

Finally, Mr. President, and in conclusion, I implore, as the best blessing which Heaven can bestow upon me, upon earth, that if the direful event of the dissolution of this Union is to happen, I shall not survive to behold the sad and heart-rending spectacle.

JOHN C. CALHOUN: SPEECH ON THE SLAVERY QUESTION (March 4, 1850)

On the Slavery Question, delivered in the Senate, March 4th, 1850.

il HAVE, Senators, believed from the first that the agita tion of the subject of slavery would, if not prevented by some timely and effective measure, end in disunion. Entertaining this opinion, I have, on all proper occasions, endeavored to call the attention of both the two great parties which divide the country to adopt some measure to prevent so great a disaster, but without success. The agitation has been per mitted to proceed, with almost no attempt to resist it, until it has reached a point when it can no longer be disguised or denied that the Union is in danger. You have thus had forced upon you the greatest and the gravest question that can ever come under your consideration-^-How can the Union be preserved ?

To give a satisfactory answer to this mighty question, it is indispensable to have an accurate and thorough knowledge of the nature and the character of the cause by which the Union is endangered. Without such knowledge it is impos sible to pronounce, with any certainty, by what measure it can be saved ; just as it would be impossible for a physician to pronounce, in the case of some dangerous disease, with any certainty, by what remedy the patient could be saved, with out similar knowledge of the nature and character of the causu which produced it. The first question, then, pre sented for consideration, in the investigation I propose to make, in order to obtain such knowledge, is — What is it that has endangered the Union ?

To this question there can be but one answer, — that the immediate cause is the almost universal discontent which pervades all the States composing the Southern section of the Union. This widely-extended discontent is not of recent origin. It commenced with the agitation of the slavery question, and has been increasing ever since. The next question, going one step further back, is — What has caused this widely diffused and almost universal discontent ?

It is a great mistake to suppose, as is by some, that it originated with demagogues, who excited the discontent with the intention of aiding their personal advancement, or with the disappointed ambition of certain politicians, who resorted to it as the means of retrieving their fortunes. On the con trary, all the great political influences of the section were arrayed against excitement, and exerted to the utmost to keep the people quiet. The great mass of the people of the South were divided, as in the other section, into Whigs and Democrats. The leaders and the presses of both parties in the South were very solicitous to prevent excitement and to preserve quiet ; because it was seen that the effects of the former would necessarily tend to weaken, if not destroy, the political ties which united them with their respective parties in the other section. Those who know the strength of party ties will readily appreciate the immense force which this cause exerted against agitation, and in favor of preserving quiet. But, great as it was, it was not sufficient to prevent the wide-spread discontent which now pervades the section. No ; some cause, far deeper and more powerful than the one supposed, must exist, to account for discontent, so wide and deep. The question then recurs — What is the cause of this discontent ? It will be found in the belief of the people of the Southern States, as prevalent as the discontent itself, that they cannot remain, as things now are, consistently with honor and safety, in the Union. The next question to be considered is — What has caused this belief?

One of the causes is, undoubtedly, to be traced to the long-continued agitation of the slave question on the part of the North, and the many aggressions which they have made on the rights of the South during the time. I will not enumerate them at present, as it will be done hereafter in its proper place.

There is another lying back of it — with which this is intimately connected — that may be regarded as the great and primary cause. This is to be found in the fact that the equilibrium between the two sections, in the Government as it stood when the constitution was ratified and the Govern ment put in action, has been destroyed. At that time there was nearly a perfect equilibrium between the two, which afforded ample means to each to protect itself against the aggression of the other ; but, as it now stands, one section has the exclusive power of controlling the Government, which leaves the other without any adequate means of pro tecting itself against its encroachment and oppression. To place this subject distinctly before you, I have, Senators, prepared a brief statistical statement, showing the relative weight of the two sections in the Government under the first census of 1790 and the last census of 1840.

According to the former, the population of the United States, including Vermont, Kentucky, and Tennessee, which then were in their incipient condition of becoming States, but were not actually admitted, amounted to 3,929,827. Of this number the Northern States had 1,997,899, and the Southern 1,952,072, making a difference of only 45,827 in favor of the former States. The number of States, includ ing Vermont, Kentucky, and Tennessee, were sixteen ; of which eight, including Vermont, belonged to the Northern section, and eight, including Kentucky and Tennessee, to the Southern, — making an equal division of the States between the two sections under the first census. There was a small preponderance in the House of Kepresentatives, and in the Electoral College, in favor of the Northern, owing to the fact that, according to the provisions of the constitution, in esti mating federal numbers five slaves count but three ; but it was too small to affect sensibly the perfect equilibrium Which, with that exception, existed at the time. Such was the equality of the two sections when the States composing them agreed to enter into a Federal Union. Since then the equilibrium between them has been greatly disturbed.

According to the last census the aggregate population of the United States amounted to 17,063,357, of which the Northern section contained 9,728,920, and the Southern 7,334,437, making a difference, in round numbers, of 2,400,000. The number of States had increased from six teen to twenty-six, making an addition of ten States. In the mean time the position of Delaware had become doubtful as to which section she properly belonged. Considering her as neutral, the Northern States will have thirteen and the Southern States twelve, making a difference in the Senate of two Senators in favor of the former. According to the apportionment under the census of 1840, there were two hundred and twenty-three members of the House of Repre sentatives, of which the Northern States had one hundred and thirty-five, and the Southern States (considering Dela ware as neutral) eighty-seven, making a difference in favor of the former in the House of Representatives of forty-eight. The difference in the Senate of two members, added to this, gives to the North, in the electoral college, a majority of fifty. Since the census of 1840, four States have been added to the Union — Iowa, Wisconsin, Florida, and Texas. They leave the difference in the Senate as it stood when the census was taken ; but add two to the side of the North in the House, making the present majority in the House in its favor fifty, and in the electoral college fifty-two.

The result of the whole is to give the Northern section a predominance in every department of the Government, and thereby concentrate in it the two elements which consti tute the Federal Government, — majority of States, and a majority of their population, estimated in federal numbers. VOL. iv. — 35

Whatever section concentrates the two in itself possesses the control of the entire Government. J

But we are just at the close of the sixth decade, and the commencement of the seventh. The census is to be taken this year, which must add greatly to the decided preponder ance of the North in the House of Kepresentatives and in the electoral college. The prospect is, also, that a great in crease will be added to its present preponderance in the Sen ate, during the period of the decade, by the addition of new States. Two territories, Oregon and Minnesota, are already in progress, and strenuous efforts are making to bring in three additional States from the territory recently conquered from Mexico ; which, if successful, will add three other States in a short time to the Northern section, making five States ; and increasing the present number of its States fronl fifteen to twenty, and of its Senators from thirty to forty. On the con trary, there is not a single territory in progress in the Southern section, and no certainty that any additional State will be added to it during the decade. The prospect then is, that the two sections in the Senate, should the efforts now made to exclude the South from the newly acquired territories succeed, will stand, before the end of the decade, twenty Northern States to fourteen Southern (considering Delaware as neutral), and forty Northern Senators to twenty-eight Southern. This great increase of Senators, added to the great increase of members of the House of Kepresentatives and the electoral college on the part of the North, which must take place under the next decade, will effectually and irretrievably destroy the equilibrium which existed when the Government commenced.

' Had this destruction been the operation of time, without the interference of Government, the South would have had no reason to complain ; but such was not the fact. It was caused by the legislation of this Government, which was ap pointed, as the common agent of all, and charged with the protection of the interests and security of all. The legisla tion by which it has been effected, may be classed under three heads. The first is, that series of acts by which the South has been excluded from the common territory belong ing to all the States as members of the Federal Union — which have had the effect of extending vastly the portion al lotted to the Northern section, and restricting within nar row limits the portion left the South. The next consists in adopting a system of revenue and disbursements, by which an undue proportion of the burden of taxation has been im posed upon the South, and an undue proportion of its pro ceeds appropriated to the North ; and the last is a system of political measures, by which the original character of the Government has been radically changed. I propose to be stow upon each of these, in the order they stand, a few re marks, with the view of showing that it is owing to the .ac tion of this Government, that the equilibrum between the two sections has been destroyed, and the whole powers of the system centered in a sectional majority.)

The first of the series of acts by which the South was deprived of its due share of the territories, originated with the confederacy which preceded the existence of this Gov ernment. It is to be found in the provision of the ordinance of 1787. Its effect was to exclude the South entirely from that vast and fertile region which lies between the Ohio and the Mississippi rivers, now embracing five States and one territory. The next of the series is the Missouri compro mise, which excluded the South from that large portion of Louisiana which lies north of 36° 30', excepting what is in cluded in the State of Missouri. The last of the series ex cluded the South from the whole of the Oregon Territory. All these, in the slang of the day, were what are called slave territories, and not free soil ; that is, territories belong ing to slaveholding powers and open to the emigration of masters with their slaves. By these several acts, the South was excluded from 1,238,025 square miles — an extent of country considerably exceeding the entire valley of the Mississippi. To the South was left the portion of the Ter ritory of Louisiana lying south of 36° 30', and the portion north of it included in the State of Missouri, with the por tion lying south of 36° 30', including the States of Louisi ana and Arkansas, and the territory lying west of the latter, and south of 36° 30', called the Indian country. These, with the Territory of Florida, now the State, make, in the whole, 283,503 square miles. To this must be added the territory acquired with Texas. If the whole should be added to the Southern section, it would make an increase of 325,520, which would make the whole left to the South, 609,0213. But a large part of Texas is still in contest be tween the two sections, which leaves it uncertain what will be the real extent of the portion of territory that may be left to the South.

I have not included the territory recently acquired by the treaty with Mexico. The North is making the most strenuous efforts to appropriate the whole to herself, by ex cluding the South from every foot of it. If she should suc ceed, it will add to that from which the South has already been excluded, 526,078 square miles, and would increase the whole which the North has appropriated to herself, to 1,764,023, not including the portion that she may succeed in excluding us from in Texas. To sum up the whole, the United States, since they declared their independence, have acquired 2,373,046 square miles of territory, from which the North will have excluded the South, if she should succeed in monopolizing the newly acquired territories, about threefourths of the whole, leaving to the South but about onefourth.

Such is the first and great cause that has destroyed the equilibrium between the two sections in the Government.

The next is the system of revenue and disbursements jqu:

which has been adopted by the Government. It is well known that the Government has derived its revenue mainly from duties on imports. I shall not undertake to show that such duties must necessarily fall mainly on the exporting States, and that the South, as the great exporting portion of the Union, has in reality paid vastly more than her due pro portion of the revenue ; because I deem it unnecessary, as the subject has on so many occasions been fully discussed. Nor shall I, for the same reason, undertake to show that a far greater portion of the revenue has been dislursed at the North, than its due share ; and that the joint effect of these causes has been, to transfer a vast amount from South to North, which, under an equal system of revenue and dis bursements, would not have been lost to her. If to this be added, that many of the duties were imposed, not for reve nue, but for protection, — that is, intended to put money, not in the treasury, but directly into the pocket of the manufac turers, — some conception may be formed of the immense amount which, in the long course of sixty years, has been transferred from South to North. There are no data by which it can be estimated with any certainty ; but it is safe to say, that it amounts to hundreds of millions of dollars. Under the most moderate estimate, it would be sufficient to add greatly to the wealth of the North, and thus greatly in crease her population by attracting emigration from all *t/ quarters to that section.

This, combined with the great primary cause, amply ex plains why the North has acquired a preponderance in every department of the Government by its disproportionate in crease of population and States. The former, as has been shown, has increased, in fifty years, 2,400,000 over that of the South. This increase of population, during so long a period, is satisfactorily accounted for, by the number of em igrants, and the increase of their descendants, which have been attracted to the Northern section from Europe and the

South, in consequence of the advantages derived from the causes assigned. If they had not existed — if the South had retained all the capital which has been extracted from he* by the fiscal action of the Government ; and, if it had not been excluded by the ordinance of 1787 and the Missouri compromise, from the region lying between the Ohio and the Mississippi rivers, and between the Mississippi and the Kocky Mountains north of 36° 30'-\it scarcely admits of a doubt, that it would have divided the emigration with the North/ and by retaining her own people, would have at least equalled the North in population under the census *bf 1840, and probably under that about to be taken. She would also, if she had retained her equal rights in those territories, have maintained an equality in the number of States with the North, and have preserved the equilibrium between the two sections that existed at the commencement of the Government. The loss, then, of the equilibrium is to be attributed to the action of this Government.

But while these measures were destroying the equilibrium between the two sections, the action of the Government was leading to a radical change in its character, by concentra ting all the power of the system in itself. The occasion will not permit me to trace the measures by which this great change has been consummated. If it did, it would not be difficult to show that the process commenced at an early pe riod of the Government : and that it proceeded, almost with-

S~ ~~" ""***** s*' "*' *V out interruption, step by step, until it(absorbea\virtuallyj its entire powers; but without going through the wholeprocess to establish the fact, it may be done satisfactorily by a very short statement.

That the Government claims, and practically maintains, the right to decide in the last resort, as to the extent of its powers, will scarcely be denied by any one conversant with the political history of the country. That it also claims the right to resort to force to maintain whatever power it claims, against all opposition, is equally certain. Indeed it is appa rent, from what we daily hear, that this has become the pre vail ing and fixed opinion of a great majority of the commu nity. Now, I ask, what limitation can possibly be placed upon the powers of a government claiming and exercising such rights ? And, if none can be, how can the separate governments of the States maintain and protect the pow ers reserved to them by the constitution — or the people of the several States maintain those which are reserved to them, and among others, the sovereign powers by which they ordained and established, not only their separate State Con stitutions and Governments, but also the Constitution and Government of the United States ? But, if they have no constitutional means of maintaining them against the right claimed by this Government, it necessarily follows, that they hold them at its pleasure and discretion, and that all the powers of the system are in reality concentrated in it. It also follows, that the character of the Government has been changed in consequence, from a federal republic, as it origi nally came from the hands of its framers, into a great na tional consolidated democracy. It has indeed, at present, all the characteristics of the latter, and not one of the for mer, although it still retains its outward form. .

The result of the whole of these causes combined is — that the North has acquired a decided ascendency over every department of this Government, and through it a con trol over all the powers of the system. A single section gov erned by the will of the numerical majority, has now, in fact, the control of the Government and the entire powers of the system. What was once a constitutional federal re public, is now converted, in reality, into one as absolute as that of the Autocrat of Russia, and as despotic in its ten dency as any absolute government that ever existed.

As, then, the North has the absolute control over the Government, it is manifest, that on all questions between it and the South, where there is a diversity of interests, the interest of the latter will be sacrificed to the former, howevei oppressive the effects may be ; (as the South possesses no means by which it can resist, through the action of the Gov ernment. ) But if there was no question of vital importance' to the South, in reference to which there was a diversity of views between the two sections, this state of things might be endured, without the hazard of destruction to the South. But such is not the fact. There is a question of vital im portance to the Southern section, in reference to which the views and feelings of the two sections are as opposite and hostile as they can possibly be.

