.En 
 
HOLLINGER 
 pH8.5 
 
 MILL RUN F3-1543 
 
NEBRASKA AND KANSAS. 
 
 SPEECH 
 
 OF 
 
 \ ♦» 
 
 HON. TtD/ELIOT, of MASSACHUSETTS, 
 
 IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, MAY 10. 1854. 
 
 ^.-A' 
 
 " Interwoven as is the love of liberty with every ligament of your hearts, no recommendation of mine is necessary to 
 fortify or couiirra the attachment."— George Wasihsgton. 
 
 The House being in the Committee of the 
 Whole on the state of the Union — 
 Mr. ELIOT, of Massachusetts, said: 
 Mr. Chairman: If it be true that gentlemen 
 who have held seals upon this floor for many 
 years, and are surrounded by personal friends to 
 whom they have endeared themselves by constant 
 acts of courtesy and kindness, have hesitated, 
 doubting whether it were better to speak or to re- 
 main silent during the discussion of the territorial 
 bills now upon our Calendar, you may be sure it 
 is with greater diffidence that I have ventured now 
 to claim the attention of the committee. 
 
 Yet I cannot say that it is with hesitation, or 
 with doubt, for 1 have felt neither. I may not 
 add to the amount of argument already adduced, 
 but it is due both to the committee, and to the 
 friends at home who have honored me with their 
 high confidence, to stale distinctly what I believe 
 to be their united judgment upon the bills under 
 debate. 
 
 From the South and the North, and the magnifi- 
 cent Commonwealths that are neither South nor 
 North, where temperate breezes blow, and the even 
 blood neither stagnates around the heart nor beats 
 with hot pulsation, this committee have been 
 pressed with argument and illustration. And fact 
 and fancy have been vouched in, and made to 
 work for freedom and against the rights of free- 
 dom. 
 
 I trust that the remonstrance of Massachusetts 
 will not be unheeded upon this floor, when legis- 
 lation is contemplated which no necessity has in- 
 voked, but which relentless craving for personal 
 promotion has demanded. 
 
 Mr. Chairman, the popular voice has been pro- 
 nouncing judgment upon this bill while we have 
 been discussing its claims and its demerits. It is 
 beginning to be understood that the " hand-writ- 
 ing" will come, and, in advance of the record, we 
 hear from every side that truth of history," Whom 
 the Gods would destroy they first make mad." 
 
 Whether the result of this year's action shall 
 be that these bills are defeated or driven to a suc- 
 cessful vote in the popular branch of our national 
 councils, the aspirants for favor who have brought 
 them here will learn a lesson that must impress 
 itself upon their memory with the stamp of iron. 
 
 What scheme could have been devised other than 
 this which could have created this universal 
 indignation? The northern section of the Union, 
 which was shaken more deeply than has been 
 fully described in this debate by the acts of 1850, 
 appeared to be in repose. They were not con- 
 tent. No, sir, they were not content! for they 
 believed, or many of them believed, that in some 
 of those acts power had been used which had never 
 been conferred upon the General Government. 
 And, sir, that feeling of discontent was intensely 
 strong outside of the two northern political parties 
 — the Whig party, to which I belong, and the 
 Democratic party — in the minds of thousands of 
 men, whom you v/ill increase from your own 
 Democratic ranks by thousands more, if this 
 legislation shall prevail, who hold to freedom as 
 they hold to life. 
 
 The zealous advocates of the principles of the 
 legislation of 1850, while they claim to reaffirm the 
 compromises, have come out with clear and un- 
 doubting voice of condemnation against this new 
 and unlooked for aggression upon the rights of 
 non-slaveholding States. And I thank God that 
 those rights have been respected and most ably 
 vindicated by the eloquence of the South. 
 
 This may not have been in its origin a southern 
 attack upon the North. It may bean Administra- 
 tion attack; and that Administration may be 
 bound to this extent by southern power. ' Never- 
 theless, the Administration is northern. Yes, sir, 
 nominally northern. But where is the man that 
 would rise up here in his place and say that the 
 Administration, or the northern men who come 
 to their aid upon this floor, represent the wishes 
 or the convictions of the North? He that could 
 establish that, will, at the same time, be able to 
 demonstrate that this Nebraska bill is a law of 
 freedom, and that the institution of slavery is an 
 ordinance of God. 
 
