May \^ \*50- 
 
Class JL<t2JI 
 
 Book_X&4 
 

 
I 
 
 SPEECH 
 
 &> 
 
 ION. GEORGE W. JULIAN, OF INDIANA, 
 
 THE SLAVERY QUESTION. 
 
 DELIVERED 
 
 IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, MAY 14, 1850. 
 
 WASHINGTON: 
 
 PRINTED AT THE CONGRESSIONAL GLOBE OFFICE. 
 
 1850. 
 
: 
 
 
 West. Ees. HlJifc. See. 
 
THE SLAVERY QUESTION. 
 
 In Committee of the Whole on the state of the 
 Union, on the President's Message transmitting 
 the Constitution of California. 
 
 Mr. JULIAN said : 
 
 Mr. Chairman: Representing, as I do, one of the 
 strongest anti-slavery districts in the Union, I feel 
 called upon to express, as nearly as may be, the 
 views and feelings of my constituents, in reference 
 to the exciting and painfully-interesting question of 
 slavery. I am not vain enough to suppose that 
 anything I may say will influence the action of 
 this committee; yet I should hereafter reproach 
 myself were I to sit here day after day, and week 
 after week, till the close of the session, listening 
 to the monstrous heresies, and I am tempted to 
 say the impudent bluster, of southern gentlemen, 
 without confronting them on this floor with a be- 
 coming protest in the name of the people I have the 
 honor to represent. Sir, what is the language 
 with which these gentlemen have greeted our ears 
 for some months past? The gentleman from North 
 Carolina [Mr. Clingman] tells us, that less pau- 
 perism and crime abound in the South than in the 
 North, and that there never has existed a higher 
 state of civilization than is now exhibited by the 
 slaveholding States of this Union; and so in love 
 is he with his "peculiar institution," which thus 
 promotes the growth of civilization by turning 
 three millions of human beings into savages, and 
 prevents them from becoming paupers by con- 
 verting them into brutes, that he gives out the 
 threat, doubtless in behalf of his southern friends, 
 that unless they are permitted, under national sanc- 
 tion, to extend their accursed system over the vir- 
 gin soil of our territories, they will block the 
 wheels of Government, revolutionize the forms of 
 legislation, and involve this nation in the horrors 
 of civil war Nay, he goes farther, and antici- 
 pating the triumph of northern arms, and compar- 
 ing the vanquished "chivalry" to the Spartans at 
 Thermopylae, he kindly furnishes the future his 
 torian with the epitaph which is to tell posterity 
 the sad story of slaveholding valor: " Here lived 
 and died as noble a race as the sun ever shone upon,'" 
 fighting (he should have added) for the extension 
 and perpetuation of human bondage! 
 
 The gentleman from Mississippi [Mr. Brown] 
 manifests an equal devotion to the controlling inter- 
 est of the South. He declares that he «■ regards 
 slavery as a great moral, social, political, and re- 
 ligious blessing — a blessing to the slave and a 
 
 blessing to the master." The celebrated John 
 Wesley was so "fanatical" as to declare that 
 " slavery is the sum of all villainies." Had he 
 lived in this enlightened age and Christian land, 
 he would have learned that, on the contrary, it is 
 the sum of all blessings. He would have been 
 told that even the Bible sanctions it as a Divine 
 institution. Southern gentlemen remind us that 
 it "existed in the tents of the Patriarchs, and in 
 the households of his own chosen people;" that 
 *' it was established by decree of Almighty God," 
 and " is sanctioned in the Bible — in both Testa- 
 ments — from Genesis to Revelation;" and so sa- 
 credly is it to be cherished, that we in the North 
 are not allowed to give utterance to our deepest 
 moral convictions respecting it. My friend from 
 Mississippi graciously admits that we think sla- 
 very an evil; but he adds, " very well, think so; 
 but keep your thoughts to yourselves." Thus, in the 
 imperative mood and characteristic style of a slave- 
 driver are we to be silenced. In this " freest na- 
 tion on earth," our thoughts must be suppressed 
 by this slaveholding inquisition. We must, I 
 suppose, make a bonfire of the writings of Whit- 
 tier, and expurgate our best literature. Indeed, 
 to be consistent, and in order to eradicate every 
 trace of " fanaticism" from the minds of the people, 
 we must blot out the history of the American 
 Revolution, and " keep our liberty a secret," lest 
 we should give offence to the immaculate insti- 
 tution of the South. Of other institutions of 
 society we may speak with the utmost freedom. 
 We may talk of northern labor 
 pauperism. We may advocate wil 
 pen the most radical schemes of ref 
 assail every existing form of civiliza 
 discourse freely of things even the 
 as the Supreme Being, His attribu 
 dence, — yes, in this boasted land 01 nee bjjcc^.., 
 we may deny his existence, or blaspheme his 
 name by invoking his sanction of the most 
 Heaven daring crimes. But American slavery is 
 an institution so precious, so beneficent, so exalted 
 among the ordinances of God, so "sanctioned 
 and sanctified by the legislation of two hundred 
 years," that northern men are not permitted to 
 breathe an honest whisper against it. We must 
 hold our tongues and seal our lips before the 
 majesty of this southern Moloch, lest he should 
 lose some of the victims which otherwise his 
 worshippers might sacrifice upon his blood-stained 
 altar. Oh ! the devouring loveliness, the enraptur- 
 
 S 
 
ing beauties, the unspeakable beatitudes of the 
 "patriarchal institution!" And what a blessed 
 thing it must be to live in the pure atmosphere, 
 and°under the clear sky of the South, feasting 
 upon philosophy and reason, far removed from 
 the folly and "fanaticism" of the North! 
 
 And the gentleman from Mississippi, like his 
 friend from North Carolina, is in favor of extend 
 ing the blessings of slavery at all hazards. The 
 South will not submit to be girdled round by free 
 soil; and if we dare to thwart her purpose, we are 
 reminded of the struggle of our fathers against 
 British tyranny. Southern gentlemen point us 
 to the battle-fields of our Revolution, and bid us 
 beware. A northern man, especially if disposed 
 to be " fanatical," would suppose that our south- 
 ern brethren would avoid such allusions. Out- 
 fathers, it is true, resisted the aggressions of the 
 mother country " at all hazards, and to the last 
 extremity;" but their resistance was not in beha.f 
 of slavery, but freedom. Mr. Madison declared 
 in 1783, that " it was the boast and pride of Amer- 
 ica that the rights for which she contended were 
 the rights of human nature." And Mr. Jefferson 
 said, that "one hour" of this American slavery, 
 which has been so recently transfigured into all 
 blessedness, " is fraught with more misery than 
 ages of that which we rose in rebellion to oppose. 
 In speaking of an apprehended struggle of the 
 blacks to rid themselves of their bondage, he af- 
 firmed that " the Almighty has no attribute which 
 can take sides with us in such a' contest." Yet 
 southern gentlemen appeal to our revolutionary 
 history as a warning to us, and a justification of a 
 war on their part, not for the establishment, but 
 for the subversion of liberty and the destruction of 
 " the rights of human nature," by the indefinite 
 extension over free lands of that system of bond- 
 age which the very soul of Jefferson abhorred. 
 AH this to northern men seems strange. As a 
 specimen of southern philosophy it may be very 
 creditable to politicians from that quarter, and it 
 may appeal powerfully to their patriotism, but we 
 cannot comprehend it. Nothing short of the 
 serene understanding and unclouded vision of a 
 slaveholder, can penetrate into the marrow of such 
 arguments in defence of the South. 
 
 The gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Morton] i 
 makes war upon the ballot-box. He says it has 
 become "sectional;" and a distinguished gentle- | 
 man in the other end of the Capitol, after charging j 
 it with being the parent of the anti-slavery agita- I 
 tion and its apprehended disasters to the country, 
 pronounces it " worse than Pandora's box." We 
 in the North have been taught that a constitutional 
 majority should rule. We believe this principle 
 lies at the foundation of our free system of govern- 
 ment. We have been so " fanatical" as to re- 
 gard the ballot box as the palladium of our lib- 
 erty. Cut our slaveholding brethren have discov- 
 ered that this supposed safeguard of freedom is in 
 fact an engine of mischief. It is the dreaded in- 
 strument by which this Union is to be broken into 
 fragments. IIo.v we should get along in a Dem- 
 ocratic government without it, I am notable to ex- 
 plain; and 1 regret that southern gentlemen, whose 
 minds are free irom any "fanatical" nitluence, have 
 not seen fit i" enlighti n us on that subject. 
 
 The gentleman Irom Georgia [Mr. Wellborn] 
 assails the dogma that " men are created equal:" 
 lie styles it " a mystical pustulate," although our 
 
 fathers regarded it as a self-evident truth. They, 
 I suppose, lived in the twilight of political wis- 
 dom; for since I have had the honor to occupy a 
 seat on this floor, I have on more occasions than 
 one heard southern gentlemen denounce Jefferson 
 as a sophist, and the Declaration of Independence 
 as a humbug. And some of these gentlemen, 
 strange to tell, coolly style themselves Democrats! 
 Why, we are told that so far from being created 
 equal, men are not created at all. Adam alone was a 
 created man. Neither are men born. Infants are 
 born, and grow up to the estate of manhood; but 
 men are neither born nor created. The equality of 
 men is declared to be absurd for other reasons. 
 Some men, we are told, are taller than others, some 
 of a fairer complexion, some more richly endowed 
 with intellect; as if the author of the Declaration 
 of Independence had meant to affirm that men are 
 equal in respect to their physical or intellectual 
 peculiarities ! 
 