I refer to the relation between the two races in the Southern section, which constitutes a vital portion of her social organization. Every portion of the North entertains views and feelings more or less hostile to it. Those most opposed and hostile, regard it as a sin, and consider them selves under the most sacred obligation to use every effort to destroy it. Indeed, to the extent that they conceive they have power, they regard themselves as implicated in the sin, and responsible for not suppressing it by the use of all and every means. Those lees opposed and hostile, regard it as a crime — an offence against humanity, as they call it ; and, although not so fanatical, feel themselves bound to use all efforts to effect the same object ; while those who are least opposed and hostile, regard it as a blot and a stain on the character of what they call the Nation, and feel themselves accordingly bound to give it no countenance or support. On the contrary, the Southern section regards the relation as one which cannot be destroyed without subjecting the two ru-ces to the greatest calamity, and the section to pov erty, desolation, and wretchedness ; and accordingly they feel bound, by every consideration of interest and safety, to defend it.

This hostile feeling on the part of the North towards the social organization of, the South long lay dormant, but it only required some cause to act on those who felt most in tensely that they were responsible for its continuance, to call it into action. The increasing power of this Govern ment, and of the control of the Northern section over all its departments, furnished the cause. It was this which made an impression on the minds of many, that there was little or no restraint to prevent the Government from doing what ever it might choose to do. This was sufficient of itself to put the most fanatical portion of the North in action, for the purpose of destroying the existing relation between the two races in the South.

The first organized movement towards it commenced in j 1835. Then, for the first time, societies were organized, ' presses established, lecturers sent forth to excite the people of the North, and incendiary publications scattered over the whole South, through the mail. The South was thoroughly aroused. Meetings were held every where, and resolutions adopted, calling upon the North to apply a remedy to arrest the threatened evil, and pledging themselves to adopt meas ures for their own protection, if it was not arrested. At the meeting of Congress, petitions poured in from the North, calling upon Congress to abolish slavery in the District of Columbia, and to prohibit, what they called, the internal slave trade between the States — announcing at the same time, that their ultimate object was to abolish slavery, i\ot\ only in the District, but in the States and throughout \ the Union. At this period, the number engaged in the agitation was small, and possessed little or no personal in fluence.

Neither party in Congress had, at that time, any sympa thy with them or their cause. The members of each- party presented their petitions with great reluctance. Neverthe less, small and contemptible as the party then was, both of the great parties of the North dreaded them. They felt,

that though small, they were organized in reference to a sub ject which had a great and a commanding influence over the Northern mind. Each party, on that account, feared to oppose their petitions, lest the opposite party should take advantage of the one who might do so, by favoring them. The effect was, that both united in insisting that the peti tions should be received, and that Congress should take jurisdiction over the subject. To justify their course, they took the extraordinary ground, that Congress was bound to receive petitions on every subject, however objectionable they might be, and whether they had, or had not, jurisdiction over the subject. These views prevailed in the House of Kepresentatives, and partially in the Senate ; and thus the party succeeded in their first movements, in gaining what they proposed — a position in Congress, from which agitation could be extended over the whole Union. This was the commencement of the agitation, which has ever since con tinued, and which, as is now acknowledged, has endangered the Union itself.

As for myself, I believed at that early period, if the party who got up the petitions should succeed in getting Congress to take jurisdiction, that agitation would follow, and that it would in the end, if not arrested, destroy the Union. I then so expressed myself in debate, and called upon both parties to take grounds against assuming juris diction ; but in vain. Had rny voice been heeded, and had Congress refused to take jurisdiction, by the united votes of all parties, the agitation which followed would have been prevented, and the fanatical zeal that gives impulse to the agitation, and which has brought us to our present perilous condition, would have become extinguished, from the want of fuel to feed the flame. That was the time for the North to have shown her devotion to the Union ; but, unfor- ^unately, both of the great parties of that section were so intent on obtaining or retaining party ascendency, that all other considerations were overlooked or forgotten.

What has since followed are but natural consequences. With the success of their first movement, this small fanati cal party began to acquire strength ; and with that, to be come an object of courtship to both the great parties. The necessary consequence was, a further increase of power, and a gradual tainting of the opinions of both of the other par ties with their doctrines, until the infection has extended over both ; and the great mass of the population of the North, who, whatever may be their opinion of the original abolition party, which still preserves its distinctive organiza tion, hardly ever fail, when it comes to acting, to co-operate in carrying out their measures. With the increase of their influence, they extended the sphere of their action. In a short time after the commencement of their first movement, they had acquired sufficient influence to induce the legislatures of most of the Northern States to pass acts, which in effect abrogated the clause of the constitution that provides for the delivery up of fugitive slaves. Not long after, petitions followed to abolish slavery in forts, magazines, and dock yards, and all other places where Congress had exclusive power of legislation. This was followed by petitions and reso lutions of legislatures of the Northern States, and .popular meetings, to exclude the Southern States from all territories acquired, or to be acquired, and to prevent the admission of any State hereafter into the Union, which, by its constitution, does not prohibit slavery. And Congress is invoked to do all this, expressly with the view to the final abolition of slavery in the States. That has been avowed to be the ultimate object from the beginning of the agitation until the present time ; and yet the great body of both parties of the North, with the full knowledge of the fact, although disavowing the abo litionists, have co-operated with them in tilmost all their measures.

Such is a brief history of the agitation, as far as it has yet- advanced. Now I ask, Senators, what is there to pre vent its further progress, until it fulfils the ultimate end pro posed, unless some decisive measure should he adopted to prevent it ? Has any one of the causes, which has added to its increase from its original small and contemptible beginning until it has attained its present magnitude, diminished in force ? Is the original cause of the movement — that slavery is a sin, and ought to be suppressed — weaker now than at the com mencement ? Or is the abolition party less numerous or influential, or have ^hey less influence with, or control over the two great parties of the North in elections ? Or has the South greater means of influencing or controlling the movements of this Government now, than it had when the agitation commenced ? To all these questions but one answer can be given : No — no — no. The very reverse is true. Instead of being weaker, all the elements in favor of agitation are stronger now than they were in 1835, when it first commenced, while all the elements of influence on the part of the South are weaker. Unless something deci sive is done, I again ask, what is to stop this agitation, be fore the great and final object at which it aims — the aboli tion of slavery in the States — is consummated ? Is it, then, not certain, that if something is not done to arrest it, the South will be forced to choose between abolition and seces sion ? Indeed, as events are now moving, it will not require the South to secede, in order to dissolve the Union. Agita tion will of itself effect it, of which its past history furnishes abundant proof — as I shall next proceed to show.

It is a great mistake to suppose that disunion can be ef fected by a single blow. The cords which bound these States together in one common Union, are far too numerous and powerful for that. Disunion must be the work of time. It is only through a long process, and successively, that the cords can be snapped, until the whole fabric falls, asunder.

Already the agitation of the slavery question has snapped some of the most important, and has greatly weakened all the others, as I shall proceed to show.

The cords that bind the States together are not only many, but various in character. Some are spiritual or eccle siastical ; some political ; others social. Some appertain to the benefit conferred by the Union, and others to the feeling of duty and obligation.

The strongest of those of a spiritual and ecclesiastical na ture, consisted in the unity of the great religious denomi nations, all of which originally embraced the whole Union. All these denominations, with the exception, perhaps, of the Catholics, were organized very much upon the principle of our political institutions. Beginning with smaller meet ings, corresponding with the political divisions of the coun try, their organization terminated in one great central assem blage, corresponding very much with the character of Con gress. At these meetings the principal clergymen and lay members of the respective denominations, from all parts of the Union, met to transact business relating to their common concerns. It was not confined to what appertained to the doctrines and discipline of the respective denominations, but extended to plans for disseminating the Bible — establishing missions, distributing tracts — and of establishing presses for the publication of tracts, newspapers, and periodicals, with a view of diffusing religious information — and for the support of their respective doctrines and creeds. All this combined contributed greatly to strengthen the bonds of the Union. The ties which held each denomination together formed a strong cord to hold the whole Union together ; but, pow erful as they were, they have not been able to resist the ex plosive effect of slavery agitation.

The first of these cords which snapped, under its explo sive force, was that of the powerful Methodist Episcopal Church The numerous and strong ties which held it together, are all broken, and its unity gone. They now form separate churches ; and, instead of that feeling of attach ment and devotion to the interests of the whole church which was formerly felt, they are now arrayed into two hos tile bodies, engaged in litigation about what was formerly their common property.

The next cord that snapped was that of the Baptists — one of the largest and most respectable of the denomina tions. That of the Presbyterian is not entirely snapped, but some of its strands have given way. That of the Epis copal Church is the only one of the four great Protestant denominations which remains unbroken and entire.

The strongest cord, of a political character, consists of the many and powerful ties that have held together the two great parties which have, with some modifications, existed from the beginning of the Government. They both extend ed to every portion of the Union, and strongly contributed to hold all its parts together. But this powerful cord has fared no better than the spiritual. It resisted, for a long time, the explosive tendency of the agitation, but has finally snapped under its force — if not entirely, in a great measure. Nor is there one of the remaining cords which has not been greatly weakened. To this extent the Union has al ready been destroyed by agitation, in the only way it can be, by sundering and weakening the cords which bind it to gether.

If the agitation goes on, the same force, acting with in creased intensity, as has been shown, will finally snap every cord, when nothing will be left to hold the States together except force. But, surely, that can, with no propriety of language, be called a Union, when the only means by which the weaker is held connected with the stronger portion is force. It may, indeed, keep them connected ; but the con nection will partake much more of the character of subjugar tion, on the part of the weaker to the stronger, than the union of free, independent, and sovereign States, in one con federation, as they stood in the early stages of the Gov ernment, and which only is worthy of the sacred name of Union.

Having now, Senators, explained what it is that endan gers the Union, and traced it to its cause, and explained its nature and character, the question again recurs — How can the Union be saved ? To this I answer, there is but one way by which it can be — and that is — by adopting such measures as will satisfy the States belonging to the Southern section, that they can remain in the Union consistently with their honor and their safety. There is, again, only one way by which this can be effected, and that is — by removing the causes by which this belief has been produced. Do this, and discontent will cease — harmony and kind feelings between the sections be restored — and every apprehension of danger to the Union removed. The question, then, is — How can \ this be done ? But, before I undertake to answer this j question, I propose to show by what the Union cannot be saved.

It cannot, then, be saved by eulogies on the Union, how ever splendid or numerous. The cry of " Union, Union — the glorious Union !" can no more prevent disunion than the cry of " Health, health — glorious health !" on the part of the physician, can save a patient lying dangerously ill. So long as the Union, instead of being regarded as a protector, is regarded in the opposite character, by not much less than a majority of the States, it will be in vain to attempt to conciliate them by pronouncing eulogies on it.

Besides this cry of Union comes commonly from those whom we cannot believe to be sincere. It usually comes from our assailants. But we cannot believe them to be sincere ; for, if they loved the Union, they would necessarily be de voted to the constitution. It made the Union, — and to de stroy the constitution would be to destroy the Union. But the only reliable and certain evidence of devotion to the con stitution is, to abstain, on the one hand, from violating it, and to repel, on the other, all attempts to violate it. It is only by faithfully performing these high duties that the con stitution can be preserved, and with it the Union.

But how stands the profession of devotion to the Union by our assailants, when brought to this test ? Have they abstained from violating the constitution ? Let the many acts passed by the Northern States to set aside and annul the clause of the constitution providing for the delivery up of fu gitive slaves answer. I cite this, not that it is the only instance (for there are many others), but because the violation in this particular is too notorious and palpable to be denied. Again: have they stood forth faithfully to repel violations of the constitution ? Let their course in reference to the agitation of the slavery question, which was commenced and has been carried on for fifteen years, avowedly for the purpose of abol ishing slavery in the States — an object all acknowledged to be unconstitutional — answer. Let them show a single in stance, during this long period, in which they have denounced the agitators or their attempts to effect what is admitted to be unconstitutional, or a single measure which they have brought forward for that purpose. How can we, with all these facts before us, believe that they are sincere in their profession of devotion to the Union, or avoid believing their profession is but intended to increase the vigor of their as saults and to weaken the force of our resistance ?

Nor can we regard the profession of devotion to the Union, on the part of those who are not our assailants, as sincere, when they pronounce eulogies upon the Union, evi dently with the intent of charging us with disunion, without uttering one word of denunciation against our assailants. If friends of the Union, their course should be to unite with us in repelling these assaults, and denouncing the authors as enemies of the Union. Why they avoid this, and pursue the course they do, it is for them to explain.

Nor can the Union be saved by invoking the name of the illustrious Southerner whose mortal remains repose on the western bank of the Potomac. He was one of us — a slave holder and a planter. We have studied his history, and find nothing in it to justify submission to wrong. On the contra ry, his great fame rests on the solid foundation, that, while he was careful to avoid doing wrong to others, he was prompt and decided in repelling wrong. I trust that, in this respect, we profited by his example.

Nor can we find any thing in his history to deter us from seceding from the Union, should it fail to fulfil the objects for which it was instituted, by being permanently and hope lessly converted into the means of oppressing instead of pro tecting us. On the contrary, we find much in his example to encourage us, should we be forced to the extremity of de ciding between submission and disunion.

There existed then, as well as now, a union — that be tween the parent country and her then colonies. It was a union that had much to endear it to the people of the col onies. Under its protecting and superintending care, the colonies were planted and grew up and prospered, through a long course of years, until they became populous and wealthy. Its benefits were not limited to them. Their ex tensive agricultural and other productions, gave birth to a flourishing commerce, which richly rewarded the parent coun try for the trouble and expense of establishing and protecting them. Washington was born and grew up to manhood under that union. He acquired his early distinction in its service, and there is every reason to believe that he was devotedly at tached to it. But his devotion was a rational one. He was attached to it, not as an end, but as a means to an end. When it failed to fulfil its end, and, instead of affording pro tection, was converted into the means of oppressing the col- VOL. iv. — 36 onies, lie did not hesitate to draw his sword, and head the great movement by which that union was for ever severed, and the independence of these States established. This was the great and crowning glory of his life, which has spread his fame over the whole globe, and will transmit it to the latest posterity.

Nor can the plan proposed by the distinguished Senator from Kentucky, nor that of the administration save the Union. I shall pass by, without remark, the plan proposed by the Senator, and proceed directly to the consideration of that of the administration. I however assure the distin guished and able Senator, that, in taking this course, no dis respect whatever is intended to him or his plan. I have adopted it, because so many Senators of distinguished abili ties, who were present when he delivered his speech, and ex plained his plan, and who were fully capable to do justice to the side they support, have replied to him.

The plan of the administration cannot save the Union, because it can have no effect whatever, towards satisfying the States composing the southern section of the Union, that they can, consistently with safety and honor, remain in the Union. It is, in fact, but a modification of the Wilmot Pro viso. It proposes to effect the same object, — to exclude the South from all territory acquired by the Mexican treaty. It is well known* that the South is united against the Wilrnot Proviso, and has committed itself by solemn resolutions, to resist, should it be adopted. Its opposition is not to the name, but that which it proposes to effect. That, the Southern States hold to be unconstitutional, unjust, inconsistent with their equality as members of the common Union, and cal culated to destroy irretrievably the equilibrium between the two sections. These objections equally apply to what, for brevity, I will call the Executive Proviso. There is no dif ference between it and the Wilrnot, except in the mode of effecting the object ; and in that respect, I must say, that the latter is much the least objectionable. It goes to its object openly, boldly, and distinctly. It claims for Congress un limited power over the territories, and proposes to assert it over the territories acquired from Mexico, by a positive pro hibition of slavery. Not so the Executive Proviso. It takes an indirect course, and in order to elude the Wilmot Proviso, and thereby avoid encountering the united and determined resistance of the South, it denies, by implication, the author ity of Congress to legislate for the territories, and claims the right as belonging exclusively to the inhabitants of the territories. But to effect the object of excluding the South, it takes care, in the mean time, to let in emigrants freely frdrn the Northern States and all other quarters, except from the South, which it takes special care to exclude by holding up to them the danger of having their slaves liberated under the Mexican laws. The necessary consequence is to exclude the South from the territory, just as effectually as would the Wilmot Proviso. The only difference in this respect is, that what one proposes to effect directly and openly, the other proposes to effect indirectly and covertly.