 The advocates of the compromise, or more prop- 
 erly the acts of 1850, and their opponents, com- 
 posing together the Whig party of the North, and 
 many northern and western Democrats, and a 
 goodly and welcome and honorable band of Whig 
 brethren from the South, are here prepared to stand 
 together in defense of a principle which was im- 
 pressed upon these Territories when the noble 
 
^ 
 
 •"^3 
 
 h4^- 
 
 State of the venerable and eloc|uent statesman of 
 the West was received among us. 
 
 Mr. Chairman, I am in no way responsible for 
 the legislation of 1850, and so far as that act is 
 concerned which was passed in addition to the 
 act of 1793, I shall not be its apologist or its de- j 
 fender. I have never believed that the framers |j 
 of the_ Constitution contemplated such a law, and | 
 if such an enactment had been presented to the | 
 southern men of that generation by a northern! 
 man, who thought thereby to gain their favor, 
 they would have said, " we ask to impose upon 
 the North no such legislation as that." But the 
 acts were passed, and by the stern provisions of 
 one of them, northern men were required to give j 
 such aid to the same, as most of the southern men 
 who voted for the law would have deemed degrad- 
 ing, or submit themselves to its penalties. | 
 
 Mr. Chairman, I have lived at the South, and 
 have partaken of their whole-souled hospitality. 
 Not one word of unkindness can fall from me to- 
 ward them. My earliest lessons against slavery . 
 were learned where southern institutions flour- 
 ish, and never have I heard stronger language of 
 discontent than has been spoken there. On this ' 
 floor, as my memory goes back to earlier days, I 
 have listened to the rapt eloquence of southern j 
 statesmen while they held this House in the hoi- 1 
 low of their hand, as they addressed them. No, 
 sir, I have no feeling of unkindness for the South; 
 but I cannot forget", as a son of Massachusetts, [ 
 that once and again her rights have been violated, : 
 and her citizens set at naught, and the courts of' 
 justice shut against her when she has sought their ! 
 aid. But it was the fanaticism of slavery that did 
 that wrong. Massachusetts has not been faithless | 
 to the South; and if at any time her legislation has i 
 been censured, it will be found that she has been 
 more sinned against than sinning. She did not 
 contribute her vote in the House toward the pas- 
 sage of all the acts of 1850. 
 
 But when that stormy session had closed, and it 
 was declared that now the nation was to beat rest, 
 it would be difficult to show that more unwearied 
 eftorti was made in any section of the Union to 
 maintain the integrity of the laws than was made 
 in Massachusetts. The friends or the supporters 
 of those last acts may well exclaim, "Away 
 with compromises. We have tried them, and our 
 fathers have tried them in vain. We have bound 
 ourselves, and have submitted to be bound, by acts 
 of legislation we have disapproved, because we 
 loved the Constitution and the peace and progress 
 of the Union. Our fathers compromised when 
 they consented to give back the fugitive. But it 
 was contended that unless they yielded then and 
 in that, no Constitution could be formed, and no 
 Union made; and so the southern interest pre- 
 vailed. And then, again, Missouri asked tocotne 
 among us, and our fathers yielded, and again 
 compromised, and again brought their convictions 
 of duty and laid them down before the altar of the 
 Union. And that sacrifice, which presupposed 
 and rested on a faith great as Abraham's, gave to 
 the South a slave State in the hand for wild free- 
 dom in the bush. And last of all, when it was 
 said that the master was not secure in his rights, 
 we ourselves yielded. The South asked, and the 
 North gave; and another compromise was made. 
 But it was said that that was to be the last. The 
 new born principle of non-intervention was to be 
 
 applied to lands recently acquired. The master 
 was to have his hand made stronger, and the 
 North was to have peace; and the covenant was 
 struck, and the bargain was made, and the seal 
 was set, and upon the whole ' Finaliti' was 
 inscribed." 
 