 Mr. Chairman, I will speak seriously. I need 
 not further multiply these examples of southern 
 opinion and feeling. 1 have brought them forward 
 because, while the cry of " northern fanaticism" 
 is incessantly ringing in our ears, I desire the 
 country to judge whether a much larger share of 
 fanaticism does not exist in the southern States; 
 and whether this slaveholding fanaticism is not 
 infinitely less excusable than that which prevails 
 in the North. Sir, I can respect the man who, 
 under the impulse of philanthropy or patriotism, 
 1 deals his ill-judged blows at an institution which 
 is crushing the dearest rights of millions, and now 
 seeks at all hazards to curse new regions with its 
 presence; but it is difficult to respect the slave- 
 holder, who, with his foot upon the neck of his 
 brother, sits down with his Bible in one hand and 
 his metaphysics in the other, to argue with me, 
 that the truths of the Declaration of Independence 
 are mere sophisms, and that the forcible stripping 
 of three millions of human beings of all their 
 rights, even their humanity itself, receives the 
 sanction of the Almighty, and is a blessing to both 
 tyrant and slave. This is a species of fanaticism 
 above all others the most distasteful, the most pre- 
 posterous, the most revolting. I will not under- 
 take to combat these absurdities of its champions; 
 for it has been said truly, that to argue with men 
 who have renounced the use and authority of rea- 
 son, and whose philosophy consists in holding 
 humanity in contempt, is like administering medi- 
 cine to the dead, or endeavoring to convert an 
 atheist by Scripture. 
 
 Mr. Cliairinan, we bear much of northern and 
 
 southern aggression. Nothing is more current in 
 
 southern speeches and newspapers than the charge 
 
 I that the people of the free S;ate3 are (iggnssing 
 
 J; upon the rights of the South; and this Union, it 
 
 I seems, is to be dissolved, unless these aggressions 
 ! shall cease. On the other hand, the people of the 
 
 free States charge the South with being the ag- 
 | pressor, and plead not guilty to the indictment of 
 ' The slaveholders. Now, how stands the case? 
 
 II Who is the aggressor? This is the" question to be 
 solved, and the one 1 propose mainly to examine. 
 1 wish to do this fairly and dispassionately; for 1 
 am fully aware of the differences of opinion 
 which prevail in regard to it, resulting, perhaps 
 necessarily, from the different circumstances of the 
 parties. 
 
 The charge of northern aggression I certainly 
 
i 
 
 deny. It has no just foundation. Neither is the 
 charge of southern aggression, perhaps, fully and 
 strictly true. The truth rather seems to be, that 
 under the lead of southern counsels, both sections 
 of the Union have united in enlarging and ag- 
 grandizing the slave power. This proposition I 
 shall endeavor to establish. 
 
 What are these northern aggressions of which 
 we have heard so much complaint? Of what hos- 
 tile acts do they consist ? Have the people of the 
 free States attempted to interfere, by law, with 
 slavery in the South ? This charge, t am aware, 
 is frequently brought against us. You can scarcely 
 open a newspaper from that quarter in which 
 it is not gravely made. It has been again and 
 again denied by northern men on this floor, but 
 southern gentlemen still continue to repeat it. 
 Sometimes it is preferred against the people of the 
 North generally, but more frequently against a 
 comparatively small portion of them as the Free- 
 Soil partv. The charge is utterly unfounded in 
 truth. The Whigs and Democrats of the North, 
 as well as the Free S)\\ men, disclaim all right on 
 the part of Congress to touch the institution of 
 slavery where it exists. We all agree that the 
 subject is beyond our control. As regards the 
 naked question of constitutional power, Congress 
 has no more right to abolish slavery in South 
 Carolina, than it has to abolish free schools in 
 Massachusetts — no more right to support slavery 
 in the one State than in the other. It is an insti- 
 tution dependent wholly upon State sovereignty, 
 with which the General Government has no more 
 concern than with slavery in Russia or Austria. 
 It is true, that some of us in the North claim the 
 right to assault slavery with moral weapons, even 
 in the States. When the slaveholder says to .us 
 that on this subject we must keep our thoughts to 
 ourselves, we shall obey him if it suits us. We 
 have a right to employ those moral forces by 
 which reforms of every kind are carried forward. 
 We understand the power of opinion. We be- 
 lieve, in the language of Dr. Channing, that " opin- 
 ion is stronger than kings, mobs, Lynch-laws, or 
 any other laws for the suppression of thought and 
 speech;" and that, " whoever spreads through his 
 circle, be that circle wide or narrow, just opin- 
 ions and views respecting slavery, hastens its fall." 
 Sir, it is not only our right, but our duty, to give 
 utterance to our cherished moral convictions; and 
 if slavery, rooted as it is in the institutions and 
 opinions of the South, cannot brave the growing 
 disapprobation of Christendom, let it perish. And 
 it will perish. If, by " reenacting the law of God," 
 we can prevent its extension, the South will be 
 constrained to adopt some plan of gradual eman- 
 cipation. She will realize forcibly the important 
 fact, which she now endeavors to overlook, that 
 truth, justice, humanity, and the spirit of the age, 
 are all leagued against her system. I will not 
 harbor the impious thought that an institution, so 
 freighted with wretchedness and wo, is to be per- 
 petuated under the providence of God. I cannot 
 adopt a principle that would dethrone the Al- 
 mighty, and make Satan the governor of the moral 
 world. It is "the fool" wiio " hath said in his 
 heart there is no God." Nor do we mean to be 
 silenced by the hackneyed argument that slavery 
 is a civil institution, arid therefore none of our 
 business. We deny that the public laws of a 
 community can sanctify oppression, or stifle the 
 
 expression of our sympathy for the oppressed. 
 Your slavery, when intrenched behind your insti- 
 tutions, is still slavery; and although your laws 
 may uphold it, they cannot repeal that Christian 
 law, which teaches the universal brotherhood of 
 our race. But while I thus frankly avow these 
 sentiments, I repeat what I have already said, that 
 the people of the North claim no right, through 
 the action of the General Government, to interfere 
 with slavery in the slaveholding States. We most 
 emphatically disavow any such purpose. Are we, 
 then, guilty of aggression upon the rights of the 
 slaveholder? 
 
 We are charged with violating the clause in the 
 Federal Constitution relative to fugitives from 
 labor. This is among the gravest accusations pre- 
 | feired against us. Sir, this clause, and the act of 
 Congress made in pursuance of it, have been elab- 
 orately argued and solemnly adjudicated upon in 
 the highest court in this nation. Our duty in the 
 free States has been made so plain that a child may 
 understand it. 1 would not refer to this subject, 
 which has been so often discussed on this floor, 
 and repeat what has been so often said, were it 
 not for the unendmg clamor of the South against 
 us. We are driven to a repetition of the grounds 
 of our defence. We say the slave-hunter may 
 come upon our soil in pursuit of his fugitive, and 
 take him, if he is able, either with or without war- 
 rant, and we are not allowed to interfere in the 
 race. " Hands off" is our covenant, and the 
 whole of it. If the owner sees fit to sue out a 
 warrant, he must go before a United States officer 
 with his complaint. It is not the duty of our 
 State magistrates to aid him, the execution of the 
 clause in question depending exclusively upon 
 Federal authority. I think I state fairly the opin- 
 ion of the Supreme Court in the case of Prigg vs. 
 the State of Pennsylvania. Now, if Congress 
 alone can provide for the execution of this clause 
 through Federal jurisdiction, and the State magis- 
 trates of the North are under no obligations to in- 
 terfere, is it a violation of the constitutional rights 
 of the South for us to pass laws prohibiting such, 
 interference? I would like to have southern gen- 
 tlemen answer this question; for I insist upon it, 
 that if the Federat Constitution does not require 
 them to assist in the recapture of fugitives, it can- 
 not be an aggression upon southern rights to with- 
 hold such assistance, and thus maintain the posi- 
 tion of neutrality, or non-action, assigned them by 
 the Constitution. Can it be that the northern 
 States have any other duties to perform than those 
 which the Constitution itself imposes? Is slavery 
 so endeared to us that we must volunteer in it3 
 support? Sir, in examining this question, the 
 constitutional rights of the South, and the cor- 
 responding constitutional obligations of the North t 
 are the only legitimate matters of consideration. 
 No free State has as yet passed any laws dischar- 
 ging fugitives from the service they owe by the 
 laws of other States, or preventing their recapture; 
 and if this is not done, there can be no reasonable 
 ground of complaint against the North Accord- 
 ing to the decision alluded to, the fugitive may be 
 recaptured without warrant, and, withoutany trial 
 of his rights by jury or otherwise, carried into 
 slavery. This manifestly exposes the colored 
 people of the free States to the southern kidnap- 
 per. They have the right, which belongs to all 
 communities, to guard the liberties of their own 
 
citizens; and if, for this purpose, some of them 
 have passed Iaw3 against the kidnapping of free 
 persons as slaves, and providing a trial by jury to 
 determine the question whether the party claimed 
 is or is not a slave, is it an aggression upon south- 
 ern rights? When the free colored citizens of the 
 North visit the ports of South Carolina, they are 
 thrown into prison, and sometimes even sold into 
 slavery. This, if I mistake not, is justified by the 
 South on the ground of a necessary police regula- 
 tion. Have not the northern States a right to 
 establish their police regulations, to secure the 
 rights of their citizens ? Are not police regulations 
 in behalf of liberty as justifiable as police regula- 
 tions in behalf of slavery? 
 
 As regards the enticement of slaves from their 
 masters, the number of such cases is small. 
 Neither the States, nor the mass of their citizens, 
 are accountable, or have any connection whatever 
 with such transactions. The great majority of es- 
 capes are prompted by other causes than northern 
 interference. The slave has the power of locomo- 
 tion, and the instinct to be free; and it would indeed 
 be wonderful did he not, of his own will and by his 
 own efforts, struggle for the prize of which he has 
 been robbed. That men will strive to better their 
 condition is a law of nature. The flight of the bond- 
 man is a necessary consequence of the oppression 
 under which he groans. Blame not the North for 
 this, but blame your diabolical system, which im- 
 piously tramples under foot the God-given rights 
 of men. Upbraid nature, for she is always '"agi- 
 tating" the question of slavery, and persuading its 
 victims to flee. You hold three millions of your 
 fellow-beings as chattels. You shut out from them 
 the light of the Bible, and degrade and brutalize 
 them to the extent of your power, for your system 
 requires it. You deny thern that principle of eter- 
 nal justice, a fair day's wages for a fair day's 
 work. You sunder their dearest relations, separa- 
 ting at your will husbands and wives, parents and 
 children. And do you suppose the poor slave, 
 smarting under these wrongs, will not seek deliv- 
 erance by flight? And when, through peril and 
 Starvation, he firjds his way among us, panting for 
 that liberty for which our fathers poured out their 
 blood, do you imagine we shall drop our woik 
 and join in the chase with his Chiistless pursuers? 
 Sir, there is no power on earth that can induce us 
 thus to take sides with the oppressor. Such, I rejoice 
 to believe, is the public sentiment of the North, 
 that 1 care not what laws Congress may enact, 
 the slavehunter will find himself unaided. The 
 free States will observe faithfully the compromises 
 of the Constitution. They will give up their sod 
 as a hunting ground for the slaveholder, suspend- 
 ing their sovereignty that he may give free chase 
 to his fugitive. They will pass no law to discharge 
 him from the service he may legally owe to his 
 claimant, or to hinder his recapture. But we will 
 not actively cooperate against the unhappy vic.iim 
 of your tyranny. And if southern gentlemen 
 mean to insisi upon such active cooperation on our 
 part, as a condition of their continuing in the 
 Union, they may as well, in my judgment, begin 
 to look about them for some way of gettine out of 
 it on the best terms they can. Under no circum- 
 stances, I trust, will we yield to their demand. 
 