But the Executive Proviso is more objectionable than the Wilmot, in another and more important particular. The latter, to effect its object, inflicts a dangerous wound upon the constitution, by depriving the Southern States, as joint partners and owners of the territories, of their rights in them; but it inflicts no greater wound than is absolutely necessary to effect its object. The former, on the contrary, while it inflicts the same wound, inflicts others equally great, and, if possible, greater, as I shall next proceed to explain.

In claiming the right for the inhabitants, instead of Con gress, to legislate for the territories, the Executive Proviso, assumes that the sovereignty over the territories is vested in the former : or to express it in the language used in a res olution offered by one of the Senators from Texas ( General Houston, now absent), they have " the same inherent right of self-government as the people in the States." The as sumption is utterly unfounded, unconstitutional, without ex ample, and contrary to the entire practice of the Government, from its commencement to the present time, as I shall pro ceed to show.

The recent movement of individuals in California to form a constitution and a State government, and to appoint Sena tors and Eepresentatives, is the first fruit of this monstrous assumption. If the individuals who made this movement had gone into California as adventurers, and if, as such, they had conquered the territory and estahlished their indepen dence, the sovereignty of the country would have been vested in them, as a separate and independent community. In that case, they would have had the right to form a constitution, and to establish a government for themselves ; and if, after wards, they thought proper to apply to Congress for admis sion into the Union as a sovereign and independent State, all this would have been regular, and according to established principles. But such is not the case. It was the United States who conquered California and finally acquired it by treaty. The sovereignty, of course, is vested in them, and not in the individuals who have attempted to form a consti tution and a State without their consent. All this is clear, beyond controversy unless it can be shown that they have since lost or been divested of their sovereignty.

Nor is it less clear, that the power of legislating over the acquired territory is vested in Congress, and not, as is as sumed, in the inhabitants of the territories. None can deny that the Government of the United States has the power to acquire territories, either by war or treaty ; but if the pow er to acquire exists, it belongs to Congress to carry it into ex ecution. On this point there can be no doubt, fbr the con stitution expressly provides, that Congress shall have power " to make all laws which shall be necessaiy and proper to carry into execution the foregoing powers " (those vested in

Congress), " and all other powers vested by this constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof/' It matters not, then, where the power is vested ; for, if vested at all in the Grovernment of the United States, or any of its departments, or officers, the power of carrying it into execution is clearly vested in Congress. But this important provision, while it gives to Congress the power of legislating over territories, imposes important limitations on its exercise, by restricting Congress to passing laws neces sary and proper for carrying the power into execution. The prohibition extends, not only to all laws not suitable or ap propriate to the object of the power, but also to all that are unjust, unequal, or unfair, — for all such laws would be un necessary and improper, and, therefore, unconstitutional.

Having now established, beyond controversy, that the sovereignty over the territories is vested in the United States, — that is, in the several States composing the Union, — and that the power of legislating over them is expressly vested in Congress, it follows, that the individuals in California who have undertaken to form a constitution and a State, and to exercise the power of legislating without the consent of Con gress, have usurped the sovereignty of the State and the au thority of Congress, and have acted in open defiance of both. In other words, what they have done is revolutionary and re bellious in its character, anarchical in its tendency, and cal culated to lead to the most dangerous consequences. Had they acted from premeditation and design, it would have been, in fact, actual rebellion ; but such is not the case. The blame lies much less upon them than upon those who have induced them to take a course so unconstitutional and dangerous. They have been led into it by language held here, and the course pursued by the Executive branch of the Government.

I have not seen the answer of the Executive to the calls made by the two Houses of Congress for information as to the course which it took, or the par^'which it acted, in reference to what was done in California. I understand the answers have not yet been printed. But there is enough known to justify the assertion, that those who profess to rep resent and act under the authority of the Executive., have advised, aided, and encouraged the movement, which termi nated in forming, what they call a constitution and a State. General Riley, who professed to act as civil Governor, called the convention — determined on the number, and distribution of the delegates — appointed the time and place of its meet ing — was present during the session — and gave its proceed ings his approbation and sanction. If he acted without au thority, he ought to have been tried, or at least reprimanded, and his course disavowed. Neither having been done, the presumption is, that his course has been approved. This, of itself, is sufficient to identify the Executive with his acts, and to make it responsible for them. I touch not the ques tion, whether General Riley was appointed, or received the in structions under which he professed to act from the present Executive, or its predecessor. If from the former, it would implicate the preceding, as well as the present adminis tration. If not, the responsibility rests exclusively on the present.

It is manifest from this statement, that the Executive Department has undertaken to perform acts preparatory to the meeting of the individuals to form their so called consti tution and government, which appertain exclusively to Con gress. Indeed, they are identical, in many respects, with the provisions adopted by Congress, when it gives permission to a territory to form a constitution and government, in order to be admitted as a State into the Union.

Having now shown that the assumption upon which the Executive, and the individuals in California, acted through out this whole affair, is unfounded, unconstitutional, and dangerous ; it remains to make a few remarks, in order to show that what has been done, is contrary to the entire practice of the Government, from the commencement to the present time.

From its commencement until the time that Michigan was admitted, the practice was uniform. Territorial govern ments were first organized by Congress. The Government of the United States appointed the governors, judges, sec retaries, marshals, and other officers ; and the inhabitants of the territory were represented by legislative bodies, whose acts were subject to the revision of Congress. This state of things continued until the government of a territory applied to Congress to permit its inhabitants to form a consti tution and government, preparatory to admission into the Union. The act preliminary to giving permission was, to ascertain whether the inhabitants were sufficiently numer ous to authorize them to be formed into a State. This was done by taking a census. That being done, and the num ber proving sufficient, permission was granted. The act granting it, fixed all the preliminaries — the time and place of holding the convention ; the qualification of the voters ; establishment of its boundaries, and all other measures neces sary to be settled previous to admission. The act giving permission necessarily withdraws the sovereignty of the United States, and leaves the inhabitants of the incipient State as free to form their constitution and government as were the original States of the Union after they had declared their independence. At this stage, the inhabitants of the territory became, for the first time, a people, in legal and constitutional language. Prior to this, they were, by the old acts of Congress, called inhabitants, and not people. All this is perfectly consistent with the sovereignty of the United States, with the powers of Congress, and with the right of a people to self-government.

Michigan was the first case in which there was any de parture from the uniform rule of acting. Hers was a very slight departure from established usage. The ordinance of

1787 secured to her the right of becoming a State, when she should have 60,000 inhabitants. Owing to some neglect, Congress delayed taking the census. In the mean time her population increased, until it clearly exceeded more than twice the number which entitled her to admission. At this stage, she formed a constitution and government, without a census being taken by the United States, and Congress waived the omis sion, as there was no doubt she had moie than a sufficient number to entitle her to admission. She was not admitted at the first session she applied, owing to some difficulty re specting the boundary between her and Ohio. The great irregularity, as to her admission, took place at the next ses sion — but on a point which can have no possible connection with the case of California.

The irregularities in all other cases that have since oc curred, are of a similar nature. In all, there existed territo rial governments established by Congress, with officers ap pointed by the United States. In all, the territorial gov ernment took the lead in calling conventions, and fixing the preliminaries preparatory to the formation of a constitution and admission into the Union. They all recognized the sov ereignty of the United States, and the authority of Congress over the territories ; and wherever there was any departure from established usage, it was done on the presumed consent of Congress, and not in defiance of its authority, or the sov ereignty of the United States over the territories. In this respect California stands alone, without usage or a single example to cover her case.

It belongs now, Senators, to you to decide what part you will act in reference to this unprecedented transaction. The Executive has laid the paper purporting to be the Con stitution of California before you, and asks you to admit her into the Union as a State ; and the question is, will you or will you not admit her ? It is a grave question, and there rests upon you a heavy responsibility. Much, very much, will depend upon your decision. If you admit her, you in dorse and give your sanction to all that has been done. Are you prepared to do so ? Are you prepared to surrender your power of legislation for the territories — a power expressly vested in Congress by the constitution, as has been fully established ? Can you, consistently with your oath to sup port the constitution, surrender the power ? Are you pre pared to admit that the inhabitants of the territories possess the sovereignty over them, and that any number, more or less, may claim any extent of territory they please ; may form a constitution and government, and erect it into a State, without asking your permission ? Are you prepared to surrender the sovereignty of the United States over what ever territory may be hereafter acquired to the first adven turers who may rush into it ? Are you prepared to surren der virtually to the Executive Department all the powers which you have heretofore exercised over the territories ? If not, how can you, consistently with your duty and your oaths to support the constitution, give your assent to the admission of California as a State, under a pretended con stitution and government ? Again, can you believe that the project of a constitution which they have adopted has the least validity ? Can you believe that there is such a State in reality as the State of California ? No ; there is no such State. It has no legal or constitutional existence. It has no validity, and can have none, without your sanction. How, then, can you admit it as a State, when, according to the provision of the constitution, your power is limited to admitting new States. To be admitted, it must be a State, — and an existing State, independent of your sanction, before you can admit it. When you give your permission to the inhabitants of a territory to form a constitution and a State, the constitution and State they form, derive their authority from the people, and not from you. The State, before it is admitted is actually a State, and does not become so by the act of admission, as would Jbe the case with California; should you admit her contrary to the constitutional provi sions and established usage heretofore.

The Senators on the other side of the Chamber must permit me to make a few remarks in this connection partic ularly applicable to them, — with the exception of a few Se nators from the South, sitting on the other side of the Chamber. — When the Oregon question was before this body, not two years since, you took (if I mistake not) universally the ground, that Congress had the sole and absolute power of legislating for the territories. How, then, can you now, after the short interval which has elapsed, abandon the ground which you took, and thereby virtually admit that the power of legislating, instead of being in Congress, is in the inhabitants of the territories ? How can you justify and sanction by your votes the acts of the Executive, which are in direct derogation of what you then contended for ? But to approach still nearer to the present time, how can you, after condemning, little more than a year since, the grounds taken by the party which you defeated at the last election, wheel round and support by your votes the grounds which, as explained recently on this floor by the candidate of the party in the last election, are identical with those on which the Executive has acted in reference to California ? What are we to understand by all this ? Must we conclude that there is no sincerity, no faith in the acts and declarations of public men, and that all is mere acting or hollow pro fession ? Or are we to conclude that the exclusion of the South from the territory acquired from Mexico is an object of so paramount a character in your estimation, that right, justice, constitution and consistency must all yield, when they stand in the way of our exclusion ?

But, it may be asked, what is to be done with California, should she not be admitted ? I answer, remand her back tc the territorial condition, as was done in the case of Tennessee, in the early stage of the Government. Congress, in her case, had established a territorial government in the usual form, with a governor, judges, and other officers, ap pointed by the United States. She was entitled, under the deed of cession, to be admitted into the Union as a State as soon as she had sixty thousand inhabitants. The territorial government, believing it had that number, took a census, by which it appeared it exceeded it. She then formed a con stitution, and applied for admission. CoDgress refused to admit her, on the ground that the census should be taken by the United States, and that Congress had not determined whether the territory should be formed into one or two States, as it was authorized to do under the cession. She re turned quietly to her territorial condition. An act was passed to take a census by the United States, containing a provision that the territory should form one State. All afterwards was regularly conducted, and the territory ad mitted as a State in due form. The irregularities in the case of California are immeasurably greater, and offer much stronger reasons for pursuing the same course. But, it may be said, California may not submit. That is not probable ; but if she should not, when she refuses, it will then be time for us to decide what is to be done.

Having now shown what cannot save the Union, I return to the question with which I commenced, How can the Union be saved ? There is but one way by which it can with any certainty ; and that is, by a full and final settle ment, on the principle of justice, of all the questions at issue between the two sections. The South asks for justice, simple justice, and less she ought not to take. She has no compromise to offer, but the constitution ; and no conces sion or surrender to make. She has already surrendered so much that she has little left to surrender. Such a settlemerit would go to the root of the evil, and remove all cause of discontent, by satisfying the South, she could remain lionorably and safely in the Union, and thereby restore the harmony and fraternal feelings between the sections^ which existed anterior to the Missouri agitation. Nothing else can, with any certainty, finally and for ever settle the ques tions at issue, terminate agitation, and save the Union.

But can this be done ? Yes, easily ; not by the weaker party, for it can of itself do nothing — not even protect itself — but by the stronger. The North has only to will it to accomplish it — to do justice by conceding to the South an equal right in the acquired territory, and to do her duty by causing the stipulations relative to fugitive slaves to be faithfully fulfilled — to cease the agitation of the slave ques tion, and to provide for the insertion of a provision in the constitution, by an amendment, which will restore to the South, in substance, the power she possessed of protecting herself, before the equilibrium between the sections was de stroyed by the action of this Government. There will be no difficulty in devising such a provision — one that will pro tect the South, and which, at the same time, will improve and strengthen the Government, instead of impairing and weakening it.

But will the North agree to this ? It is for her to an swer the question. But, I will say, she cannot refuse, if she has half the love of the Union which she professes to have, or without justly exposing herself to the charge that her love of power and aggrandizement is far greater than her love of the Union. At all events, the responsibility of saving the Union rests on the North, and not on the South. The South cannot save it by any act of hers, and the North may save it without any sacrifice whatever, unless to do justice, and to perform her duties under the constitution, should be regarded by her as a sacrifice.

It is time, Senators, that there should be an open and manly avowal on all sides, as to what is intended to be done. If the question is not now settled, it is uncertain whether it ever can hereafter be ; and we, as the representatives of the States of this Union, regarded as governments, should come to a distinct understanding as to our respective views, in or der to ascertain whether the great questions at issue can he settled or not. If you, who represent the stronger portion, -1 cannot agree to settle them on the broad principle of justice j and duty, say so ; and let the States we both represent agree to separate and part in peace. If you are unwilling we should part in peace, tell us so, and we shall know what to do, when you reduce the question to submission or resist ance. If you remain silent, you will compel us to infer by your acts what you intend. In that case, California will become the test question. If you admit her, under all the difficulties that oppose her admission, you compel us to in fer that you intend to exclude us from the whole of the ac quired territories, with the intention of destroying, irretriev ably, the equilibrium between the two sections. "We would be blind not to perceive in that case, that your real objects are power and aggrandizement, and infatuated not to act accordingly.

I have now, Senators, done my duty in expressing my opinions fully, freely, and candidly, on this solemn occasion. In doing so, I have been governed by the motives which have governed me in all the stages of the agitation of the slavery question since its commencement. I have exerted myself, during the whole period, to arrest it, with the inten tion of saving the Union, if it could be done ; and if it could not, to save the section where it has pleased Provi- I dence to cast my lot, and which I sincerely believe has jus- J tice and the constitution on its side. Having faithfully done my duty to the best of my ability, both to the Union and my section, throughout this agitation, I shall have the consolation, let what will come, that I am free from all responsibility.