 Another intolerable aggression with which the 
 North is charged ia that of scattering incendiary 
 publications in the South, designed to incite insur- 
 
 rections among the slaves. The southern gentle- 
 man from Pennsylvania [Mr. Ross] 1ms paraded 
 this charge in the most hideous colors. My friend 
 from North Carolina has also been quite graphic 
 in setting it forth, declaring that the free States 
 "keep up and foster in their bosoms Abolition 
 • societies, whose main purpose is to scatter fire- 
 ' brands throughout the South, to incite strvile 
 ' insurrections, and stimulate by licentious pic- 
 ' lures our negroes to invade the persons of our 
 ' white women." Sir, this is a serious accusation, 
 and if true, the South unquestionably has a right 
 to complain. I will not charge the gentleman with 
 fabricating it, but 1 regret that he did not produce 
 the evidence on which he felt authorized to make 
 it. I deny the charge. I deny that the free 
 Stales " keep up and foster in their bosoms Abo- 
 lition societies," for any purpose. The Aboliion 
 societies, now known as such, belong to what is 
 called the Garrison school. The northern States 
 are no more responsible for their doings than the 
 southern States. Unlike all other parties in the 
 North, they lay down their platform outside of the 
 Constitution, and hold that the freedom of the black 
 race can only be accomplished by its overthrow; 
 but they rely upon moral force alone for the tri- 
 umph of their cause. I deny that they are guilty 
 of inciting, or of wishing to incite, servile insur- 
 rections, or of scattering firebrands among the 
 slaves, or licentious pictures. These Abolitionists 
 are generally the friends of peace, non-resistants, 
 the enemies of violence and blood; and f-ey would 
 regret as much as any people in the Union to see 
 a servile war set on foot by the millions in the 
 land of slavery. I will add further, while dissent- 
 ing entirely from their doctrines, that they have 
 among them some of the purest and most gifted 
 men in the nation. But is the charge meant for 
 the Free-Soil party of the North ? Are they the 
 incendiaries complained of, and their doctrines the 
 firebrands which have been scattered in the South ? 
 We hold that Congress should abolish slavery in 
 this Dictrict, prevent its extension beyond its pies- 
 ent limits, refuse the admission of any more slave 
 States, anil that the Government should relieve 
 itself from all responsibility for the existence or 
 support of slavery where it has the constitutional 
 power thus to relieve itself, leaving it a State in- 
 stitution, dependent upon State sovereignly exclu- 
 sively. We are for non-intervention in its true 
 sense. Such is our creed, and we proclaim it 
 North and South. If it is incendiary, then are 
 we guilty, for our newspapers circulate in- the 
 slaveholding States If our faith is a firebrand, 
 we have scattered it, not among your slaves, who 
 are unable to read, but among their owners. 
 Acting within the Constitution, and resohing not 
 to go beyond its granted powers, we mean to avail 
 ourselves of a free press to disseminate our views 
 far and wide. If truth is incendiary, we shall 
 still proclaim if, if our constitutional acts aie fire- 
 brands, we shall nevertheless do our duty. Sir, 
 this charge has been conceived in the diseased 
 brain of the. slaveholder, or the sickly conscience 
 of the doughface. 1 reiterate my denial that any 
 party in the free States has labored to bring about 
 a war between the two races in the South. I am 
 aware that ue have our ultra men among us, 
 nr»r do 1 pretend to justify all they have done. 
 They must answer for themselves, and cannot 
 involve the North in their responsibility. But 
 
there is no party in the free States that harbors 
 any such purpose, or that would not shudder at 
 the contemplation of so merciless and heart-ap- 
 palling a project. 
 
 Passing over the subject of slavery in this Dis- 
 trict, which I shall notice in a different connection, 
 I come now to the Wilmot proviso. This would 
 seem to be the sum of all wrongs and outrages — 
 the aggression of aggressions — the monster that, 
 if not at once throttled and destroyed, is to rend 
 the Union asunder. Let us once more look it in 
 the face, take its dimensions, and contemplate its 
 supposed power of mischief. This Wilmot pro- 
 viso has been much discussed in Congress, and 
 throughout the country; it might be thought, by 
 this time, a stale topic; yet it is far from being an 
 uninteresting one, as the continual discussion of it 
 here evinces. Endeavoring as much as possible 
 to lay aside passion, I woold say to southern gen- 
 tlemen, "Let us reason together." Suppose this 
 alarming measure should pass through both 
 Houses of Congress, and receive the Executive 
 sanction, I ask wherein would consist the aggres- 
 sion upon the guarantied rights of the South? 
 Would not every slave State still retain its sover- 
 eignty over its peculiar institution? Would not 
 the rights of the master, as sanctioned by local 
 law, remain unimpaired ? Look next at the con- 
 stitutional compromises. The free States bound 
 themselves to allow you to pursue your fugitives 
 upon their soil. Would the adoption of the pro- 
 viso affect, in the smallest degree, this right? 
 We agreed that you might carry on — or, if you 
 please, that we would join you in carrying on — 
 the slave trade, for twenty years. We faithfully 
 lived up to this compromise; and there is, long 
 since, an end of it. Of course, the proviso can 
 have nothing to do with it. Lastly, it was stipu- 
 lated that every five of your slaves, for the pur- 
 poses of taxation and representation, should be 
 counted equal to three of our citizens. Most ob- 
 viously, the passage of the proviso would not 
 invalidate the rights of the South growing out of 
 this compromise. The old slave States, and those 
 subsequently admitted, would retain all the ad- 
 vantages of the original bargain. Now, I main- 
 tain that these subjects of taxation, representation, 
 and the recovery of fugitives, are the only matters 
 touching which Congress can constitutionally 
 legislate in favor of slavery. So far, I admit, our 
 fathers compromised the freedom of the black 
 race, and involved the free States in the political 
 obligation to uphold slavery. Beyond these ex- 
 press compromises, they did not go, nor design 
 to go. They yielded thus much to the South, un- 
 der the impelling desire for union, believing that 
 the powers of the Government, with the excep- 
 tions expressly made, would be "actively and 
 perpetually exerted on the side of freedom," and 
 that slavery would gradually cease to exist in the 
 country. 1 do not speak of this as matter of con- 
 jecture. As early as 1774, Mr. Jefferson declared 
 that " the abolition of domestic slavery is the 
 greatest object of desire in these colonies ; " and 
 the opinion was then common throughout the 
 country that this object could be attained by dis- 
 continuing the importation of slaves from abroad. 
 The action of the memorable Congress of this 
 year, and popular movements in all the colonies, 
 about this time, evinced a very decided determina- 
 tion to carry into practice this non-importation pol- 
 
 icy. This, I presume, will be denied by no one. 
 Our revolutionary struggle commenced soon after- 
 wards; and, basing its justification upon the inal- 
 ienable rights of man, it could not fail to give an 
 impulse to the spirit of liberty favorable to the ab- 
 olition of slavery in the colonies. After the war 
 was over, Mr. Jefferson himself declared that 
 such had been its tendency. Indeed, our fathers 
 could not avoid seeing that slavery was practi- 
 cally at war with the Declaration of Independence, 
 and their own example in resisting the tyranny 
 of Britain. In 1787 the Federal Constitution was 
 framed, and it is a noteworthy fact, that the word 
 slave is not to be found in it. According to Mr. 
 Madison, this word was studiously omitted, to 
 avoid the appearance of a sanction, by the Federal 
 Government, of the idea " that there could be prop- 
 erty in man." Thiscircumstance, it seems to me, 
 is very significant. The Constitution is so guard- 
 edly framed, that, were slavery at any moment 
 to cease to exist, scarcely a clause or a word would 
 require to be changed. Who does not see in this , 
 that whilst our fathers were framing a Constitu- 
 tion that was to last for ages, the idea stood out 
 palpably before their minds, that the days of sla- 
 very were numbered? Beit remembered, too, that 
 at the time the Constitution was adopted, slavery 
 had already been abolished, or measures had been 
 taken for its abolition, in seven of the thirteen colo- 
 nies; and at the very time the Convention which 
 formed the Constitution was in session, maturing 
 its provisions, the Congress of the Confederation 
 was sitting at New York, enacting the celebrated 
 ordinance by which territory enough for five large 
 States was forever consecrated to freedom. Every 
 inch of soil which the Government then owned 
 was, by this ordinance, made tree, and a prepon- 
 derance secured in favor of the North of twelve non- 
 slaveholding to only six slaveholding States. Thus 
 we see, that at the time the Government wasabout 
 to enter upon its career, and to exemplify the 
 spirit of its founders, slavery was a receding power, 
 a decaying interest, a perishing institution. Not 
 chains and stripes, but freedom, was the domi- 
 nant idea, the great thought of our fathers. They 
 would have been astounded at the suggestion that 
 slavery was to be perpetuated in this country, as 
 the source of all blessings, and lauded as " the 
 corner-stone of our republican edifice." It was 
 among them, and had been forced upon them by 
 the mother country; and not being able immedi- 
 ately to get rid of it, it was to be tolerated and en- 
 dured, till measures could be taken for its final ex- 
 tirpation from the land. And if they regarded it 
 as a curse, and did not expect it to be perpetuated 
 where it then existed, much less did they im- 
 agine that it was to be carried into new regions 
 under the sanction of the government of their 
 formation, and become the great central power 
 and all-absorbing interest of the nation Sir, the 
 thought is monstrous, that the northern States, 
 when reluctantly agreeing to those compromises 
 by which slavery received a qualified support in 
 the old States, intended that those compromises 
 should afterwards be indefinitely extended over 
 the American continent. Let it be borne in mind, 
 also, as corroborating the view under considera- 
 tion, that the founders of our Government had no 
 expectation that the boundaries of the United 
 States, as established by the tieaty of 1783, would 
 ever be enlarged. There is not one syllable of 
 
8 
 
 evidence, either in the Constitution itself, or the 
 history of its formation, to justify the idea that 
 the acquisition of foreign territory was contem- 
 plated. This has been admitted by distinguished 
 southern gentlemen in this Hall, and in the other 
 end of the Capitol. Mr. Jefferson seems to have 
 entertained this view, for he questioned the power 
 of the nation to annex foreign territory without an 
 amendment of the Constitution. I deduce from 
 this the obvious and inevitable conclusion, that 
 the Constitution was made for the United Slates as 
 then bounded, and that the compromises on the 
 subject of slavery, to which the northern States 
 assented, had reference alone to the slavery of 
 the then slaveholding States; the slavery that was 
 dwindling and perishing under the weight of its 
 ov/n acknowledged evils; the slavery that our 
 fathers prevented from spreading into the only 
 territory then belonging to the Government; the 
 slavery that was almost universally expected, at 
 no very distant day, to be swept from the Repub- 
 lic. The adoption of the Wilmot proviso, there- 
 fore, would be in harmony with the Constitution, 
 with the views and expectations of the people at 
 the time of its formation, and with the Declaration 
 of Independence, on which our fathers planted 
 themselves in the struggle against a foreign yoke. 
 It i3 impossible to escape this conclusion without 
 contradicting their truth of history, and branding 
 the founders of the Government as hypocrites, 
 who, after having paraded the rights of man be- 
 fore the world, and achieved their own freedom, 
 deliberately went to work to found an empire of 
 slaves. And yet southern gentlemen speak of the 
 restriction of slavery as an aggression upon their 
 rights ! What makes this charge look still worse 
 is the fact, that the supreme power of legislation by 
 Congress over the territories of the Government 
 has been uniformly exercised from its beginning 
 till the year 1848, and acquiesced in by all its 
 departments. The power in question — that of 
 restricting slavery — was exercised in 1787; it was 
 exercised in 1820; it was exercised in the passage 
 of the resolutions annexing Texas in 1845, and 
 in its most objectionable form; and it was again 
 exercised in 1848, with the sanction of a slave- 
 holding President. And still we are told that the 
 passage of the proviso would be such an intoler- 
 able outrage as to justify the dissolution of the 
 Union ! 
 
 Mr. Chairman, I have now briefly noticed most 
 of the alleged aggressions of the North . The his- 
 torical facts I have brought forward bearing upon 
 the question of slavery restriction, have been often 
 presented; but they cannot be too often repeated, 
 or too carefully remembered, in the present crisis. 
 Sir, it is as true at this day as at any former pe- 
 riod of our history, that " a frequent recurrence 
 to first principles is absolutely necessary to pre- 
 serve the blessings of liberty." Turning now to 
 the other side of the picture, I propose to glance 
 at that polity and some of those acts by which 
 slavery, instead of wearing out its life within its 
 original limits, has been transplanted into new 
 regions, fostered by the Government as a great 
 national interest, und interwoven with the whole 
 fabric of its policy. I shall make no special com- 
 plaint about "southern aggression," for it will 
 appear, as I have alrejidy stated, that the slave 
 power has built itself up by the cooperation or ac- 
 quiescence of the non-slaveholding States. Nor 
 
 n shall I claim any novelty for the facts I am about 
 j| to present. They form a part of the history of 
 |; the country and the public records of the Govern- 
 : ment. Through various channels they have found 
 i their way to the people; yet it may not be entirely 
 i! a useless labor to gather them together and endea- 
 || vor to keep them in remembrance in determining 
 what further concessions shall be made to the 
 demands of slavery. 
 
 At the time the Federal Constitution was adopted, 
 the States of North Carolina and Georgia claimed 
 certain territory, which they afterwards ceded or 
 relinquished to the General Government; and out 
 of this territory the three States of Tennessee, Al- 
 abama, and Mississippi, were formed and succes- 
 sively admitted into the Union. The compromises 
 by which the northern States had bound them- 
 selves in reference to slavery in the old States, 
 were now stretched over these new ones, contain- 
 ing at present a slave population considerably ex- 
 ceeding that of the entire Union at the time of its 
 formation. I have already shown that such an 
 accession of slaveholding States, thus forcing the 
 North into a further partnership with the curses 
 of slavery, was not contemplated by our fathers. 
 It was accomplished, however, and of course by 
 the aid of northern votes. 
 
 In 1803 we gave fifteen millions of dollars for the 
 territory of Louisiana, and the three large slave 
 States of Louisiana, Arkansas, and Missouri, were 
 subsequently carved out of it, and from time to 
 lime admitted into the Union. They contain a 
 slave population of upwards of three hundred thou- 
 sand souls. Here, again, the obligation of the 
 free States to support slavery was enlarged, and 
 the fond expectation of our fathers disappointed. 
 
 In 1819 we gave five millions of dollars for the 
 territory of Florida. We did not buy it on ac- 
 count of the value of its lands, or of the added 
 wealth it would bring into the Union, but mainly 
 to strengthen the slaveholding interest. Difficul- 
 ties were apprehended from the pursuit of fugi- 
 tives into the territory whilst it continued a Span- 
 ish province, and to obviate these difficulties, and 
 at the same time to widen the domain of slavery, 
 the purchase was made. Florida was subse- 
 quently admitted, by the help of northern votes, 
 into full fellowship with Massachusetts and the 
 other free States, whose relations with slavery 
 were thus again extended, in violation of the faith 
 upon which the Union had been consummated. 
 
 In 1845 Texas was annexed, containing territory 
 enough for five or six States. That this was a 
 measure " essentially southern in its character," 
 is placed beyond all doubt by the records of the 
 State Department. It is likewise proved by the 
 declarations of southern members of Congress in 
 1844, and by the avowals of the southern press 
 and of leading men in the South, from the time 
 the question was first agitated till the project was 
 consummated. No man, it seems to me, can read 
 the history of Texas from its first settlement by 
 emigrants from this country, and for one moment 
 doubt the truth of what I assert. I know it has 
 been said on this floor that the acquisition of 
 Texas was not a southern measure, but a measure 
 of the National Democratic party. I am aware, 
 too, that John Quincy Adams declared in 1845 
 that it was " in its conception and in its conclu- 
 sion a Whig measure." With these declarations 
 I have nothing to do. I do not charge any party 
 
9 
 
 in the North with favoring annexation with the 
 design of extending slavery. I speak not as a 
 partisan, but as a seeker of facts, bearing upon the 
 alleged charge of northern aggression; and what 
 I assert is, that while the motive of the South in 
 grasping Texas was unmasked, and was in fact 
 glaringly manifest, the North was induced to come 
 to her rescue, and thus added an empire of slavery 
 to her dominions in the Southwest. Was this a 
 northern aggression ? Nine slaveholding States 
 have been added to the Union since the date of its 
 formation, and five of them out of soil then the 
 property of foreign nations. All this has been 
 generously done by the free States, for they have 
 had the strength in every instance to prevent these 
 additions and this constantly-augmenting southern 
 power. 
 
 The facts I have stated are significant. They 
 show that the northern States, instead of aggressing 
 upon the rights of the South, have aided her in 
 incorporating additional slaveholding States into 
 the Union, whenever such aid has been demanded. 
 But this is not all. Some thirty years ago the 
 States of Kentucky, Tennessee, Alabama, Missis- 
 sippi, Georgia, North Carolina, Arkansas, and 
 Missouri, were more or less incumbered with an 
 Indian population. The white man and his slave 
 were shut out from large regions of those States by 
 the barriers of the red man, which the States them- 
 selves had no power to remove. All these regions 
 are now redeemed from the Indian, and acutal 
 slavery extended where it could not go before; and 
 all this has been done by the help of northern votes; 
 for without that help, the laws could not have been 
 passed, nor the treaties have been ratified, by 
 which this great extension of slavery in so many 
 great States was accomplished.* What a com- 
 mentary upon the charge of northern aggression ! 
 
 In 1778 and 1790 the States of Virginia and Mary- 
 land ceded to the General Government the territory 
 constituting the District of Columbia, till the late 
 retrocession of the portion ceded by the former. 
 These cessions, under the Constitution, necessarily 
 gave Congress the exclusive power of legislation 
 over the territory ceded, and its inhabitants. Con- 
 gress accepted these grants, and in 1801 reenacted 
 the slave codes of Maryland and Virginia, and thus 
 legalized and nationalized slavery in this District. 
 Slaves are now held here by virtue of this law, 
 and have been so held for nearly half a century. 
 The free States have always had strength enough 
 in Congress to repeal it, but they have forborne to 
 do so. They have done more: they have per- 
 mitted you to carry on, by their sanction, the 
 slave traffic here, which is interdicted by your own 
 slave States. This execrable commerce, which 
 the laws of the civilized world pronounce piracy, 
 punishable with death, and which even the Sultan 
 of Turkey and the Bey of Tunis have put under 
 their ban; this "piratical warfare," as Jefferson 
 called it, and which he declared three quarters of a 
 century ago, to be " the opprobium of Infidel 
 powers;" this heir of all abominations, has existed 
 here for nearly fifty years by our permission; 
 here in the heart of this model Republic, around 
 the walls of its Capitol, and under the folds of its 
 flag; here, in the noon of the nineteenth century, 
 and under the full blaze of Christian truth ! And 
 northern men have not only upheld this traffic thus 
 
 *Benton's late speech. 
 
 far, but their forbearance towards the South inclines 
 some of them to uphold it still longer. I doubt if 
 there are men enough in Congress to-day to pass 
 a bill through either House for its abolition. And 
 yet, southern gentlemen talk about the aggressions 
 of the North, and threaten to break up the Union 
 to secure their deliverance from our oppression! 
 Will they snap asunder the cords that bind us, in 
 anticipation of an act of justice? Suppose Congress 
 should abolish slavery and the slave trade here; 
 would such abolition interfere in any way with 
 the constitutional rights of the slaveholding States? 
 We in the North are upholding these evils in this 
 District; we are morally and politically responsi- 
 ble for their continuance; and I say to gentlemen 
 from the South, that if by the exercise of an un- 
 questionable power of Congress we rid ourselves 
 of this responsibility, it is our business and not 
 yours. You have no right to complain, and your 
 clamor in this respect about northern aggression 
 ought to be regarded as an insult to the free States. 
 