DANIEL WEBSTER: THE CONSTITUTION AND THE UNION (Seventh of March Speech, 1850)

THE CONSTITUTION AND THE UNION.

A SPEECH DELIVERED IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES, ON THE 7TH OF
MARCH, 1850.

[On the 25th of January, 1850, Mr. Clay submitted a series of
resolutions to the Senate, on the subject of slavery, in connection with
the various questions which had arisen in consequence of the acquisition
of Mexican territory. These resolutions furnished the occasion of a
protracted debate. On Wednesday, the 6th of March, Mr. Walker of
Wisconsin engaged in the discussion, but, owing to the length of time
taken up by repeated interruptions, he was unable to finish his
argument. In the mean time it had been generally understood that Mr.
Webster would, at an early day, take an opportunity of addressing the
Senate on the present aspect of the slavery question, on the dangers to
the Union of the existing agitation, and on the terms of honorable
adjustment. In the expectation of hearing a speech from him on these
all-important topics, an immense audience assembled in the
Senate-Chamber at an early hour of Thursday, the 7th of March. The
floor, the galleries, and the antechambers of the Senate were crowded,
and it was with difficulty that the members themselves were able to
force their way to their seats.

At twelve o'clock the special order of the day was announced, and the
Vice-President stated that Mr. Walker of Wisconsin was entitled to the
floor. That gentleman, however, rose and said:--

     "Mr. President, this vast audience has not come together to hear
     me, and there is but one man, in my opinion, who can assemble such
     an audience. They expect to hear him, and I feel it to be my duty,
     therefore, as it is my pleasure, to give the floor to the Senator
     from Massachusetts. I understand it is immaterial to him upon which
     of these questions he speaks, and therefore I will not move to
     postpone the special order."

Mr. Webster then rose, and, after making his acknowledgments to the
Senators from Wisconsin (Mr. Walker) and New York (Mr. Seward) for their
courtesy in yielding the floor to him, delivered the following speech,
which, in consideration of its character and of the manner in which it
was received throughout the country, has been entitled a speech for "the
Constitution and the Union." In the pamphlet edition it was dedicated in
the following terms to the people of Massachusetts:--

WITH THE HIGHEST RESPECT,

AND THE DEEPEST SENSE OF OBLIGATION,

I DEDICATE THIS SPEECH

TO THE

PEOPLE OF MASSACHUSETTS.

"HIS EGO GRATIORA DICTU ALIA ESSE SCIO; SED ME VERA PRO GRATIS LOQUI,
ETSI MEUM INGENIUM NON MONERET, NECESSITAS COGIT. VELLEM, EQUIDEM, VOBIS
PLACERE; SED MULTO MALO VOS SALVOS ESSE, QUALICUMQUE ERGA ME ANIMO
FUTURI ESTIS."

DANIEL WEBSTER.]

Mr. President,--I wish to speak to-day, not as a Massachusetts man, nor
as a Northern man, but as an American, and a member of the Senate of the
United States. It is fortunate that there is a Senate of the United
States; a body not yet moved from its propriety, not lost to a just
sense of its own dignity and its own high responsibilities, and a body
to which the country looks, with confidence, for wise, moderate,
patriotic, and healing counsels. It is not to be denied that we live in
the midst of strong agitations, and are surrounded by very considerable
dangers to our institutions and government. The imprisoned winds are let
loose. The East, the North, and the stormy South combine to throw the
whole sea into commotion, to toss its billows to the skies, and disclose
its profoundest depths. I do not affect to regard myself, Mr. President,
as holding, or as fit to hold, the helm in this combat with the
political elements; but I have a duty to perform, and I mean to perform
it with fidelity, not without a sense of existing dangers, but not
without hope. I have a part to act, not for my own security or safety,
for I am looking out for no fragment upon which to float away from the
wreck, if wreck there must be, but for the good of the whole, and the
preservation of all; and there is that which will keep me to my duty
during this struggle, whether the sun and the stars shall appear, or
shall not appear, for many days. I speak to-day for the preservation of
the Union. "Hear me for my cause." I speak to-day, out of a solicitous
and anxious heart, for the restoration to the country of that quiet and
that harmony which make the blessings of this Union so rich, and so dear
to us all. These are the topics that I propose to myself to discuss;
these are the motives, and the sole motives, that influence me in the
wish to communicate my opinions to the Senate and the country; and if I
can do any thing, however little, for the promotion of these ends, I
shall have accomplished all that I expect.

Mr. President, it may not be amiss to recur very briefly to the events
which, equally sudden and extraordinary, have brought the country into
its present political condition. In May, 1846, the United States
declared war against Mexico. Our armies, then on the frontiers, entered
the provinces of that republic, met and defeated all her troops,
penetrated her mountain passes, and occupied her capital. The marine
force of the United States took possession of her forts and her towns,
on the Atlantic and on the Pacific. In less than two years a treaty was
negotiated, by which Mexico ceded to the United States a vast territory,
extending seven or eight hundred miles along the shores of the Pacific,
and reaching back over the mountains, and across the desert, until it
joins the frontier of the State of Texas. It so happened, in the
distracted and feeble condition of the Mexican government, that, before
the declaration of war by the United States against Mexico had become
known in California, the people of California, under the lead of
American officers, overthrew the existing Mexican provincial government,
and raised an independent flag. When the news arrived at San Francisco
that war had been declared by the United States against Mexico, this
independent flag was pulled down, and the stars and stripes of this
Union hoisted in its stead. So, Sir, before the war was over, the forces
of the United States, military and naval, had possession of San
Francisco and Upper California, and a great rush of emigrants from
various parts of the world took place into California in 1846 and 1847.
But now behold another wonder.

In January of 1848, a party of Mormons made a discovery of an
extraordinarily rich mine of gold, or rather of a great quantity of
gold, hardly proper to be called a mine, for it was spread near the
surface, on the lower part of the south, or American, branch of the
Sacramento. They attempted to conceal their discovery for some time; but
soon another discovery of gold, perhaps of greater importance, was made,
on another part of the American branch of the Sacramento, and near
Sutter's Fort, as it is called. The fame of these discoveries spread far
and wide. They inflamed more and more the spirit of emigration towards
California, which had already been excited; and adventurers crowded into
the country by hundreds, and flocked towards the Bay of San Francisco.
This, as I have said, took place in the winter and spring of 1848. The
digging commenced in the spring of that year, and from that time to this
the work of searching for gold has been prosecuted with a success not
heretofore known in the history of this globe. You recollect, Sir, how
incredulous at first the American public was at the accounts which
reached us of these discoveries but we all know, now, that these
accounts received, and continue to receive, daily confirmation, and down
to the present moment I suppose the assurance is as strong, after the
experience of these several months, of the existence of deposits of gold
apparently inexhaustible in the regions near San Francisco, in
California, as it was at any period of the earlier dates of the
accounts.

It so happened, Sir, that although, after the return of peace, it became
a very important subject for legislative consideration and legislative
decision to provide a proper territorial government for California, yet
differences of opinion between the two houses of Congress prevented the
establishment of any such territorial government at the last session.
Under this state of things, the inhabitants of California, already
amounting to a considerable number, thought it to be their duty, in the
summer of last year, to establish a local government. Under the
proclamation of General Riley, the people chose delegates to a
convention, and that convention met at Monterey. It formed a
constitution for the State of California, which, being referred to the
people, was adopted by them in their primary assemblages. Desirous of
immediate connection with the United States, its Senators were appointed
and Representatives chosen, who have come hither, bringing with them the
authentic constitution of the State of California; and they now present
themselves, asking, in behalf of their constituents, that it may be
admitted into this Union as one of the United States. This constitution,
Sir, contains an express prohibition of slavery, or involuntary
servitude, in the State of California. It is said, and I suppose truly,
that, of the members who composed that convention, some sixteen were
natives of, and had been residents in, the slave-holding States, about
twenty-two were from the non-slaveholding States, and the remaining ten
members were either native Californians or old settlers in that country.
This prohibition of slavery, it is said, was inserted with entire
unanimity.

It is this circumstance, Sir, the prohibition of slavery, which has
contributed to raise, I do not say it has wholly raised, the dispute as
to the propriety of the admission of California into the Union under
this constitution. It is not to be denied, Mr. President, nobody thinks
of denying, that, whatever reasons were assigned at the commencement of
the late war with Mexico, it was prosecuted for the purpose of the
acquisition of territory, and under the alleged argument that the
cession of territory was the only form in which proper compensation
could be obtained by the United States, from Mexico, for the various
claims and demands which the people of this country had against that
government. At any rate, it will be found that President Polk's message,
at the commencement of the session of December, 1847, avowed that the
war was to be prosecuted until some acquisition of territory should be
made. As the acquisition was to be south of the line of the United
States, in warm climates and countries, it was naturally, I suppose,
expected by the South, that whatever acquisitions were made in that
region would be added to the slave-holding portion of the United States.
Very little of accurate information was possessed of the real physical
character, either of California or New Mexico, and events have not
turned out as was expected. Both California and New Mexico are likely to
come in as free States; and therefore some degree of disappointment and
surprise has resulted. In other words, it is obvious that the question
which has so long harassed the country, and at some times very seriously
alarmed the minds of wise and good men, has come upon us for a fresh
discussion,--the question of slavery in these United States.

Now, Sir, I propose, perhaps at the expense of some detail and
consequent detention of the Senate, to review historically this
question, which, partly in consequence of its own importance, and
partly, perhaps mostly, in consequence of the manner in which it has
been discussed in different portions of the country, has been a source
of so much alienation and unkind feeling between them.

We all know, Sir, that slavery has existed in the world from time
immemorial. There was slavery, in the earliest periods of history, among
the Oriental nations. There was slavery among the Jews; the theocratic
government of that people issued no injunction against it. There was
slavery among the Greeks; and the ingenious philosophy of the Greeks
found, or sought to find, a justification for it exactly upon the
grounds which have been assumed for such a justification in this
country; that is, a natural and original difference among the races of
mankind, and the inferiority of the black or colored race to the white.
The Greeks justified their system of slavery upon that idea, precisely.
They held the African and some of the Asiatic tribes to be inferior to
the white race; but they did not show, I think, by any close process of
logic, that, if this were true, the more intelligent and the stronger
had therefore a right to subjugate the weaker.

The more manly philosophy and jurisprudence of the Romans placed the
justification of slavery on entirely different grounds. The Roman
jurists, from the first and down to the fall of the empire, admitted
that slavery was against the natural law, by which, as they maintained,
all men, of whatsoever clime, color, or capacity, were equal; but they
justified slavery, first, upon the ground and authority of the law of
nations, arguing, and arguing truly, that at that day the conventional
law of nations admitted that captives in war, whose lives, according to
the notions of the times, were at the absolute disposal of the captors,
might, in exchange for exemption from death, be made slaves for life,
and that such servitude might descend to their posterity. The jurists of
Rome also maintained, that, by the civil law, there might be servitude
or slavery, personal and hereditary; first, by the voluntary act of an
individual, who might sell himself into slavery; secondly, by his being
reduced into a state of slavery by his creditors, in satisfaction of his
debts; and, thirdly, by being placed in a state of servitude or slavery
for crime. At the introduction of Christianity, the Roman world was full
of slaves, and I suppose there is to be found no injunction against that
relation between man and man in the teachings of the Gospel of Jesus
Christ or of any of his Apostles. The object of the instruction imparted
to mankind by the Founder of Christianity was to touch the heart, purify
the soul, and improve the lives of individual men. That object went
directly to the first fountain of all the political and social relations
of the human race, as well as of all true religious feeling, the
individual heart and mind of man.

Now, Sir, upon the general nature and influence of slavery there exists
a wide difference of opinion between the northern portion of this
country and the southern. It is said on the one side, that, although not
the subject of any injunction or direct prohibition in the New
Testament, slavery is a wrong; that it is founded merely in the right of
the strongest; and that it is an oppression, like unjust wars, like all
those conflicts by which a powerful nation subjects a weaker to its
will; and that, in its nature, whatever may be said of it in the
modifications which have taken place, it is not according to the meek
spirit of the Gospel. It is not "kindly affectioned"; it does not "seek
another's, and not its own"; it does not "let the oppressed go free."
These are sentiments that are cherished, and of late with greatly
augmented force, among the people of the Northern States. They have
taken hold of the religious sentiment of that part of the country, as
they have, more or less, taken hold of the religious feelings of a
considerable portion of mankind. The South, upon the other side, having
been accustomed to this relation between the two races all their lives,
from their birth, having been taught, in general, to treat the subjects
of this bondage with care and kindness, and I believe, in general,
feeling great kindness for them, have not taken the view of the subject
which I have mentioned. There are thousands of religious men, with
consciences as tender as any of their brethren at the North, who do not
see the unlawfulness of slavery; and there are more thousands, perhaps,
that, whatsoever they may think of it in its origin, and as a matter
depending upon natural right, yet take things as they are, and, finding
slavery to be an established relation of the society in which they live,
can see no way in which, let their opinions on the abstract question be
what they may, it is in the power of the present generation to relieve
themselves from this relation. And candor obliges me to say, that I
believe they are just as conscientious, many of them, and the religious
people, all of them, as they are at the North who hold different
opinions.

The honorable Senator from South Carolina[1] the other day alluded to
the separation of that great religious community, the Methodist
Episcopal Church. That separation was brought about by differences of
opinion upon this particular subject of slavery. I felt great concern,
as that dispute went on, about the result. I was in hopes that the
difference of opinion might be adjusted, because I looked upon that
religious denomination as one of the great props of religion and morals
throughout the whole country, from Maine to Georgia, and westward to our
utmost western boundary. The result was against my wishes and against my
hopes. I have read all their proceedings and all their arguments; but I
have never yet been able to come to the conclusion that there was any
real ground for that separation; in other words, that any good could be
produced by that separation. I must say I think there was some want of
candor and charity. Sir, when a question of this kind seizes on the
religious sentiments of mankind, and comes to be discussed in religious
assemblies of the clergy and laity, there is always to be expected, or
always to be feared, a great degree of excitement. It is in the nature
of man, manifested by his whole history, that religious disputes are apt
to become warm in proportion to the strength of the convictions which
men entertain of the magnitude of the questions at issue. In all such
disputes, there will sometimes be found men with whom every thing is
absolute; absolutely wrong, or absolutely right. They see the right
clearly; they think others ought so to see it, and they are disposed to
establish a broad line, of distinction between what is right and what is
wrong. They are not seldom willing to establish that line upon their own
convictions of truth and justice; and are ready to mark and guard it by
placing along it a series of dogmas, as lines of boundary on the earth's
surface are marked by posts and stones. There are men who, with clear
perceptions, as they think, of their own duty, do not see how too eager
a pursuit of one duty may involve them in the violation of others, or
how too warm an embracement of one truth may lead to a disregard of
other truths equally important. As I heard it stated strongly, not many
days ago, these persons are disposed to mount upon some particular duty,
as upon a war-horse, and to drive furiously on and upon and over all
other duties that may stand in the way. There are men who, in reference
to disputes of that sort, are of opinion that human duties may be
ascertained with the exactness of mathematics. They deal with morals as
with mathematics; and they think what is right may be distinguished from
what is wrong with the precision of an algebraic equation. They have,
therefore, none too much charity towards others who differ from them.
They are apt, too, to think that nothing is good but what is perfect,
and that there are no compromises or modifications to be made in
consideration of difference of opinion or in deference to other men's
judgment. If their perspicacious vision enables them to detect a spot on
the face of the sun, they think that a good reason why the sun should be
struck down from heaven. They prefer the chance of running into utter
darkness to living in heavenly light, if that heavenly light be not
absolutely without any imperfection. There are impatient men; too
impatient always to give heed to the admonition of St. Paul, that we are
not to "do evil that good may come"; too impatient to wait for the slow
progress of moral causes in the improvement of mankind. They do not
remember that the doctrines and the miracles of Jesus Christ have, in
eighteen hundred years, converted only a small portion of the human
race; and among the nations that are converted to Christianity, they
forget how many vices and crimes, public and private, still prevail, and
that many of them, public crimes especially, which are so clearly
offences against the Christian religion, pass without exciting
particular indignation. Thus wars are waged, and unjust wars. I do not
deny that there may be just wars. There certainly are; but it was the
remark of an eminent person, not many years ago, on the other side of
the Atlantic, that it is one of the greatest reproaches to human nature
that wars are sometimes just. The defence of nations sometimes causes a
just war against the injustice of other nations. In this state of
sentiment upon the general nature of slavery lies the cause of a great
part of those unhappy divisions, exasperations, and reproaches which
find vent and support in different parts of the Union.