 I pass to another topic. Since the formation 
 of the Government, if I have rightly calculated, 
 about five hundred thousand dollars have been paid 
 by the United States, either directly or indirectly, 
 for fugitive slaves that have taken shelter among 
 the Creek and Seminole Indians. The most of 
 this sum has been paid to the slaveholders of the 
 State of Georgia alone, and directly from the pub- 
 lic treasury. 
 
 Have the slave States the right thus to call on 
 the General Government and the common fund of 
 the nation to aid them ? It has been truly said by 
 an eminent man, himself a slaveholder, that " the 
 existence, continuance, and support of slavery de- 
 pend exclusively upon the power and authority of 
 the several States in which it is situated." It was 
 not the intention of our fathers, as I have already 
 stated, that this Government should interfere with 
 slavery in the States, either to strengthen it or to 
 weaken it. It is their own affair; and if their laws 
 are not strong enough to give it life, it must sub- 
 mit to its doom. When your bondman comes 
 among us in the character of a fugitive, you have 
 the right, guarantied by the express terms of the 
 Constitution, to carry him again into slavery; but 
 have no right to call upon us to pay our money for 
 slaves escaping into Canada, Mexico, or among 
 the savages and swamps of a Spanish province. 
 Believing slavery to be a great moral and political 
 evil, we will not go beyond the express letter of 
 our covenant in giving it our support. The Con- 
 stitution, in the language of Judge McLean, acts 
 upon slaves as persons, and not as property. 
 Congress has uniformly been governed by this 
 principle; and you might as well call upon us to 
 pay for your runaway mules as your slaves. 
 The action of the treaty-making power has 
 been different. A large number of slaves fled 
 from their masters during ojr last war with Great 
 Britain; and for twenty years did this Govern- 
 ment ply its diplomacy in urging the British 
 Government to pay for these fugitives. The sum 
 of one million two hundred and four thousand 
 dollars was at length obtained and paid to 
 southern slaveholders. This open espousal of the 
 cause of slavery by the Federal Government seems 
 to have been sanctioned by the free States. It 
 was not the work exclusively of southern men. 
 The policy of our fathers was to discourage 
 slavery, and as far as possible to divorce the Gov- 
 
10 
 
 ernment from it. Is the reversal of this policy a 
 northern aggression ? 
 
 Again, in 1831 and 1833 the ships "Comet" 
 and "Encomium," laden with slaves, were wrecked 
 on British soil; and the Federal Government, 
 again hoisting its flag over the peculiar institution, 
 obtained from Great Britain twenty-five thousand 
 pounds for slaves lost by these accidents. Similar 
 losses were incurred by the subsequent fate of the 
 " Enterprise," "Creole," and " Hermosa," and 
 the United States threatened Great Britain with 
 war for refusing to foot these bills of southern 
 slaveholders. An honorable member of this House 
 was virtually expelled from this Hall in 1842 for 
 introducing resolutions denying the constitutional 
 power of the Government to support the coastwise 
 slave trade, and declaring its duty to relieve itself 
 from all action in favor of slavery. The Senate, 
 not wishing to be out-done by the House, unani- 
 mously adopted resolutions declaring it to be the 
 duty of the Government to protect by its flag the 
 rights of American slaveholders in British ports, 
 where by the local law their slaves would other- 
 wise become free. Were these aggressions upon 
 southern rights ? 
 
 Merely glancing at the unwarranted efforts of 
 the Government to obtain pay for fugitives to 
 Canada and Mexico, in 1826 and 1828, 1 proceed 
 to notice a more remarkable example of Federal 
 intervention in favor of slavery. About twenty- 
 five years ago, when Mexico and Colombia, who 
 had just achieved their independence of Spain, 
 and emancipated their slaves, were threatening to 
 grasp the island of Cuba, our Government dis- 
 tinctly intimated to these young Republics that 
 they must abandon their purpose. And why? 
 Because emancipation in Cuba might otherwise 
 take place, and the contagion 3pread in the United 
 States. Thus the Federal Government espoused 
 the cause of slavery in Cuba, in order at the same 
 time to perpetuate it in our own boasted land of 
 freedom. It did the same thing in 1829. Were 
 these acts northern aggressions? I need scarcely 
 add in this connection, that the main, if not the 
 sole reason why the United States have refused to 
 acknowledge the independence of Hayti, or to 
 hold intercourse with her, is, that the independence 
 of a black Republic might prove dangerous to the 
 perpetuity of American slavery. Thus the peo- 
 ple of the North are deprived of the profits which 
 would arise from established commercial relations 
 between the two Governments, in order that south- 
 ern slavery may be sustained. 
 
 In 1807, Congress passed a law regulating the 
 coast- wise slave trade in vessels of over forty tons 
 burden, and prescribing minutely the manifests, 
 forms of entry at the custom-house, and specifica- 
 tions to be made by the masters of such vessels. 
 The North was thus made responsible for a traffic 
 which is piracy by the law of nations; and such 
 has been our forbearance towards the South, that 
 we have made no effort to relieve ourselves of this 
 responsibility. Take another item of congres- 
 sional legislation in favorof slavery, theactof 1793 
 This act made it the duty of State magistrates to 
 assist in the recapture of fugitives, and for nearly 
 fifty years the slaveholders had the benefit of it, 
 in the prompt interference of the authorities of the 
 North in behalf of their institution. This act, so 
 far as it imposed duties on S ate magistrates, was 
 unconstiiutionul, and has been so decided; but it 
 
 committed the free States to the support of slavery, 
 and gave important aid to the South during the 
 whole period named. Nor is this all. Most of 
 the free States reenacted the substance of this act, 
 as to the duty of State magistrates, and its pro- 
 visions and penalties respecting the harboring or 
 concealing of fugitives — thus legislating in favorof 
 slavery, and of course out of a tolerant spirit 
 towards the South. There is no constitutional 
 or moral obligation which required it. It was a 
 bounty, a gratuity, bestowed by the North as a 
 token of sympathy for slaveholders; for the recov- 
 ery of fugitives, and the penalty for obstructing 
 their recapture, are matters of Federal cognizance 
 entirely, as I have already shown. Yet these 
 enactments now stand unrepealed on the statute 
 books of several of the northern States. In my 
 own State we have a law punishing, by a fine not 
 
 j exceeding five hundred dollars, the harboring of a 
 fugitive slave, as an " offence against the peace 
 
 | and dignity of the State of Indiana." And this 
 
 j law is not a dead letter. Men are indicted and 
 punished under it. Our courts and juries do not 
 
 j hesitate to regard it. Our Legislature, I know, is 
 
 I exceedingly well disposed towards it; for all at- 
 tempts to repeal our " black laws" (and some of 
 them are much blacker than this) have thus far 
 signally failed. Is all this legislation of the North 
 
 i in behalf of the slaveholders an aggression upon 
 
 I their rights? 
 
 I have already stated that Florida was purchased 
 
 < because it was demanded by the slaveholding in- 
 terest. I omitted the fact, that under the treaty 
 by which it was acquired, and the laws of Con- 
 gress enacted to carry it into effect, this Govern- 
 ment felt itself called upon to pay to the Florida 
 slaveholders forty thousand dollars for slaves 
 lost by the invasion of our troops in 1812. I 
 have also passed over the inhuman slave code by 
 which Florida was governed while a territory, 
 and which, of course, derived its validity from the 
 sanction of Congress. I next observe, that our 
 first^Seminole or Florida war received its birth in 
 the jealous vigilance of the Federal Government 
 in behalf of the interests of slavery. 1*1 was occa- 
 sioned by the destruction of a negro fort on the 
 Appalachicola river in 181f>, by officers and troops 
 in the service of the United States. About three 
 hundred men, women, and children, were killed. 
 It is true they were mostly fugitives; but ihey were 
 living peaceably in Spanish territory. Certainly, 
 the Government was under no obligation to com- 
 mit this wholesale murder, merely because the 
 slaveholders of Florida desired it. Yet Congress, 
 in 1839, passed a law by which the sum of five 
 thousand dollars was paid out of the common 
 treasury of the Government to its officers and 
 crew for blowing up this fort. Was this, too, a 
 northern aggression? 
 
 The second Florida war was likewise waged 
 and carried on for the benefit of slaveholders. Of 
 the necessity for this war at the lime the Nation 
 saw fit to engage in it, I shall not speak. With 
 its immediate cause or occasion I have nothing to 
 do. I only assert (and this is sufficient for my 
 purpose) that the war had its origin in the long- 
 continued previous interference of the Federal Gov- 
 ernment in favor of the slaveholders of Georgia, 
 Alabama, and Florida. Slaves fled from their mas- 
 ters in Georgia, and took refuge among the Creek 
 Indians, as far back as our revolutionary war. 
 
11 
 
 They continued to escape till the formation of the 
 Government; and as early as 1790, the United 
 Slates entered into a treaty with the Creeks, in 
 which they agreed, in consideration of an annuity 
 of fifteen hunJred dollais, and certain goods men- 
 tioned, to deliver up the negroes then residing in 
 their territory to the officers of the United States. 
 And " during a period of more than thirty years 
 ' was the influence of the Federal Government ex- 
 erted for the purpose of obtaining these fugitive 
 'slaves, or in extorting from the Indians acompen- 
 « sation for their owners. The Senate was called 
 •upon to approve these treaties, Congress was 
 ' called on to pass laws, and to appropriate money 
 1 to carry these treaties into effect, and the people 
 * of the free States to pay the money and bear the 
 'disgrace, in order that slavery may be sustained. 
 ' But the consequences of these efforts still con- 
 ' tinue, and the Government has, to this day, been 
 ' unable to extricate itself from the difficulties into 
 ' which these exertions in behalf of slavery pre- 
 « cipitated it." A large portion of the fugitives 
 from Georgia who fled prior to 1802, intermarried 
 with the Seminoles or southern Creek Indians. 
 The Government, by treaty in 1521, compelled 
 the Creeks to pay for these fugitives five or six 
 times their value. The Creeks, supposing they 
 had thus acquired a good title to them from the 
 United States, claimed the wives and children of 
 the Seminoles as their property. The latter, not 
 being willing to part with their families, and being 
 harassed liv the demands of the Creeks, agreed, by 
 treaty in 1832, to remove West, and reunite with the 
 latter tribe; the United States agreeing to have the 
 claim of the Creeks investigated, and to liquidate it 
 in behalf of the Semiroles if the amount did not ex- 
 ceed seven thousand dollars. The Seminoles, how- 
 ever finally refused to remove West, preferring to 
 remain and fight the whites, rather than hazard 
 the loss of their wives and children by becoming 
 again incorporated with the Creeks. The interests 
 of the Florida slaveholders required that the 
 Seminoles should be compelledlo emigrate, and the 
 Government embarked in the undertaking. Such 
 is a brief summary of facts connected with the 
 celebrated Florida war, and showing the action of 
 this Nation in favor of southern slaveholders. 
 The war was begun by the United States to drive 
 the Seminoles from their country. They refused 
 to go because the Creeks would rob them of their 
 wives and children in their new home. And the 
 Government had by treaty forced these Creeks to 
 pay the slaveholders an exorbitant price for these 
 wives and children of the Seminoles, and thus laid 
 the foundation of the claim which prevented them 
 from removing West and brought on the war. It 
 was, I repeat, a war for the exclusive benefit of 
 slavery. It was conceived and brought forth in 
 the unjustifiable interference of the Federal Gov- 
 ernment in favor of an institution local to the States 
 in whch it exists, and to which the Federal power 
 does not extend. These facts are placed beyond , 
 all controversy by the documentary history of the 
 country. And this war for the capture of fugitive 
 slaves, and the massacre of Seminole Indians, 
 with bloodhounds from Cuba as our auxiliaries, 
 cost the nation the estimated sum of forty millions 
 of dollars, drawn chiefly from the pockets of the 
 people of the free States. We united with the 
 South in its prosecution, and without any common 
 interest in its objects, furnished our full share of 
 
 the men and money required in the inglorious 
 struggle. Was all this a northern aggression? 
 
 I come next to our war with Mexico. This, so 
 far as the slaveholding States were concerned, 
 was carried on for the acquisition of territory, into 
 which they designed to carry the institution of 
 slavery. History has placed this remarkable fact 
 beyond all cavil. It is proved by the avowals of 
 southern members of Congress, in their speeches 
 in both Houses, in 1847. It is proved by the mes- 
 sages of southern governors, the action of south- 
 ern legislatures, and the language of the southern 
 people generally, assembled in their popular meet- 
 ings, during the prosecution of the war. The 
 motive of the South was not denied; it was palpa- 
 ble and undisguised. Other objects of the war 
 were mentioned; but southern politicians did not 
 pretend that they were controlling, or that the ex- 
 tension of slavery was not the principle which 
 governed them in its prosecution. But what was 
 the conduct of the free States — the aggressive and 
 overbearing North — in respect to this war? Sir, 
 we gave you our full share of the men and 
 money required for its prosecution. Our northern 
 members of Congress generally, united with the 
 South in the acquisition of territory. I do not say 
 they did this for the purpose of extending slavery; 
 but they did it; and when, a few years before, 
 our claim to the whole of Oregon dwindled 
 down as low as forty-nine degrees — mainly under 
 the influence of southern counsels — the North ac- 
 quiesced. We were willing, both in regard to our 
 difficulty with Great Britain and with Mexico, to 
 be governed somewhat by national considerations, 
 whilst the policy of the South in both these cases, 
 was determined by her own sectional interests — 
 that is, by the supposed effects which, in the one 
 case or the other, would be produced upon the in- 
 stitution of slavery. In a war with Mexico our 
 armies could not fail to be triumphant, and our 
 booty must necessarily be territory. This would 
 be adapted to slave labor, and would widen the 
 platform of southern power. On the other hand, 
 the issue of a war with Great Britain would be 
 different. The South would doubtless be the main 
 point of attack; and thus, the very existence of 
 slavery in its strongholds would be jeoparded. 
 And should even the whole of Oregon be secured, 
 it would only bring into the Union additional free 
 States; thus adding to the power of the North in- 
 stead of the South, as a section. Such, unques- 
 tionably, were the considerations which shaped 
 the policy of southern statesmen, and, through 
 them, the policy of the Government itself, in our 
 relations with Mexico and Great Britain. The 
 North, as I have already said, acquiesced in both 
 instances. Did this acquiescence manifest an ag- 
 gressive spirit towards the South ? 
 
 In the month of May, 1836, this House adopted 
 a resolution, which excluded from being read or 
 considered " all petitions, memorials, resolutions, 
 and propositions, relating in any way, or to any extent 
 whatever, to the subject of slavery." The substance 
 of this resolution continued in force till 1S45. 
 Thus, while the Government was spreading its 
 flag over the peculiar institution in our intercourse 
 with foreign Powers, and whilst slavery in this 
 District and in the Territory of Florida was up- 
 held by laws of Congress, we were denied the 
 right to mention these grievances on this floor, or 
 to petition for redress. So indulgent and concil- 
 
 
12 
 
 iatory were the free States towards the slave power, 
 that a large number of their Representatives in 
 Congress united with the slaveholding members 
 in virtually suspending the right of petition and 
 the freedom of speech in this House, for the period 
 of nine years together. Was this a northern ag- 
 gression ? 
 
 In some of the northern States, colored people 
 enjoy equal political rights with the whites. In 
 nearly all of them they are regarded as citizens. 
 But they cannot visit South Carolina, Louisiana, 
 and I believe some three or four other southern 
 States, without being thrown into prison; and if 
 they are not removed from the Slate by the per- 
 sons in whose care or employ they came, they 
 are sold into slavery. This is a most palpable 
 violation of the Constitution of the United States, 
 which provides that " the citizens of each State 
 shall be entitled to all the privileges and immuni- 
 ties of citizens of the several States. " And when 
 we send men among you to appeal peaceably to 
 your own tribunals in behalf of such citizens — 
 men honored by their public standing, and clothed 
 with official authority for their mission, they are 
 driven out of your cities by mob menaces at the risk 
 of their lives. Is this, too, a northern aggression ? 
 
 I pass, in conclusion, to some kindred consider- 
 ations. The slave population of the Union in 
 1790, when the first census was taken, was about 
 seven hundred thousand; it has now grown to 
 three millions, covering fifteen Stales, and more than 
 equals the whole voting population of the Union. 
 This, by the way, surely cannot be northern en- 
 croachment. The population of the United States 
 in 1840 was seventeen millions. The white popu- 
 lation of the South was four millions seven hundred j 
 and eighty-two thousand, five hundred and twenty. 
 The number of slaveholders does not appear to be 
 capable of any exact ascertainment, and has been I 
 variously estimated from one hundred thousand 
 to three hundred thousand. If we take into the : 
 account the actual number of slave oicners, exclu- 
 sive of their families, a fair estimate at present '< 
 would probably be two hundred thousand; and j 
 many of these, doubtless, are minors and women. | 
 The white population of the free States in 1840 | 
 was nine millions six hundred and fifty-four j 
 thousand eight hundred and sixty-five. By com- ! 
 paring the slaveholders with the non-slaveholders : 
 of the South, according to their number as here I 
 estimated, it will appear that the former constitute . 
 only about one-twentieth of the while population of | 
 the slaveholding States. This is what we call j 
 the slave power. This is the force which is to j 
 dissolve the Union, and before which northern 
 men bow down to offer up their homage. These j 
 two hundred thousand slaveholders, composed in ' 
 
 fmrl of women and minors, lord it over three mil- I 
 ions of slaves; keep in subjection four or five j 
 millions of non-slaveholding whites of the South, | 
 bes dts the free blacks; and at the same time con- 
 trol, at their own will, from nine to ten millions 
 of people in the free Slates, whose Representa- 
 tives tremble and turn pale at the impotent threats 
 of their southern overseers. Now, bearing in 
 mind thin the population of the free Slates is, and 
 gem rails has Ik en, about double that of the slave 
 States, Iti us glance at the monopoly which this \ 
 slave power has secured to itself of the offices of , 
 the Government. This may serve further to illus- 
 Sale the subject of northern aggression. 
 
 Of the sixty-one years the Government has been 
 in operation, the Presidency, with its immense 
 power and patronage, has been filled by slave- 
 holders about forty-nine years, and by non-slave- 
 holders only a little more than twelve years. 
 Seven of our Presidents have been slave owners — 
 four not; and some of these had to give decided 
 assurances to the South in order to be elected. 
 The South has secured the important Cabinet offi- 
 ces in the same way. Thus of nineteen Secreta- 
 ries of Slate, fourteen have been slaveholders, and 
 only five non-slaveholders. With the exception 
 of the office of Secretary of the Treasury, the 
 South has had more than her share of all the Cab- 
 inet appointments. The slaveholding States have 
 had the important office of Speaker of this House 
 for more than thirty-eight years, the free States 
 only about twenty-three years. The South has 
 had twelve Speakers, the North only eight. The 
 same inequ dity has prevailed in the foreign diplo- 
 macy of the Government. More of our foreign 
 ministers, by about one-fourth, have been furnished 
 by the South than the North. Turn to the Judi- 
 ciary. The Chief Justice has been from the slave 
 States about forty-nine years, and from the free 
 States only twelve years, although much the 
 larger portion of the business of the court origin- 
 ates in the latter. And it is a remarkable fact, 
 that at no period since the formation of the Gov- 
 ernment, has the North had a majority on the 
 Supreme Bench. The South has received the ap- 
 pointment of thirteen judges of the court, the 
 North only twelve; and has, I repeat, always had 
 the majority. Did the time allotted me permit, 
 I might pursue this subject more in detail. It 
 seems, however, unnecessary; for a distinguished 
 southern gentleman [Mr. Meade] himself admits, 
 that although the South has been in a numerical 
 minority for fifty years, she "has managed during 
 the greater part of that period to control the des- 
 tinies of this nation." What more could she ask? 
 Why even now, whilst the cry of northern aggres- 
 sion continually meets us, the South has a slave- 
 holding President elected by northern votes, a 
 slaveholding Cabinet, a slaveholding Supreme 
 Court, a slaveholding Speaker of this House, with 
 slaveholding committees in both Houses; whilst 
 slaveholding influences are unceasingly at work in 
 hushing the anti-slavery agitation, and buying up 
 one after another northern men, who are as mer- 
 cenary in heart as they are bankrupt in moral 
 principle. Sir, there is truth in the declaration of 
 John Q.uincy Adams, that " the propagation, pres- 
 ervation and perpetuation of slavery is the vital and 
 animating spirit of the National Government." 
 