But we must view things as they are. Slavery does exist in the United
States. It did exist in the States before the adoption of this
Constitution, and at that time. Let us, therefore, consider for a moment
what was the state of sentiment, North and South, in regard to slavery,
at the time this Constitution was adopted. A remarkable change has taken
place since; but what did the wise and great men of all parts of the
country think of slavery then? In what estimation did they hold it at
the time when this Constitution was adopted? It will be found, Sir, if
we will carry ourselves by historical research back to that day, and
ascertain men's opinions by authentic records still existing among us,
that there was then no diversity of opinion between the North and the
South upon the subject of slavery. It will be found that both parts of
the country held it equally an evil,--a moral and political evil. It
will not be found that, either at the North or at the South, there was
much, though there was some, invective against slavery as inhuman and
cruel. The great ground of objection to it was political; that it
weakened the social fabric; that, taking the place of free labor,
society became less strong and labor less productive; and therefore we
find from all the eminent men of the time the clearest expression of
their opinion that slavery is an evil. They ascribed its existence here,
not without truth, and not without some acerbity of temper and force of
language, to the injurious policy of the mother country, who, to favor
the navigator, had entailed these evils upon the Colonies. I need hardly
refer, Sir, particularly to the publications of the day. They are
matters of history on the record. The eminent men, the most eminent men,
and nearly all the conspicuous politicians of the South, held the same
sentiments,--that slavery was an evil, a blight, a scourge, and a curse.
There are no terms of reprobation of slavery so vehement in the North at
that day as in the South. The North was not so much excited against it
as the South; and the reason is, I suppose, that there was much less of
it at the North, and the people did not see, or think they saw, the
evils so prominently as they were seen, or thought to be seen, at the
South.

Then, Sir, when this Constitution was framed, this was the light in
which the Federal Convention viewed it. That body reflected the judgment
and sentiments of the great men of the South. A member of the other
house, whom I have not the honor to know, has, in a recent speech,
collected extracts from these public documents. They prove the truth of
what I am saying, and the question then was, how to deal with it, and
how to deal with it as an evil. They came to this general result. They
thought that slavery could not be continued in the country if the
importation of slaves were made to cease, and therefore they provided
that, after a certain period, the importation might be prevented by the
act of the new government. The period of twenty years was proposed by
some gentleman from the North, I think, and many members of the
Convention from the South opposed it as being too long. Mr. Madison
especially was somewhat warm against it. He said it would bring too much
of this mischief into the country to allow the importation of slaves for
such a period. Because we must take along with us, in the whole of this
discussion, when we are considering the sentiments and opinions in which
the constitutional provision originated, that the conviction of all men
was, that, if the importation of slaves ceased, the white race would
multiply faster than the black race, and that slavery would therefore
gradually wear out and expire. It may not be improper here to allude to
that, I had almost said, celebrated opinion of Mr. Madison. You observe,
Sir, that the term _slave_, or _slavery_, is not used in the
Constitution. The Constitution does not require that "fugitive slaves"
shall be delivered up. It requires that persons held to service in one
State, and escaping into another, shall be delivered up. Mr. Madison
opposed the introduction of the term _slave_, or _slavery_, into the
Constitution; for he said that he did not wish to see it recognized by
the Constitution of the United States of America that there could be
property in men.

Now, Sir, all this took place in the Convention in 1787; but connected
with this, concurrent and contemporaneous, is another important
transaction, not sufficiently attended to. The Convention for framing
this Constitution assembled in Philadelphia in May, and sat until
September, 1787. During all that time the Congress of the United States
was in session at New York. It was a matter of design, as we know, that
the Convention should not assemble in the same city where Congress was
holding its sessions. Almost all the public men of the country,
therefore, of distinction and eminence, were in one or the other of
these two assemblies; and I think it happened, in some instances, that
the same gentlemen were members of both bodies. If I mistake not, such
was the case with Mr. Rufus King, then a member of Congress from
Massachusetts. Now, at the very time when the Convention in Philadelphia
was framing this Constitution, the Congress in New York was framing the
Ordinance of 1787, for the organization and government of the territory
northwest of the Ohio. They passed that Ordinance on the 13th of July,
1787, at New York, the very month, perhaps the very day, on which these
questions about the importation of slaves and the character of slavery
were debated in the Convention at Philadelphia. So far as we can now
learn, there was a perfect concurrence of opinion between these two
bodies; and it resulted in this Ordinance of 1787, excluding slavery
from all the territory over which the Congress of the United States had
jurisdiction, and that was all the territory northwest of the Ohio.
Three years before, Virginia and other States had made a cession of that
great territory to the United States; and a most munificent act it was.
I never reflect upon it without a disposition to do honor and justice,
and justice would be the highest honor, to Virginia, for the cession of
her northwestern territory. I will say, Sir, it is one of her fairest
claims to the respect and gratitude of the country, and that, perhaps,
it is only second to that other claim which belongs to her,--that from
her counsels, and from the intelligence and patriotism of her leading
statesmen, proceeded the first idea put into practice of the formation
of a general constitution of the United States. The Ordinance of 1787
applied to the whole territory over which the Congress of the United
States had jurisdiction. It was adopted two years before the
Constitution of the United States went into operation; because the
Ordinance took effect immediately on its passage, while the Constitution
of the United States, having been framed, was to be sent to the States
to be adopted by their conventions; and then a government was to be
organized under it. This Ordinance, then, was in operation and force
when the Constitution was adopted, and the government put in motion, in
April, 1789.

Mr. President, three things are quite clear as historical truths. One
is, that there was an expectation that, on the ceasing of the
importation of slaves from Africa, slavery would begin to run out here.
That was hoped and expected. Another is, that, as far as there was any
power in Congress to prevent the spread of slavery in the United States,
that power was executed in the most absolute manner, and to the fullest
extent. An honorable member,[2] whose health does not allow him to be
here to-day--

     A SENATOR. He is here.

I am very happy to hear that he is; may he long be here, and in the
enjoyment of health to serve his country! The honorable member said, the
other day, that he considered this Ordinance as the first in the series
of measures calculated to enfeeble the South, and deprive them of their
just participation in the benefits and privileges of this government. He
says, very properly, that it was enacted under the old Confederation,
and before this Constitution went into effect; but my present purpose is
only to say, Mr. President, that it was established with the entire and
unanimous concurrence of the whole South. Why, there it stands! The vote
of every State in the Union was unanimous in favor of the Ordinance,
with the exception of a single individual vote, and that individual vote
was given by a Northern man. This Ordinance prohibiting slavery for ever
northwest of the Ohio has the hand and seal of every Southern member in
Congress. It was therefore no aggression of the North on the South. The
other and third clear historical truth is, that the Convention meant to
leave slavery in the States as they found it, entirely under the
authority and control of the States themselves.

This was the state of things, Sir, and this the state of opinion, under
which those very important matters were arranged, and those three
important things done; that is, the establishment of the Constitution of
the United States with a recognition of slavery as it existed in the
States; the establishment of the ordinance for the government of the
Northwestern Territory, prohibiting, to the full extent of all territory
owned by the United States, the introduction of slavery into that
territory, while leaving to the States all power over slavery in their
own limits; and creating a power, in the new government, to put an end
to the importation of slaves, after a limited period. There was entire
coincidence and concurrence of sentiment between the North and the
South, upon all these questions, at the period of the adoption of the
Constitution. But opinions, Sir, have changed, greatly changed; changed
North and changed South. Slavery is not regarded in the South now as it
was then. I see an honorable member of this body paying me the honor of
listening to my remarks;[3] he brings to my mind, Sir, freshly and
vividly, what I have learned of his great ancestor, so much
distinguished in his day and generation, so worthy to be succeeded by so
worthy a grandson, and of the sentiments he expressed in the Convention
in Philadelphia.[4]

Here we may pause. There was, if not an entire unanimity, a general
concurrence of sentiment running through the whole community, and
especially entertained by the eminent men of all parts of the country.
But soon a change began, at the North and the South, and a difference of
opinion showed itself; the North growing much more warm and strong
against slavery, and the South growing much more warm and strong in its
support. Sir, there is no generation of mankind whose opinions are not
subject to be influenced by what appear to them to be their present
emergent and exigent interests. I impute to the South no particularly
selfish view in the change which has come over her. I impute to her
certainly no dishonest view. All that has happened has been natural. It
has followed those causes which always influence the human mind and
operate upon it. What, then, have been the causes which have created so
new a feeling in favor of slavery in the South, which have changed the
whole nomenclature of the South on that subject, so that, from being
thought and described in the terms I have mentioned and will not repeat,
it has now become an institution, a cherished institution, in that
quarter; no evil, no scourge, but a great religious, social, and moral
blessing, as I think I have heard it latterly spoken of? I suppose this,
Sir, is owing to the rapid growth and sudden extension of the COTTON
plantations of the South. So far as any motive consistent with honor,
justice, and general judgment could act, it was the COTTON interest that
gave a new desire to promote slavery, to spread it, and to use its
labor. I again say that this change was produced by causes which must
always produce like effects. The whole interest of the South became
connected, more or less, with the extension of slavery. If we look back
to the history of the commerce of this country in the early years of
this government, what were our exports? Cotton was hardly, or but to a
very limited extent, known. In 1791 the first parcel of cotton of the
growth of the United States was exported, and amounted only to 19,200
pounds.[5] It has gone on increasing rapidly, until the whole crop may
now, perhaps, in a season of great product and high prices, amount to a
hundred millions of dollars. In the years I have mentioned, there was
more of wax, more of indigo, more of rice, more of almost every article
of export from the South, than of cotton. When Mr. Jay negotiated the
treaty of 1794 with England, it is evident from the twelfth article of
the treaty, which was suspended by the Senate, that he did not know that
cotton was exported at all from the United States.

Well, Sir, we know what followed. The age of cotton became the golden
age of our Southern brethren. It gratified their desire for improvement
and accumulation, at the same time that it excited it. The desire grew
by what it fed upon, and there soon came to be an eagerness for other
territory, a new area or new areas for the cultivation of the cotton
crop; and measures leading to this result were brought about rapidly,
one after another, under the lead of Southern men at the head of the
government, they having a majority in both branches of Congress to
accomplish their ends. The honorable member from South Carolina[6]
observed that there has been a majority all along in favor of the North.
If that be true, Sir, the North has acted either very liberally and
kindly, or very weakly; for they never exercised that majority
efficiently five times in the history of the government, when a division
or trial of strength arose. Never. Whether they were outgeneralled, or
whether it was owing to other causes, I shall not stop to consider; but
no man acquainted with the history of the Union can deny that the
general lead in the politics of the country, for three fourths of the
period that has elapsed since the adoption of the Constitution, has been
a Southern lead.

In 1802, in pursuit of the idea of opening a new cotton region, the
United States obtained a cession from Georgia of the whole of her
western territory, now embracing the rich and growing States of Alabama
and Mississippi. In 1803 Louisiana was purchased from France, out of
which the States of Louisiana, Arkansas, and Missouri have been framed,
as slave-holding States. In 1819 the cession of Florida was made,
bringing in another region adapted to cultivation by slaves. Sir, the
honorable member from South Carolina thought he saw in certain
operations of the government, such as the manner of collecting the
revenue, and the tendency of measures calculated to promote emigration
into the country, what accounts for the more rapid growth of the North
than the South. He ascribes that more rapid growth, not to the operation
of time, but to the system of government and administration established
under this Constitution. That is matter of opinion. To a certain extent
it may be true; but it does seem to me that, if any operation of the
government can be shown in any degree to have promoted the population,
and growth, and wealth of the North, it is much more sure that there are
sundry important and distinct operations of the government, about which
no man can doubt, tending to promote, and which absolutely have
promoted, the increase of the slave interest and the slave territory of
the South. It was not time that brought in Louisiana; it was the act of
men. It was not time that brought in Florida; it was the act of men. And
lastly, Sir, to complete those acts of legislation which have
contributed so much to enlarge the area of the institution of slavery,
Texas, great and vast and illimitable Texas, was added to the Union as a
slave State in 1845; and that, Sir, pretty much closed the whole
chapter, and settled the whole account.

That closed the whole chapter and settled the whole account, because the
annexation of Texas, upon the conditions and under the guaranties upon
which she was admitted, did not leave within the control of this
government an acre of land, capable of being cultivated by slave labor,
between this Capitol and the Rio Grande or the Nueces, or whatever is
the proper boundary of Texas; not an acre. From that moment, the whole
country, from this place to the western boundary of Texas, was fixed,
pledged, fastened, decided, to be slave territory for ever, by the
solemn guaranties of law. And I now say, Sir, as the proposition upon
which I stand this day, and upon the truth and firmness of which I
intend to act until it is overthrown, that there is not at this moment
within the United States, or any territory of the United States, a
single foot of land, the character of which, in regard to its being free
territory or slave territory, is not fixed by some law, and some
irrepealable law, beyond the power of the action of the government. Is
it not so with respect to Texas? It is most manifestly so. The honorable
member from South Carolina, at the time of the admission of Texas, held
an important post in the executive department of the government; he was
Secretary of State. Another eminent person of great activity and
adroitness in affairs, I mean the late Secretary of the Treasury,[7] was
a conspicuous member of this body, and took the lead in the business of
annexation, in co-operation with the Secretary of State; and I must say
that they did their business faithfully and thoroughly; there was no
botch left in it. They rounded it off, and made as close joiner-work as
ever was exhibited. Resolutions of annexation were brought into
Congress, fitly joined together, compact, efficient, conclusive upon the
great object which they had in view, and those resolutions passed.

Allow me to read a part of these resolutions. It is the third clause of
the second section of the resolution of the 1st of March, 1845, for the
admission of Texas, which applies to this part of the case. That clause
is as follows:--

     "New States, of convenient size, not exceeding four in number, in
     addition to said State of Texas, and having sufficient population,
     may hereafter, by the consent of said State, he formed out of the
     territory thereof, which shall be entitled to admission under the
     provisions of the Federal Constitution. And such States as may be
     formed out of that portion of said territory lying south of
     thirty-six degrees thirty minutes north latitude, commonly 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 shall be formed out of
     said territory north of said Missouri Compromise line, slavery or
     involuntary servitude (except for crime) shall be prohibited."