 Still, southern gentlemen read us daily homilies 
 here on the encroachments of the North; and the 
 threat of disunion is the thunder with which, as 
 usual, we are to be driven from our purpose, and 
 frightened into uncomplaining silence. Mr. Chair- 
 man, the time has come when Representatives from 
 the fiee States should speak plainly. Shall a Mind 
 fear of a dissolution of the Union make us slaves 
 ourselves? The Federal Constitution wns ordained, 
 among other things, to secure the blessings of lib- 
 erty. " The hour has come when wean in adopt 
 or reject the degrading principle, that slavery and 
 freedom are twin sisters of the Constiiution.joined 
 in a Siamese union, one and inseparable; that our 
 fathers fought to build up a prison-house and a 
 palace as the appropriate wings of the temple of 
 
13 
 
 liberty; that in the flag they rallied under, the stars 
 were for the whites, and the stripes for the blacks; 
 that the North is to have leave for a virtuous pros- 
 perity, only by maintaining the South in a pros- 
 perity dependent on oppression and crime." This 
 is the question forced upon us by the South, and 
 it must be met. There can be no such thing as 
 dodging it. If our view of the Constitution and 
 its objects be correct, we have rights under it which 
 the South should not withhold; if her view is the 
 true one, and slavery is the great concern of this 
 nation, to be upheld and fostered by all its power, 
 then we should understand it at once. Sir, 1 en- 
 tertain no such opinion of the Government under 
 which we live. I have shown that our fathers en- 
 tertained no such opinion. We mean to stand by 
 the Constitution a3 they understood it. We only 
 ask our constitutional rights. We simply demand 
 a return of the Government to its early policy in 
 relation to slavery. I speak frankly. I am will- 
 ing to submit to wrong3 already inflicted; but if 
 further submission be exacted as the price of the 
 Union, 1 would say to our southern friends, take 
 the putrescent corpse of slavery into your embrace, 
 and let your contemplated Southern Confederacy 
 encircle it amidst the hisses of the civilized world. 
 During the last summer, I told the people I now 
 have the honor to represent, that I would rather 
 see the breaking up of the Union than the exten- 
 sion of slavery into our territories either by the 
 action or permission of the Government. I reiter- 
 ate that declaration here. Sir, this is the proper 
 forum on which the South should be met in the 
 discussion of the question of slavery; and I despise 
 the skulking and cowardly miscreant who, after 
 having obtained his seat on this floor by his anti- 
 slavery pledges, turns politely to the South and 
 tells her, that " when he wants to talk about sla- 
 very, he will go home among his own constituents, 
 where he has the right to speak upon it.'' Such 
 men have been the curse of the nation. Had north- 
 ern politicians resisted the aggressions of the South, 
 as it was their duty to do, in the onset, the un- 
 happy crisis in which the country is now placed 
 would have been averted. The great danger to 
 the Union has always been in the North. The 
 South has been much given to bluster, which in 
 itself is harmless, but northern men have been 
 frightened by it into servility. Here lies the great 
 peril now. I have no fears that the South will 
 sunder the Union, notwithstanding the madness of 
 her politicians. The sober second thought of her 
 people, underlying the froth of her representatives, 
 will be proof against it. But, let northern men 
 continue a little longer to cower before the threats 
 of slaveholders, instead of meeting them with a 
 manly firmness; let them surrender one after an- 
 other the rights of the free States, and make mer- 
 chandise of their honor, until our degradation can 
 no longer be concealed by the devices of politicians, 
 and the dissolution of the Union will be inevitable 
 The disease in the body politic will have taken 
 such deep root as to be incurable by any other 
 process. He is not the friend, but the real enemy 
 of the Union, who smilingly tells the slaveholder 
 that all is well, and raises the cry of " peace, 
 peace, when there is no peace." Sir, the contest 
 between slavery and freedom has ripened. To 
 talk of compromise is folly. That medicine has 
 been tried, and has proved worse than the disease 
 it was designed to cure. It is not within the power 
 
 of Congress to compromise the moral sentiment of 
 the free States; and any attempt to do so would 
 only madden and increase the existing excitement, 
 and multiply obstacles in the way of any pacific 
 adjustment of the questions in dispute. Between 
 slavery and freedom there is and can be no affinity, 
 nor can all the compromises in the world unite and 
 harmonize what God by his eternal law has put 
 asunder. 
 
 Mr. Chairman, it has become quite fashionable 
 to denounce the anti-slavery agitation of ihe North. 
 Gentlemen tell us it is disturbing the peace of the 
 country, dividing the nation into "geographical 
 parties, "and threatening todestroy theUnion. Sir, 
 let me ask, at whose door lies the blame for all this f 
 What are the causes which have given birth to 
 this agitation, and these so-called sectional parties ? 
 The South, as I have already shown, by the help 
 or permission of the North, has controlled the 
 offices of the Government and shaped its policy 
 for the last fifty years. Through her agency 
 slavery has been widening its power, and taking 
 deeper and deeper root in the country every hour 
 of that whole period. Instead of an institution 
 barely to be tolerated in a few States as their own 
 exclusive concern, and that for a time only, it has 
 become nationalized, and demands the protection 
 of this Government " wherever our flas floats." 
 It has grown to be the great interest of the Union, 
 and subordinates all other questions to its unholy 
 purposes. It has reversed the original policy of 
 the Government, disappointed the hopes and ex- 
 pectations of its founders, and to a great extent 
 frustrated the ends of its formation. And when, 
 after long years of unpardonable forbearance, a 
 portion of the northern people rise up and demand 
 their just rights, refusing to be the absolute slaves 
 of the South, they are denounced as " agitators," 
 enemiesof the Union, the builders up of geographi- 
 cal parties. Sir, I meet these charges, and I say 
 to southern gentlemen, that they have forced 
 agitation upon us. It is the only alternative left 
 us, unless we submit to be bound by them "in 
 all cases whatsoever." I know it is offensive to 
 the South. I know that distinguished gentlemen 
 from that quarter have admitted that northern agi- 
 tation has prevented slavery from obtaining a foot- 
 hold in California. They understand and dread its 
 power. It is forthis reason that I would encouiage 
 it. Agitation is a necessary fruit, an inevitable 
 cmsequence of southern aggression and northern 
 cowardice; and slavery propagandists and dough- 
 faces mustanswer for their own political sins. To 
 charge the friends of freedom in the North with 
 Kindling up strife in the land and thus endanger- 
 ing the Union, is as unjust as to charge the blood 
 shed in our Revolution upon the heads of those 
 who counseled resistance to the mother country. 
 Ami told that we should not wound the pride of 
 the South? Sir, on what occasion has she ex- 
 hibited any great tenderness for the pride of the 
 North ? She has pursued towards us a policy of 
 systematic selfishness from the beginning, uni- 
 formly disregarding our most cherished feelings 
 when they have crossed her path. When we ask 
 her respectfully to yield us our rights under the 
 Constitution, we are met with browbeating and 
 threats. And are the interests of freedom to be 
 jeoparded over half a continent in order to avoid 
 wounding the pride of men who thus treat us? 
 Sir, their pride is not worth saving at such a sacri- 
 
14 
 
 fice. It is not the pride of principle, of justice, ' 
 but the pride of arrogance, pampered into inso- 
 I:nce by long indulgence; and, under no circum- 
 stances would I yield to it. The history of the i 
 world demonstrates, that slavery, regardless of, 
 soil or climate, has existed wherever it has not 
 been interdicted by positive legislation. It always 
 establishes itself in the first instance without law, 
 and then suborns the law into its support. Without 
 the aid, of any legal sanction, it has at one time or 
 another crept into every portion of the earth that 
 has yet been inhabited. No " law of physical 
 geography," no "ordinance of nature," has been 
 found sufficient, independent of human enactments, 
 to prevent its spread over the globe. Every con- j! 
 aiJeration, therefore, demands that Congress should 
 exclude it from our territories. We should thus 
 imitate the example of our fathers by " reenact- [| 
 ing the law of God," and at the same time restore 
 their policy in relation to slavery. The North 
 should demand this a9 her absolute right, and in- 
 sist upon it at whatever hazard. Should the South 
 take offence, let her be offended; should her pride 
 be wounded, let her own physicians heal it in their 
 own way; should she see fit to dissolve the Union, 
 let her make the attempt, but let the North yield 
 not a single hair's breadth to the further exactions 
 of the slave power. 
 