Now what is here stipulated, enacted, and secured? It is, that all Texas
south of 36° 30', which is nearly the whole of it, shall be admitted
into the Union as a slave State. It was a slave State, and therefore
came in as a slave State; and the guaranty is, that new States shall be
made out of it, to the number of four, in addition to the State then in
existence and admitted at that time by these resolutions, and that such
States as are formed out of that portion of Texas lying south of 36° 30'
may come in as slave States. I know no form of legislation which can
strengthen this. I know no mode of recognition that can add a tittle of
weight to it. I listened respectfully to the resolutions of my honorable
friend from Tennessee.[8] He proposed to recognize that stipulation with
Texas. But any additional recognition would weaken the force of it;
because it stands here on the ground of a contract, a thing done for a
consideration. It is a law founded on a contract with Texas, and
designed to carry that contract into effect. A recognition now, founded
not on any consideration, or any contract, would not be so strong as it
now stands on the face of the resolution. I know no way, I candidly
confess, in which this government, acting in good faith, as I trust it
always will, can relieve itself from that stipulation and pledge, by any
honest course of legislation whatever. And therefore I say again, that,
so far as Texas is concerned, in the whole of that State south of 36°
30', which, I suppose, embraces all the territory capable of slave
cultivation, there is no land, not an acre, the character of which is
not established by law; a law which cannot be repealed without the
violation of a contract, and plain disregard of the public faith.

I hope, Sir, it is now apparent that my proposition, so far as it
respects Texas, has been maintained, and that the provision in this
article is clear and absolute; and it has been well suggested by my
friend from Rhode Island,[9] that that part of Texas which lies north of
36° 30' of north latitude, and which may be formed into free States, is
dependent, in like manner, upon the consent of Texas, herself a slave
State.

Now, Sir, how came this? How came it to pass that within these walls,
where it is said by the honorable member from South Carolina that the
free States have always had a majority, this resolution of annexation,
such as I have described it, obtained a majority in both houses of
Congress? Sir, it obtained that majority by the great number of Northern
votes added to the entire Southern vote, or at least nearly the whole of
the Southern vote. The aggregate was made up of Northern and Southern
votes. In the House of Representatives there were about eighty Southern
votes and about fifty Northern votes for the admission of Texas. In the
Senate the vote for the admission of Texas was twenty-seven, and
twenty-five against it; and of those twenty-seven votes, constituting
the majority, no less than thirteen came from the free States, and four
of them were from New England. The whole of these thirteen Senators,
constituting within a fraction, you see, one half of all the votes in
this body for the admission of this immeasurable extent of slave
territory, were sent here by free States.

Sir, there is not so remarkable a chapter in our history of political
events, political parties, and political men as is afforded by this
admission of a new slave-holding territory, so vast that a bird cannot
fly over it in a week. New England, as I have said, with some of her own
votes, supported this measure. Three fourths of the votes of
liberty-loving Connecticut were given for it in the other house, and one
half here. There was one vote for it from Maine, but, I am happy to say,
not the vote of the honorable member who addressed the Senate the day
before yesterday,[10] and who was then a Representative from Maine in
the House of Representatives; but there was one vote from Maine, ay, and
there was one vote for it from Massachusetts, given by a gentleman then
representing, and now living in, the district in which the prevalence of
Free Soil sentiment for a couple of years or so has defeated the choice
of any member to represent it in Congress. Sir, that body of Northern
and Eastern men who gave those votes at that time are now seen taking
upon themselves, in the nomenclature of politics, the appellation of the
Northern Democracy. They undertook to wield the destinies of this
empire, if I may give that name to a republic, and their policy was, and
they persisted in it, to bring into this country and under this
government all the territory they could. They did it, in the case of
Texas, under pledges, absolute pledges, to the slave interest, and they
afterwards lent their aid in bringing in these new conquests, to take
their chance for slavery or freedom. My honorable friend from
Georgia,[11] in March, 1847, moved the Senate to declare that the war
ought not to be prosecuted for the conquest of Territory, or for the
dismemberment of Mexico. The whole of the Northern Democracy voted
against it. He did not get a vote from them. It suited the patriotic and
elevated sentiments of the Northern Democracy to bring in a world from
among the mountains and valleys of California and New Mexico, or any
other part of Mexico, and then quarrel about it; to bring it in, and
then endeavor to put upon it the saving grace of the Wilmot Proviso.
There were two eminent and highly respectable gentlemen from the North
and East, then leading gentlemen in the Senate, (I refer, and I do so
with entire respect, for I entertain for both of those gentlemen, in
general, high regard, to Mr. Dix of New York and Mr. Niles of
Connecticut,) who both voted for the admission of Texas. They would not
have that vote any other way than as it stood; and they would have it as
it did stand. I speak of the vote upon the annexation of Texas. Those
two gentlemen would have the resolution of annexation just as it is,
without amendment; and they voted for it just as it is, and their eyes
were all open to its true character. The honorable member from South
Carolina who addressed us the other day was then Secretary of State. His
correspondence with Mr. Murphy, the Chargé d'Affaires of the United
States in Texas, had been published. That correspondence was all before
those gentlemen, and the Secretary had the boldness and candor to avow
in that correspondence, that the great object sought by the annexation
of Texas was to strengthen the slave interest of the South. Why, Sir,
he said so in so many words--

     MR. CALHOUN. Will the honorable Senator permit me to interrupt him
     for a moment?

Certainly.

     MR. CALHOUN. I am very reluctant to interrupt the honorable
     gentleman; but, upon a point of so much importance, I deem it right
     to put myself _rectus in curia_. I did not put it upon the ground
     assumed by the Senator. I put it upon this ground: that Great
     Britain had announced to this country, in so many words, that her
     object was to abolish slavery in Texas, and, through Texas, to
     accomplish the abolition of slavery in the United States and the
     world. The ground I put it on was, that it would make an exposed
     frontier, and, if Great Britain succeeded in her object, it would
     be impossible that that frontier could be secured against the
     aggressions of the Abolitionists; and that this government was
     bound, under the guaranties of the Constitution, to protect us
     against such a state of things.

That comes, I suppose, Sir, to exactly the same thing. It was, that
Texas must be obtained for the security of the slave interest of the
South.

     MR. CALHOUN. Another view is very distinctly given.

That was the object set forth in the correspondence of a worthy
gentleman not now living,[12] who preceded the honorable member from
South Carolina in the Department of State. There repose on the files of
the Department, as I have occasion to know, strong letters from Mr.
Upshur to the United States Minister in England, and I believe there are
some to the same Minister from the honorable Senator himself, asserting
to this effect the sentiments of this government; namely, that Great
Britain was expected not to interfere to take Texas out of the hands of
its then existing government and make it a free country. But my
argument, my suggestion, is this: that those gentlemen who composed the
Northern Democracy when Texas was brought into the Union saw clearly
that it was brought in as a slave country, and brought in for the
purpose of being maintained as slave territory, to the Greek Kalends. I
rather think the honorable gentleman who was then Secretary of State
might, in some of his correspondence with Mr. Murphy, have suggested
that it was not expedient to say too much about this object, lest it
should create some alarm. At any rate, Mr. Murphy wrote to him that
England was anxious to get rid of the constitution of Texas, because it
was a constitution establishing slavery; and that what the United States
had to do was to aid the people of Texas in upholding their
constitution; but that nothing should be said which should offend the
fanatical men of the North. But, Sir, the honorable member did avow this
object himself, openly, boldly, and manfully; he did not disguise his
conduct or his motives.

     MR. CALHOUN. Never, never.

What he means he is very apt to say.

     MR. CALHOUN. Always, always.

And I honor him for it.

This admission of Texas was in 1845. Then in 1847, _flagrante bello_
between the United States and Mexico, the proposition I have mentioned
was brought forward by my friend from Georgia, and the Northern
Democracy voted steadily against it. Their remedy was to apply to the
acquisitions, after they should come in, the Wilmot Proviso. What
follows? These two gentlemen,[13] worthy and honorable and influential
men, (and if they had not been they could not have carried the measure,)
these two gentlemen, members of this body, brought in Texas, and by
their votes they also prevented the passage of the resolution of the
honorable member from Georgia, and then they went home and took the
lead in the Free Soil party. And there they stand, Sir! They leave us
here, bound in honor and conscience by the resolutions of annexation;
they leave us here, to take the odium of fulfilling the obligations in
favor of slavery which they voted us into, or else the greater odium of
violating those obligations, while they are at home making capital and
rousing speeches for free soil and no slavery. And therefore I say, Sir,
that there is not a chapter in our history, respecting public measures
and public men, more full of what would create surprise, more full of
what does create in my mind, extreme mortification, than that of the
conduct of the Northern Democracy on this subject.

Mr. President, sometimes, when a man is found in a new relation to
things around him and to other men, he says the world has changed, and
that he has not changed. I believe, Sir, that our self-respect leads us
often to make this declaration in regard to ourselves when it is not
exactly true. An individual is more apt to change, perhaps, than all the
world around him. But under the present circumstances, and under the
responsibility which I know I incur by what I am now stating here, I
feel at liberty to recur to the various expressions and statements, made
at various times, of my own opinions and resolutions respecting the
admission of Texas, and all that has followed. Sir, as early as 1836, or
in the early part of 1837, there was conversation and correspondence
between myself and some private friends on this project of annexing
Texas to the United States; and an honorable gentleman with whom I have
had a long acquaintance, a friend of mine, now perhaps in this chamber,
I mean General Hamilton, of South Carolina, was privy to that
correspondence. I had voted for the recognition of Texan independence,
because I believed it to be an existing fact, surprising and astonishing
as it was, and I wished well to the new republic; but I manifested from
the first utter opposition to bringing her, with her slave territory,
into the Union. I happened, in 1837, to make a public address to
political friends in New York, and I then stated my sentiments upon the
subject. It was the first time that I had occasion to advert to it; and
I will ask a friend near me to have the kindness to read an extract from
the speech made by me on that occasion. It was delivered in Niblo's
Saloon, in 1837.

     Mr. Greene then read the following extract from the speech of Mr.
     Webster to which he referred:--

     "Gentlemen, we all see that, by whomsoever possessed, Texas is
     likely to be a slave-holding country; and I frankly avow my entire
     unwillingness to do any thing that shall extend the slavery of the
     African race on this continent, or add other slave-holding States
     to the Union. When I say that I regard slavery in itself as a great
     moral, social, and political evil, I only use language which has
     been adopted by distinguished men, themselves citizens of
     slave-holding States. I shall do nothing, therefore, to favor or
     encourage its further extension. We have slavery already amongst
     us. The Constitution found it in the Union; it recognized it, and
     gave it solemn guaranties. To the full extent of these guaranties
     we are all bound, in honor, in justice, and by the Constitution.
     All the stipulations contained in the Constitution in favor of the
     slave-holding States which are already in the Union ought to be
     fulfilled, and, so far as depends on me, shall be fulfilled, in the
     fulness of their spirit, and to the exactness of their letter.
     Slavery, as it exists in the States, is beyond the reach of
     Congress. It is a concern of the States themselves; they have never
     submitted it to Congress, and Congress has no rightful power over
     it. I shall concur, therefore, in no act, no measure, no menace, no
     indication of purpose, which shall interfere or threaten to
     interfere with the exclusive authority of the several States over
     the subject of slavery as it exists within their respective limits.
     All this appears to me to be matter of plain and imperative duty.

     "But when we come to speak of admitting new States, the subject
     assumes an entirely different aspect. Our rights and our duties are
     then both different....

     "I see, therefore, no political necessity for the annexation of
     Texas to the Union; no advantages to be derived from it; and
     objections to it of a strong, and, in my judgment, decisive
     character."

I have nothing, Sir, to add to, or to take from, those sentiments. That
speech, the Senate will perceive, was made in 1837. The purpose of
immediately annexing Texas at that time was abandoned or postponed; and
it was not revived with any vigor for some years. In the mean time it
happened that I had become a member of the executive administration, and
was for a short period in the Department of State. The annexation of
Texas was a subject of conversation, not confidential, with the
President and heads of departments, as well as with other public men. No
serious attempt was then made, however, to bring it about. I left the
Department of State in May, 1843, and shortly after I learned, though by
means which were no way connected with official information, that a
design had been taken up of bringing Texas, with her slave territory and
population, into this Union. I was in Washington at the time, and
persons are now here who will remember that we had an arranged meeting
for conversation upon it. I went home to Massachusetts and proclaimed
the existence of that purpose, but I could get no audience and but
little attention. Some did not believe it, and some were too much
engaged in their own pursuits to give it any heed. They had gone to
their farms or to their merchandise, and it was impossible to arouse any
feeling in New England, or in Massachusetts, that should combine the two
great political parties against this annexation; and, indeed, there was
no hope of bringing the Northern Democracy into that view, for their
leaning was all the other way. But, Sir, even with Whigs, and leading
Whigs, I am ashamed to say, there was a great indifference towards the
admission of Texas, with slave territory, into this Union.

The project went on. I was then out of Congress. The annexation
resolutions passed on the 1st of March, 1845; the legislature of Texas
complied with the conditions and accepted the guaranties; for the
language of the resolution is, that Texas is to come in "upon the
conditions and under the guaranties herein prescribed." I was returned
to the Senate in March, 1845, and was here in December following, when
the acceptance by Texas of the conditions proposed by Congress was
communicated to us by the President, and an act for the consummation of
the union was laid before the two houses. The connection was then not
completed. A final law, doing the deed of annexation ultimately, had not
been passed; and when it was put upon its final passage here, I
expressed my opposition to it, and recorded my vote in the negative; and
there that vote stands, with the observations that I made upon that
occasion.[14] Nor is this the only occasion on which I have expressed
myself to the same effect. It has happened that, between 1837 and this
time, on various occasions, I have expressed my entire opposition to the
admission of slave States, or the acquisition of new slave territories,
to be added to the United States. I know, Sir, no change in my own
sentiments, or my own purposes, in that respect. I will now ask my
friend from Rhode Island to read another extract from a speech of mine
made at a Whig Convention in Springfield, Massachusetts, in the month of
September, 1847.

     Mr. Greene here read the following extract:--

     "We hear much just now of a _panacea_ for the dangers and evils of
     slavery and slave annexation, which they call the 'Wilmot Proviso.'
     That certainly is a just sentiment, but it is not a sentiment to
     found any new party upon. It is not a sentiment on which
     Massachusetts Whigs differ. There is not a man in this hall who
     holds to it more firmly than I do, nor one who adheres to it more
     than another.

     "I feel some little interest in this matter, Sir. Did not I commit
     myself in 1837 to the whole doctrine, fully, entirely? And I must
     be permitted to say that I cannot quite consent that more recent
     discoverers should claim the merit and take out a patent.

     "I deny the priority of their invention. Allow me to say, Sir, it
     is not their thunder....

     "We are to use the first and the last and every occasion which
     offers to oppose the extension of slave power.

     "But I speak of it here, as in Congress, as a political question, a
     question for statesmen to act upon. We must so regard it. I
     certainly do not mean to say that it is less important in a moral
     point of view, that it is not more important in many other points
     of view; but as a legislator, or in any official capacity, I must
     look at it, consider it, and decide it as a matter of political
     action."

On other occasions, in debates here, I have expressed my determination
to vote for no acquisition, cession, or annexation, north or south, east
or west. My opinion has been, that we have territory enough, and that we
should follow the Spartan maxim, "Improve, adorn what you have," seek no
further. I think that it was in some observations that I made on the
three-million loan bill that I avowed this sentiment. In short, Sir, it
has been avowed quite as often, in as many places, and before as many
assemblies, as any humble opinions of mine ought to be avowed.

But now that, under certain conditions, Texas is in the Union, with all
her territory, as a slave State, with a solemn pledge, also, that, if
she shall be divided into many States, those States may come in as slave
States south of 36° 30', how are we to deal with this subject? I know no
way of honest legislation, when the proper time comes for the enactment,
but to carry into effect all that we have stipulated to do. I do not
entirely agree with my honorable friend from Tennessee,[15] that, as
soon as the time comes when she is entitled to another representative,
we should create a new State. On former occasions, in creating new
States out of territories, we have generally gone upon the idea that,
when the population of the territory amounts to about sixty thousand, we
would consent to its admission as a State. But it is quite a different
thing when a State is divided, and two or more States made out of it. It
does not follow in such a case that the same rule of apportionment
should be applied. That, however, is a matter for the consideration of
Congress, when the proper time arrives. I may not then be here; I may
have no vote to give on the occasion; but I wish it to be distinctly
understood, that, according to my view of the matter, this government is
solemnly pledged, by law and contract, to create new States out of
Texas, with her consent, when her population shall justify and call for
such a proceeding, and, so far as such States are formed out of Texan
territory lying south of 36° 30', to let them come in as slave States.
That is the meaning of the contract which our friends, the Northern
Democracy, have left us to fulfil; and I, for one, mean to fulfil it,
because I will not violate the faith of the government. What I mean to
say is, that the time for the admission of new States formed out of
Texas, the number of such States, their boundaries, the requisite amount
of population, and all other things connected with the admission, are in
the free discretion of Congress, except this; to wit, that, when new
States formed out of Texas are to be admitted, they have a right, by
legal stipulation and contract, to come in as slave States.

Now, as to California and New Mexico, I hold slavery to be excluded from
those territories by a law even superior to that which admits and
sanctions it in Texas. I mean the law of nature, of physical geography,
the law of the formation of the earth. That law settles for ever, with a
strength beyond all terms of human enactment, that slavery cannot exist
in California or New Mexico. Understand me, Sir; I mean slavery as we
regard it; the slavery of the colored race as it exists in the Southern
States. I shall not discuss the point, but leave it to the learned
gentlemen who have undertaken to discuss it; but I suppose there is no
slavery of that description in California now. I understand that
_peonism_, a sort of penal servitude, exists there, or rather a sort of
voluntary sale of a man and his offspring for debt; an arrangement of a
peculiar nature known to the law of Mexico. But what I mean to say is,
that it is as impossible that African slavery, as we see it among us,
should find its way, or be introduced, into California and New Mexico,
as any other natural impossibility. California and New Mexico are
Asiatic in their formation and scenery. They are composed of vast ridges
of mountains, of great height, with broken ridges and deep valleys. The
sides of these mountains are entirely barren; their tops capped by
perennial snow. There may be in California, now made free by its
constitution, and no doubt there are, some tracts of valuable land. But
it is not so in New Mexico. Pray, what is the evidence which every
gentleman must have obtained on this subject, from information sought by
himself or communicated by others? I have inquired and read all I could
find, in order to acquire information on this important subject. What is
there in New Mexico that could, by any possibility, induce anybody to go
there with slaves? There are some narrow strips of tillable land on the
borders of the rivers; but the rivers themselves dry up before midsummer
is gone. All that the people can do in that region is to raise some
little articles, some little wheat for their _tortillas_, and that by
irrigation. And who expects to see a hundred black men cultivating
tobacco, corn, cotton, rice, or any thing else, on lands in New Mexico,
made fertile only by irrigation?

I look upon it, therefore, as a fixed fact, to use the current
expression of the day, that both California and New Mexico are destined
to be free, so far as they are settled at all, which I believe, in
regard to New Mexico, will be but partially for a great length of time;
free by the arrangement of things ordained by the Power above us. I have
therefore to say, in this respect also, that this country is fixed for
freedom, to as many persons as shall ever live in it, by a less
repealable law than that which attaches to the right of holding slaves
in Texas; and I will say further, that, if a resolution or a bill were
now before us, to provide a territorial government for New Mexico, I
would not vote to put any prohibition into it whatever. Such a
prohibition would be idle, as it respects any effect it would have upon
the territory; and I would not take pains uselessly to reaffirm an
ordinance of nature, nor to re-enact the will of God. I would put in no
Wilmot Proviso for the mere purpose of a taunt or a reproach. I would
put into it no evidence of the votes of superior power, exercised for no
purpose but to wound the pride, whether a just and a rational pride, or
an irrational pride, of the citizens of the Southern States. I have no
such object, no such purpose. They would think it a taunt, an indignity;
they would think it to be an act taking away from them what they regard
as a proper equality of privilege. Whether they expect to realize any
benefit from it or not, they would think it at least a plain theoretic
wrong; that something more or less derogatory to their character and
their rights had taken place. I propose to inflict no such wound upon
anybody, unless something essentially important to the country, and
efficient to the preservation of liberty and freedom, is to be effected.
I repeat, therefore, Sir, and, as I do not propose to address the Senate
often on this subject, I repeat it because I wish it to be distinctly
understood, that, for the reasons stated, if a proposition were now here
to establish a government for New Mexico, and it was moved to insert a
provision for a prohibition of slavery, I would not vote for it.

Sir, if we were now making a government for New Mexico, and anybody
should propose a Wilmot Proviso, I should treat it exactly as Mr. Polk
treated that provision for excluding slavery from Oregon. Mr. Polk was
known to be in opinion decidedly averse to the Wilmot Proviso; but he
felt the necessity of establishing a government for the Territory of
Oregon. The proviso was in the bill, but he knew it would be entirely
nugatory; and, since it must be entirely nugatory, since it took away no
right, no describable, no tangible, no appreciable right of the South,
he said he would sign the bill for the sake of enacting a law to form a
government in that Territory, and let that entirely useless, and, in
that connection, entirely senseless, proviso remain. Sir, we hear
occasionally of the annexation of Canada; and if there be any man, any
of the Northern Democracy, or any one of the Free Soil party, who
supposes it necessary to insert a Wilmot Proviso in a territorial
government for New Mexico, that man would of course be of opinion that
it is necessary to protect the everlasting snows of Canada from the foot
of slavery by the same overspreading wing of an act of Congress. Sir,
wherever there is a substantive good to be done, wherever there is a
foot of land to be prevented from becoming slave territory, I am ready
to assert the principle of the exclusion of slavery. I am pledged to it
from the year 1837; I have been pledged to it again and again; and I
will perform those pledges; but I will not do a thing unnecessarily that
wounds the feelings of others, or that does discredit to my own
understanding.

Now, Mr. President, I have established, so far as I proposed to do so,
the proposition with which I set out, and upon which I intend to stand
or fall; and that is, that the whole territory within the former United
States, or in the newly acquired Mexican provinces, has a fixed and
settled character, now fixed and settled by law which cannot be
repealed,--in the case of Texas without a violation of public faith, and
by no human power in regard to California or New Mexico; that,
therefore, under one or other of these laws, every foot of land in the
States or in the Territories has already received a fixed and decided
character.

Mr. President, in the excited times in which we live, there is found to
exist a state of crimination and recrimination between the North and
South. There are lists of grievances produced by each, and those
grievances, real or supposed, alienate the minds of one portion of the
country from the other, exasperate the feelings, and subdue the sense of
fraternal affection, patriotic love, and mutual regard. I shall bestow a
little attention, Sir, upon these various grievances existing on the one
side and on the other. I begin with complaints of the South. I will not
answer, further than I have, the general statements of the honorable
Senator from South Carolina, that the North has prospered at the expense
of the South in consequence of the manner of administering this
government, in the collecting of its revenues, and so forth. These are
disputed topics, and I have no inclination to enter into them. But I
will allude to other complaints of the South, and especially to one
which has in my opinion just foundation; and that is, that there has
been found at the North, among individuals and among legislators, a
disinclination to perform fully their constitutional duties in regard to
the return of persons bound to service who have escaped into the free
States. In that respect, the South, in my judgment, is right, and the
North is wrong. Every member of every Northern legislature is bound by
oath, like every other officer in the country, to support the
Constitution of the United States; and the article of the
Constitution[16] which says to these States that they shall deliver up
fugitives from service is as binding in honor and conscience as any
other article. No man fulfils his duty in any legislature who sets
himself to find excuses, evasions, escapes from this constitutional
obligation. I have always thought that the Constitution addressed itself
to the legislatures of the States or to the States themselves. It says
that those persons escaping to other States "shall be delivered up," and
I confess I have always been of the opinion that it was an injunction
upon the States themselves. When it is said that a person escaping into
another State, and coming therefore within the jurisdiction of that
State, shall be delivered up, it seems to me the import of the clause
is, that the State itself, in obedience to the Constitution, shall cause
him to be delivered up. That is my judgment. I have always entertained
that opinion, and I entertain it now. But when the subject, some years
ago, was before the Supreme Court of the United States, the majority of
the judges held that the power to cause fugitives from service to be
delivered up was a power to be exercised under the authority of this
government. I do not know, on the whole, that it may not have been a
fortunate decision. My habit is to respect the result of judicial
deliberations and the solemnity of judicial decisions. As it now stands,
the business of seeing that these fugitives are delivered up resides in
the power of Congress and the national judicature, and my friend at the
head of the Judiciary Committee[17] has a bill on the subject now before
the Senate, which, with some amendments to it, I propose to support,
with all its provisions, to the fullest extent. And I desire to call the
attention of all sober-minded men at the North, of all conscientious
men, of all men who are not carried away by some fanatical idea or some
false impression, to their constitutional obligations. I put it to all
the sober and sound minds at the North as a question of morals and a
question of conscience. What right have they, in their legislative
capacity or any other capacity, to endeavor to get round this
Constitution, or to embarrass the free exercise of the rights secured by
the Constitution to the persons whose slaves escape from them? None at
all; none at all. Neither in the forum of conscience, nor before the
face of the Constitution, are they, in my opinion, justified in such an
attempt. Of course it is a matter for their consideration. They
probably, in the excitement of the times, have not stopped to consider
of this. They have followed what seemed to be the current of thought and
of motives, as the occasion arose, and they have neglected to
investigate fully the real question, and to consider their
constitutional obligations; which, I am sure, if they did consider, they
would fulfil with alacrity. I repeat, therefore, Sir, that here is a
well-founded ground of complaint against the North, which ought to be
removed, which it is now in the power of the different departments of
this government to remove; which calls for the enactment of proper laws
authorizing the judicature of this government, in the several States, to
do all that is necessary for the recapture of fugitive slaves and for
their restoration to those who claim them. Wherever I go, and whenever I
speak on the subject, and when I speak here I desire to speak to the
whole North, I say that the South has been injured in this respect, and
has a right to complain; and the North has been too careless of what I
think the Constitution peremptorily and emphatically enjoins upon her as
a duty.

Complaint has been made against certain resolutions that emanate from
legislatures at the North, and are sent here to us, not only on the
subject of slavery in this District, but sometimes recommending Congress
to consider the means of abolishing slavery in the States. I should be
sorry to be called upon to present any resolutions here which could not
be referable to any committee or any power in Congress; and therefore I
should be unwilling to receive from the legislature of Massachusetts any
instructions to present resolutions expressive of any opinion whatever
on the subject of slavery, as it exists at the present moment in the
States, for two reasons: first, because I do not consider that the
legislature of Massachusetts has any thing to do with it; and next,
because I do not consider that I, as her representative here, have any
thing to do with it. It has become, in my opinion, quite too common; and
if the legislatures of the States do not like that opinion, they have a
great deal more power to put it down than I have to uphold it; it has
become, in my opinion, quite too common a practice for the State
legislatures to present resolutions here on all subjects and to instruct
us on all subjects. There is no public man that requires instruction
more than I do, or who requires information more than I do, or desires
it more heartily; but I do not like to have it in too imperative a
shape. I took notice, with pleasure, of some remarks made upon this
subject, the other day, in the Senate of Massachusetts, by a young man
of talent and character, of whom the best hopes may be entertained. I
mean Mr. Hillard. He told the Senate of Massachusetts that he would vote
for no instructions whatever to be forwarded to members of Congress, nor
for any resolutions to be offered expressive of the sense of
Massachusetts as to what her members of Congress ought to do. He said
that he saw no propriety in one set of public servants giving
instructions and reading lectures to another set of public servants. To
his own master each of them must stand or fall, and that master is his
constituents. I wish these sentiments could become more common. I have
never entered into the question, and never shall, as to the binding
force of instructions. I will, however, simply say this: if there be any
matter pending in this body, while I am a member of it, in which
Massachusetts has an interest of her own not adverse to the general
interests of the country, I shall pursue her instructions with gladness
of heart and with all the efficiency which I can bring to the occasion.
But if the question be one which affects her interest, and at the same
time equally affects the interests of all the other States, I shall no
more regard her particular wishes or instructions than I should regard
the wishes of a man who might appoint me an arbitrator or referee to
decide some question of important private right between him and his
neighbor, and then _instruct_ me to decide in his favor. If ever there
was a government upon earth it is this government, if ever there was a
body upon earth it is this body, which should consider itself as
composed by agreement of all, each member appointed by some, but
organized by the general consent of all, sitting here, under the solemn
obligations of oath and conscience, to do that which they think to be
best for the good of the whole.