 But suppose, Mr. Chairman, we resolve to 
 compromise: 1 ask, what are the terms upon which 
 alone the South is willing to meet us? On this 
 subject we are not left in doubt. We are to allow 
 slavery to continue indefinitely in the District of 
 Columbia; we are to abandon the territories of the 
 United States to its inroads; we are to engage ac- 
 tively in the business of slave-catching under the 
 employ of our southern masters; and finally, we 
 must silence the anti-slavery agitation, obeying 
 their imperious mandate, " keep your thoughts to 
 yourselves." This is the very modest demand of 
 the South, and we mustallow her to make a com- 
 pliance with it a qualification for political fellow- 
 ship, a test of fitness for office, and the only tie 
 which is hereafter to bind her to the free States. 
 With southern politicians this is the question of 
 questions. It towers above every other consider- 
 ation. Doughfaces are found only in the northern 
 States. The Whigs and Democrats of the South, 
 laying aside minor differences, stand shoulder to 
 shoulder together in tiie maintenance of their great 
 interest. In comparison with it the questions of 
 bmk and tariff are not even respectable abstrac- 
 tions. And shall the North be less loyal to free- 
 dom than the South is to slavery? Have we no 
 paramount question? Shall we surrender our po- 
 litical birthright in a quarrel about comparative 
 trifles, or a mere scramble for place and power? 
 We have the strength to repel the further asgres- 
 sions of slavery. Shall we waste it by our di- 
 visions, instead of declaring in one united voice, 
 and with an inflexible purpose, " thus far, no far- 
 ther?" I know by experience something of the 
 power of party. 1 know how anxious are north- 
 ern Whigs and Democrats to maintain their na- 
 tional party organizations, in the discipline of 
 which they have so long served. I know how 
 repugnant it is to their f( clings, when theoldques- 
 t ons between them are rapidly losing their signif- 
 icance, to have new ones thrust upon them, threat- 
 ening discord and incurable divisions in their ranks. 
 But should there be no bounds to our devotion to 
 
 party ? Each of the political organizations to which 
 I have alluded consists of a northern and southern 
 division, diametrically opposed to each other on 
 the question of slavery. These divisions must be 
 held together by some common bond of union, 
 and this bond is subserviency to the slave interest. 
 This fact can no longer be concealed. The sub- 
 mission of northern politicians to the behests of 
 slavery is openly proclaimed by southern gentle- 
 men as the sole condition upon which existing 
 party associations can be maintained. Are we 
 prepared for this submission, to seal this bond of 
 union? We must either do this, or resist like 
 men. The alternatives are presented, and there 
 js no middle ground to occupy. We mustrhoose 
 our master; for it is as impossible to serve slavery 
 and freedom at the same time, as toserve God and 
 Mammon. We must ally ourselves to the grow- 
 ing spirit of freedom in the North, which, sooner 
 or later, must be heeded, or we must link our po- 
 litical fortunes to the growing spirit of slavery in 
 the South, which, sooner or later, must be borne 
 down by the powers with which it is at war. Wa 
 must organize our parties in reference to the in- 
 creasing anti-slavery feeling of fifteen Slates of the 
 Union, and ten or twelve millions of people, rein- 
 forced by the sentiment of the civilized world; or 
 we must turn our backs upon the progress of free 
 principles, in order to propitiate the smiles of an 
 oligarchy of two or three hundred thousand slave- 
 holders. We must sympathize with the spirit of 
 liberty, which is now swelling the heart of Chris- 
 tendom, and causing even despotisms to tremble; 
 or we must hold no communion with that spirit, 
 and spurn it from our thoughts, lest the dealers in 
 human flesh should be offended, and refuse to aid 
 us in the prosecution of our partisan schemes. 
 Such, I repeat, are the alternatives to which our 
 slaveholding brethren have invited our attention. 
 For one, I am ready to choose between them. I 
 will enter into no " covenant with death. " I 
 will agree to no truce with slaveholders so long 
 as they insist upon their unholy exactions. I will 
 form no alliance with men who foreordain 
 my submission to their will as the tenure of their 
 friendship. And the party, in my judgment, that 
 shall now seek to maintain its unity by yielding 
 to these demands of slavery, will dig for itself a 
 political grave from which there will be no resur- 
 rection. It may survive for a time; it may achieve 
 a temporary triumph over its adversary; but it 
 will array itself in hostility to the rights of man, 
 sacrifice its integrity and moral influence, and thus 
 perish by its own suicidal hand. Sir, 1 can ac- 
 knowledge no allegiance to any such party. Its 
 conventions and caucus arrangements have no 
 power over my action. Not servility to the South, 
 but uncompromising resistance to her further en- 
 croachments, must determine my party associa- 
 tions. This, I have already said, is the paramount 
 question, upon which all the parties of the North, 
 should band themselves together as one man. 
 Most of the questions which have heretofore di- 
 vided the Ameiican people have been settled. Is 
 there any issue now on the subject of a United 
 States bank? Experience has shown that this 
 nation can prosper without such an institution. It 
 is not demanded by the voice of the people, nor 
 the exigencies of the Government. Years ago, it 
 was declared by the highest Whig authority to be 
 "an obsolete idea." Is there any issue as to dis- 
 
15 
 
 tributing the proceeds of the public lands ? It has 
 been swept away by the tide of political events, 
 and the beneficent doctrine of land reform is des- 
 tined, I trust, at some time not far in the future, 
 to receive the sanction of Congress. Is there any 
 real question at present respecting a protective 
 tariff? Some faint efforts are being made to gal- 
 vanize this question into life, and drag it from the 
 grave into which it is sinking; but these efforts 
 will be fruitless. 1 have no belief that this Gov- 
 ernment will return to the old-fashioned Whig 
 policy of hi«h protective duties. The spirit of the 
 age, and the policy of the leading nations of the 
 earth, are tending more and more in the direction 
 of free trade; whilst the restrictive systems or the 
 past are perishing from the same causes that have 
 originated and are carrying forward other reforms. 
 The philanthropy which is elevating the condition 
 of the toiling million, mitigating the rigors of penal 
 law, and breaking the chains of the slave, is at the 
 same time removing the shackles from the com- 
 merce of the world. It is not protection to capi- 
 tal, but protection to man's rights, protection to 
 the hand that labors, that should invoke the action 
 of the Government. It is not protection to Amer- 
 ican manufactures, but protection to American 
 men, that L # would now advocate; and, like the 
 founders of the Government, I would make it the 
 starting point in politics, the great central truth in 
 my political creed, to which questions of mere 
 policy should be subordinate. 
 
 " Is the dollar only real ? God and truth and righta dream ? 
 Weighed againsfyour lying ledgers, must our manhood 
 kick the beam?" 
 
 Must we blink humanity itself out of sight, in our 
 loyally to " regular nominations," or our devotion 
 or opposition 10 measures of policy that are dead 
 and buried ? The northern States have declared that 
 Congress should prevent the introduction of slavery 
 into theterritories of theGovernment. The south 
 ern States declare that this shall not be done. It 
 is a contest between the two sections of the Union 
 as to whether slavery or freedom shall establish 
 her altars in those territories. It is a contest be- 
 tween liberty and despotism. It is not a quarrel 
 about "goat's wool" or a mere punctilio, but a 
 struggle in which great interests and great princi- 
 ples are at stake; a struggle, the issue of which is 
 to determine the weal or woe of millions, and ad- 
 dresses itself not to the judgments only, but to the 
 consciences of northern men. The free-soil men 
 in Congress desire the application of the ordinance 
 of Jefferson, come what may. In order to maintain 
 their faithfulness to this principle, they have sun- 
 dered their party allegiance, and for this cause they 
 are denounced as "fanatics." The vocabulary of 
 our language is ransacked for words strong enough 
 to express their baseness and infamy as a party, 
 and their depravity and recklessness as men. The 
 gentleman from Tennessee, [Mr. Savage,] who 
 addressed the committee on yesterday, has already 
 consigned them to their fate, among the outcasts 
 and offscouring of the earth. The gentleman from 
 Maryland [Mr. McLane] is so brimfull of wrath 
 ai their iniquities, that he styles them "a pestilent 
 set of vipers, that ought in God's name to be de- 
 stroyed."' Sir, it might be well for the honorable 
 
 gentleman to try that experiment. I have yet to 
 ?earn that free-soil men have not the same rights 
 in this country and on this floor as slave-soil men. 
 1 have yet to learn that the doctrine of slavery re- 
 striction, which was a virtue in our fathers in 
 1787, is a crime in their descendants, which should 
 doom them to destruction; and I have yet to learn 
 that the masses in the free States are not in favor of 
 that doctrine, and will not stand by it and its ad- 
 vocates to the last hour. 
 
 Mr. Chairman, it was my fortune last year, in 
 the congressional district I have the honor to rep- 
 resent, to witness an effort to annihilate these 
 " vipers," so heartily detested by the gentleman 
 from Maryland. I would say to him, too, that 
 the project was not set on foot by Democrats, 
 but by Taylor Whig managers. What was the 
 result of this experiment? Sir, the Democrats 
 made common cause with the Free-Soil party, 
 adopted the ordinance of Jefferson as a part of 
 their platform, and thus achieved a triumph over 
 their foe. And judging from such indications as 
 I have seen of their present opinions and pur- 
 poses, these Democrats have not receded, and are 
 not likely to recede, from the principles which 
 they endorsed a year ago in their county con- 
 ventions, and by their political action; whilst 
 the organs of the Whig party in that same dis- 
 trict are now discoursing sweet music to the 
 tune of non-intervention! In 1848, these Whig 
 leaders were for the proviso against the world. 
 It was their undoubted thunder, which the Free- 
 Soil men were feloniously endeavoring to pur- 
 loin from them. They declared the Whigs to 
 be the only true anti-slavery parly. They de- 
 nounced General Cass as a heartless and unmiti- 
 gated doughface, for writing his non-intervention 
 Nicholson letter. Multitudes voted for General 
 Taylor, without pretending lhat he was in favor of 
 free soil, but merely to crush the non-intervention 
 heresy, and " to beat Cass," who now seems, 
 after all, in a fair way to be canonized as a politi- 
 cal saint by these same anti-slavery Whig leaders. 
 Sir, instead of annihilating the Free-Soil party, 
 ihey have been unconsciously playing their own 
 game upon themselves. The rank and file of their 
 party, I trust, will not follow them into the mire 
 of " non-intervention by non-action" with slavery 
 in the territories. 1 trust that the great body of 
 the people of all parlies in that district will stand 
 firmly upon the platform of freedom, swerving 
 neither to the right nor the left, favoring no fur- 
 ther concessions" to slavery, and frowning upon the 
 northern recreant who shall be found doing battle 
 for slaveholders against his own section of the 
 Union. 
 
 But, however this may be, my own course 13 
 clear. 1 shall take no backward step. I have 
 thrown my fortunes into the scale of freedom, and 
 I am willing to abide the issue. Holding the 
 views I have" honestly embraced, reared as 1 have 
 been in a free State, and representing as I do a 
 constituency of freemen, I trust there is no earlhly 
 temptation lhat could seduce me from the cause I 
 have espoused. And that cause, whatever may 
 for the time betide it or its votaries, will as cer- 
 tainly triumph as lhat truth is omnipotent, or that 
 God governs the svorld. 
 
J