Then, Sir, there are the Abolition societies, of which I am unwilling
to speak, but in regard to which I have very clear notions and opinions.
I do not think them useful. I think their operations for the last twenty
years have produced nothing good or valuable. At the same time, I
believe thousands of their members to be honest and good men, perfectly
well-meaning men. They have excited feelings; they think they must do
something for the cause of liberty; and, in their sphere of action, they
do not see what else they can do than to contribute to an Abolition
press, or an Abolition society, or to pay an Abolition lecturer. I do
not mean to impute gross motives even to the leaders of these societies;
but I am not blind to the consequences of their proceedings. I cannot
but see what mischiefs their interference with the South has produced.
And is it not plain to every man? Let any gentleman who entertains
doubts on this point recur to the debates in the Virginia House of
Delegates in 1832, and he will see with what freedom a proposition made
by Mr. Jefferson Randolph for the gradual abolition of slavery was
discussed in that body. Every one spoke of slavery as he thought; very
ignominious and disparaging names and epithets were applied to it. The
debates in the House of Delegates on that occasion, I believe, were all
published. They were read by every colored man who could read; and to
those who could not read, those debates were read by others. At that
time Virginia was not unwilling or afraid to discuss this question, and
to let that part of her population know as much of the discussion as
they could learn. That was in 1832. As has been said by the honorable
member from South Carolina, these Abolition societies commenced their
course of action in 1835. It is said, I do not know how true it may be,
that they sent incendiary publications into the slave States; at any
rate, they attempted to arouse, and did arouse, a very strong feeling;
in other words, they created great agitation in the North against
Southern slavery. Well, what was the result? The bonds of the slaves
were bound more firmly than before, their rivets were more strongly
fastened. Public opinion, which in Virginia had begun to be exhibited
against slavery, and was opening out for the discussion of the question,
drew back and shut itself up in its castle. I wish to know whether
anybody in Virginia can now talk openly as Mr. Randolph, Governor
McDowell, and others talked in 1832, and sent their remarks to the
press? We all know the fact, and we all know the cause; and every thing
that these agitating people have done has been, not to enlarge, but to
restrain, not to set free, but to bind faster, the slave population of
the South.[18]

Again, Sir, the violence of the Northern press is complained of. The
press violent! Why, Sir, the press is violent everywhere. There are
outrageous reproaches in the North against the South, and there are
reproaches as vehement in the South against the North. Sir, the
extremists of both parts of this country are violent; they mistake loud
and violent talk for eloquence and for reason. They think that he who
talks loudest reasons best. And this we must expect, when the press is
free, as it is here, and I trust always will be; for, with all its
licentiousness and all its evil, the entire and absolute freedom of the
press is essential to the preservation of government on the basis of a
free constitution. Wherever it exists there will be foolish and violent
paragraphs in the newspapers, as there are, I am sorry to say, foolish
and violent speeches in both houses of Congress. In truth, Sir, I must
say that, in my opinion, the vernacular tongue of the country has become
greatly vitiated, depraved, and corrupted by the style of our
Congressional debates. And if it were possible for those debates to
vitiate the principles of the people as much as they have depraved their
tastes, I should cry out, "God save the Republic!"

Well, in all this I see no solid grievance, no grievance presented by
the South, within the redress of the government, but the single one to
which I have referred; and that is, the want of a proper regard to the
injunction of the Constitution for the delivery of fugitive slaves.

There are also complaints of the North against the South. I need not go
over them particularly. The first and gravest is, that the North adopted
the Constitution, recognizing the existence of slavery in the States,
and recognizing the right, to a certain extent, of the representation of
slaves in Congress, under a state of sentiment and expectation which
does not now exist; and that, by events, by circumstances, by the
eagerness of the South to acquire territory and extend her slave
population, the North finds itself, in regard to the relative influence
of the South and the North, of the free States and the slave States,
where it never did expect to find itself when they agreed to the compact
of the Constitution. They complain, therefore, that, instead of slavery
being regarded as an evil, as it was then, an evil which all hoped would
be extinguished gradually, it is now regarded by the South as an
institution to be cherished, and preserved, and extended; an institution
which the South has already extended to the utmost of her power by the
acquisition of new territory.

Well, then, passing from that, everybody in the North reads; and
everybody reads whatsoever the newspapers contain; and the newspapers,
some of them, especially those presses to which I have alluded, are
careful to spread about among the people every reproachful sentiment
uttered by any Southern man bearing at all against the North; every
thing that is calculated to exasperate and to alienate; and there are
many such things, as everybody will admit, from the South, or some
portion of it, which are disseminated among the reading people; and they
do exasperate, and alienate, and produce a most mischievous effect upon
the public mind at the North. Sir, I would not notice things of this
sort appearing in obscure quarters; but one thing has occurred in this
debate which struck me very forcibly. An honorable member from Louisiana
addressed us the other day on this subject. I suppose there is not a
more amiable and worthy gentleman in this chamber, nor a gentleman who
would be more slow to give offence to anybody, and he did not mean in
his remarks to give offence. But what did he say? Why, Sir, he took
pains to run a contrast between the slaves of the South and the laboring
people of the North, giving the preference, in all points of condition,
and comfort, and happiness, to the slaves of the South. The honorable
member, doubtless, did not suppose that he gave any offence, or did any
injustice. He was merely expressing his opinion. But does he know how
remarks of that sort will be received by the laboring people of the
North? Why, who are the laboring people of the North? They are the whole
North. They are the people who till their own farms with their own
hands; freeholders, educated men, independent men. Let me say, Sir, that
five sixths of the whole property of the North is in the hands of the
laborers of the North; they cultivate their farms, they educate their
children, they provide the means of independence. If they are not
freeholders, they earn wages; these wages accumulate, are turned into
capital, into new freeholds, and small capitalists are created. Such is
the case, and such the course of things, among the industrious and
frugal. And what can these people think when so respectable and worthy a
gentleman as the member from Louisiana undertakes to prove that the
absolute ignorance and the abject slavery of the South are more in
conformity with the high purposes and destiny of immortal, rational
human beings, than the educated, the independent free labor of the
North?

There is a more tangible and irritating cause of grievance at the North.
Free blacks are constantly employed in the vessels of the North,
generally as cooks or stewards. When the vessel arrives at a Southern
port, these free colored men are taken on shore, by the police or
municipal authority, imprisoned, and kept in prison till the vessel is
again ready to sail. This is not only irritating, but exceedingly
unjustifiable and oppressive. Mr. Hoar's mission, some time ago, to
South Carolina, was a well-intended effort to remove this cause of
complaint. The North thinks such imprisonments illegal and
unconstitutional; and as the cases occur constantly and frequently, they
regard it as a great grievance.

Now, Sir, so far as any of these grievances have their foundation in
matters of law, they can be redressed, and ought to be redressed; and so
far as they have their foundation in matters of opinion, in sentiment,
in mutual crimination and recrimination, all that we can do is to
endeavor to allay the agitation, and cultivate a better feeling and more
fraternal sentiments between the South and the North.

Mr. President, I should much prefer to have heard from every member on
this floor declarations of opinion that this Union could never be
dissolved, than the declaration of opinion by anybody, that, in any
case, under the pressure of any circumstances, such a dissolution was
possible. I hear with distress and anguish the word "secession,"
especially when it falls from the lips of those who are patriotic, and
known to the country, and known all over the world, for their political
services. Secession! Peaceable secession! Sir, your eyes and mine are
never destined to see that miracle. The dismemberment of this vast
country without convulsion! The breaking up of the fountains of the
great deep without ruffling the surface! Who is so foolish, I beg
everybody's pardon, as to expect to see any such thing? Sir, he who sees
these States, now revolving in harmony around a common centre, and
expects to see them quit their places and fly off without convulsion,
may look the next hour to see the heavenly bodies rush from their
spheres, and jostle against each other in the realms of space, without
causing the wreck of the universe. There can be no such thing as a
peaceable secession. Peaceable secession is an utter impossibility. Is
the great Constitution under which we live, covering this whole
country,--is it to be thawed and melted away by secession, as the snows
on the mountain melt under the influence of a vernal sun, disappear
almost unobserved, and run off? No, Sir! No, Sir! I will not state what
might produce the disruption of the Union; but, Sir, I see as plainly as
I see the sun in heaven what that disruption itself must produce; I see
that it must produce war, and such a war as I will not describe, _in its
twofold character_.

Peaceable secession! Peaceable secession! The concurrent agreement of
all the members of this great republic to separate! A voluntary
separation, with alimony on one side and on the other. Why, what would
be the result? Where is the line to be drawn? What States are to secede?
What is to remain American? What am I to be? An American no longer? Am I
to become a sectional man, a local man, a separatist, with no country in
common with the gentlemen who sit around me here, or who fill the other
house of Congress? Heaven forbid! Where is the flag of the republic to
remain? Where is the eagle still to tower? or is he to cower, and
shrink, and fall to the ground? Why, Sir, our ancestors, our fathers and
our grandfathers, those of them that are yet living amongst us with
prolonged lives, would rebuke and reproach us; and our children and our
grandchildren would cry out shame upon us, if we of this generation
should dishonor these ensigns of the power of the government and the
harmony of that Union which is every day felt among us with so much joy
and gratitude. What is to become of the army? What is to become of the
navy? What is to become of the public lands? How is each of the thirty
States to defend itself? I know, although the idea has not been stated
distinctly, there is to be, or it is supposed possible that there will
be, a Southern Confederacy. I do not mean, when I allude to this
statement, that any one seriously contemplates such a state of things. I
do not mean to say that it is true, but I have heard it suggested
elsewhere, that the idea has been entertained, that, after the
dissolution of this Union, a Southern Confederacy might be formed. I am
sorry, Sir, that it has ever been thought of, talked of, or dreamed of,
in the wildest flights of human imagination. But the idea, so far as it
exists, must be of a separation, assigning the slave States to one side
and the free States to the other. Sir, I may express myself too
strongly, perhaps, but there are impossibilities in the natural as well
as in the physical world, and I hold the idea of a separation of these
States, those that are free to form one government, and those that are
slave-holding to form another, as such an impossibility. We could not
separate the States by any such line, if we were to draw it. We could
not sit down here to-day and draw a line of separation that would
satisfy any five men in the country. There are natural causes that would
keep and tie us together, and there are social and domestic relations
which we could not break if we would, and which we should not if we
could.

Sir, nobody can look over the face of this country at the present
moment, nobody can see where its population is the most dense and
growing, without being ready to admit, and compelled to admit, that
erelong the strength of America will be in the Valley of the
Mississippi. Well, now, Sir, I beg to inquire what the wildest
enthusiast has to say on the possibility of cutting that river in two,
and leaving free States at its source and on its branches, and slave
States down near its mouth, each forming a separate government? Pray,
Sir, let me say to the people of this country, that these things are
worthy of their pondering and of their consideration. Here, Sir, are
five millions of freemen in the free States north of the river Ohio. Can
anybody suppose that this population can be severed, by a line that
divides them from the territory of a foreign and an alien government,
down somewhere, the Lord knows where, upon the lower banks of the
Mississippi? What would become of Missouri? Will she join the
_arrondissement_ of the slave States? Shall the man from the Yellowstone
and the Platte be connected, in the new republic, with the man who lives
on the southern extremity of the Cape of Florida? Sir, I am ashamed to
pursue this line of remark. I dislike it, I have an utter disgust for
it. I would rather hear of natural blasts and mildews, war, pestilence,
and famine, than to hear gentlemen talk of secession. To break up this
great government! to dismember this glorious country! to astonish Europe
with an act of folly such as Europe for two centuries has never beheld
in any government or any people! No, Sir! no, Sir! There will be no
secession! Gentlemen are not serious when they talk of secession.

Sir, I hear there is to be a convention held at Nashville. I am bound to
believe that, if worthy gentlemen meet at Nashville in convention, their
object will be to adopt conciliatory counsels; to advise the South to
forbearance and moderation, and to advise the North to forbearance and
moderation; and to inculcate principles of brotherly love and affection,
and attachment to the Constitution of the country as it now is. I
believe, if the convention meet at all, it will be for this purpose; for
certainly, if they meet for any purpose hostile to the Union, they have
been singularly inappropriate in their selection of a place. I remember,
Sir, that, when the treaty of Amiens was concluded between France and
England, a sturdy Englishman and a distinguished orator, who regarded
the conditions of the peace as ignominious to England, said in the House
of Commons, that, if King William could know the terms of that treaty,
he would turn in his coffin! Let me commend this saying of Mr. Windham,
in all its emphasis and in all its force, to any persons who shall meet
at Nashville for the purpose of concerting measures for the overthrow of
this Union over the bones of Andrew Jackson!

Sir, I wish now to make two remarks, and hasten to a conclusion. I wish
to say, in regard to Texas, that if it should be hereafter, at any time,
the pleasure of the government of Texas to cede to the United States a
portion, larger or smaller, of her territory which lies adjacent to New
Mexico, and north of 36° 30' of north latitude, to be formed into free
States, for a fair equivalent in money or in the payment of her debt, I
think it an object well worthy the consideration of Congress, and I
shall be happy to concur in it myself, if I should have a connection
with the government at that time.

I have one other remark to make. In my observations upon slavery as it
has existed in this country, and as it now exists, I have expressed no
opinion of the mode of its extinguishment or melioration. I will say,
however, though I have nothing to propose, because I do not deem myself
so competent as other gentlemen to take any lead on this subject, that
if any gentleman from the South shall propose a scheme, to be carried on
by this government upon a large scale, for the transportation of free
colored people to any colony or any place in the world, I should be
quite disposed to incur almost any degree of expense to accomplish that
object. Nay, Sir, following an example set more than twenty years ago by
a great man,[19] then a Senator from New York, I would return to
Virginia, and through her to the whole South, the money received from
the lands and territories ceded by her to this government, for any such
purpose as to remove, in whole or in part, or in any way to diminish or
deal beneficially with, the free colored population of the Southern
States. I have said that I honor Virginia for her cession of this
territory. There have been received into the treasury of the United
States eighty millions of dollars, the proceeds of the sales of the
public lands ceded by her. If the residue should be sold at the same
rate, the whole aggregate will exceed two hundred millions of dollars.
If Virginia and the South see fit to adopt any proposition to relieve
themselves from the free people of color among them, or such as may be
made free, they have my full consent that the government shall pay them
any sum of money out of the proceeds of that cession which may be
adequate to the purpose.

And now, Mr. President, I draw these observations to a close. I have
spoken freely, and I meant to do so. I have sought to make no display. I
have sought to enliven the occasion by no animated discussion, nor have
I attempted any train of elaborate argument. I have wished only to speak
my sentiments, fully and at length, being desirous, once and for all, to
let the Senate know, and to let the country know, the opinions and
sentiments which I entertain on all these subjects. These opinions are
not likely to be suddenly changed. If there be any future service that I
can render to the country, consistently with these sentiments and
opinions, I shall cheerfully render it. If there be not, I shall still
be glad to have had an opportunity to disburden myself from the bottom
of my heart, and to make known every political sentiment that therein
exists.

And now, Mr. President, instead of speaking of the possibility or
utility of secession, instead of dwelling in those caverns of darkness,
instead of groping with those ideas so full of all that is horrid and
horrible, let us come out into the light of day; let us enjoy the fresh
air of Liberty and Union; let us cherish those hopes which belong to us;
let us devote ourselves to those great objects that are fit for our
consideration and our action; let us raise our conceptions to the
magnitude and the importance of the duties that devolve upon us; let our
comprehension be as broad as the country for which we act, our
aspirations as high as its certain destiny; let us not be pygmies in a
case that calls for men. Never did there devolve on any generation of
men higher trusts than now devolve upon us, for the preservation of this
Constitution and the harmony and peace of all who are destined to live
under it. Let us make our generation one of the strongest and brightest
links in that golden chain which is destined, I fondly believe, to
grapple the people of all the States to this Constitution for ages to
come. We have a great, popular, constitutional government, guarded by
law and by judicature, and defended by the affections of the whole
people. No monarchical throne presses these States together, no iron
chain of military power encircles them; they live and stand under a
government popular in its form, representative in its character, founded
upon principles of equality, and so constructed, we hope, as to last for
ever. In all its history it has been beneficent; it has trodden down no
man's liberty; it has crushed no State. Its daily respiration is liberty
and patriotism; its yet youthful veins are full of enterprise, courage,
and honorable love of glory and renown. Large before, the country has
now, by recent events, become vastly larger. This republic now extends,
with a vast breadth, across the whole continent. The two great seas of
the world wash the one and the other shore. We realize, on a mighty
scale, the beautiful description of the ornamental border of the buckler
of Achilles:--

    "Now, the broad shield complete, the artist crowned
    With his last hand, and poured the ocean round;
    In living silver seemed the waves to roll,
    And beat the buckler's verge, and bound the whole."