 " But now again the cry of 'Give, give,' comes 
 to us; The bush where freedom was to live has 
 been cut down, and the cabin of the sovereign 
 squatter rests there; and we are asked to yield 
 again, and let the laws of slavery prevail where 
 freedom had secured a home. And now we say 
 to gentlemen of the South, if this is to be the 
 way in which compromises are kept, we enter into 
 no more of them from this time forth." 
 
 But, Mr. Chtiirman, the northern advocate of 
 the compromise measures of 1850 must go further 
 than that. 
 
 If there is no virtue in one part of the compro- 
 mises, there is no reason why the rest should be 
 preserved. If one part of the compact is to be 
 rescinded, the whole must fall. And, sir, it is, 
 beyond doubt, this compound feeling of insecurity 
 as to the future — because of betrayed faitjj and 
 broken promise, and of earnest and deep indigna- 
 tion that such return should be experienced for 
 such sacrifices — that at the North, has raised up the 
 sternest opposition to this new measure of wrong 
 among Whigs and Democrats who were parties to 
 that compromise, or who consented to it, that the 
 Union might find repose. In the city of Boa- 
 ton, the distinguished gentleman who stood alone 
 among the representatives of his Commonwealth 
 in support of one of those enactments, did not 
 doubt that he was imperatively required to preside 
 in Fanueil Hall over a large meeting of Massachu- 
 setts men convened to raise their voice of protest 
 against these bills. And so it has come to pass 
 that vie who opposed and they vAo advocated the prin- 
 ciples of the legislation of 1850 are found together 
 in opposition to this untrue Administration. 
 
 But, Mr. Chairman, v/hen tliis Congress con- 
 j vened, no living man anticipated that the North 
 would be so soon dared to the discussion of ques- 
 i tions upon which the seal of finality had been 
 avowedly impressed, much less would it have 
 been believed that the gage of battle would be 
 thrown down by the successor of the statesman 
 ' who moved the free clause in the Missouri bill. 
 : Within the term of one month from the com- 
 mencement of the session, the Committee on Ter- 
 ritories in the Senate reported their first bill for 
 i the organization of Nebraska. The reasons which 
 had operated upon the minds of the committee 
 v^ere detailed in their report. The report remains. 
 The bill has disappeared . It was spirited away and 
 hurried to its grave, with no funeral solemnities, 
 no requiem over its remains. But the report 
 i which accompanied its birth is here to tell us of 
 its parentage, and of the hopes and fatherly aspi- 
 : rations of those who had brought it into being. 
 ;i A new bill was offered, differing in its provisions 
 ! from the former, and stultifying, in more than one 
 \\ respect, the reasons of the committee. 
 il If the framers and first friends of the original 
 jl bill were sincere in their political convictions, they 
 ' intended to carry out what may be well called 
 I the "masterly inactivity" of the legislation of 
 } 1850, so far as the principles of that legislation 
 j! applied to territorial organizations. Hear what 
 Ji they said: 
 
 / 
 
" By the eighth section of ' an act to authorize the people 
 of the Missouri Territory to form a conslitulion and Slate 
 Government, and for the admission of sucli State into the 
 Union on an equal footing with the original States, and to 
 prohibit slavery in certain territories,' approved March 6, 
 1820, it was proviiJed : ' That in all tlial territory ceded by 
 France to the United States under the name of Louisiana, 
 which lies north of 36° 30' north latitude, not includgd 
 within the limits of the State contemplated by this act, sla- 
 very and involuntary servitude, otherwise than in the pun- 
 ishment of crimes whereof the parties shall have been duly 
 convicted, shall be, and is hereby, forever prohibited : Pro- 
 vided alway.i. That any person escaping into the same, from 
 whom service or labor is lawfully claimed in any State or 
 Territory of the United Slates, such fugitive may be law- 
 fully reclaimed, and convoyed to the person claiming his 
 or her labor or service as aforesaid. 
 
 " Under ttiis section, as in the case of the Mexican law 
 in New Mexico and Utah, it is a disputed point whether 
 slavery is prohibited in' the Nebraska country by valid enact- 
 ment. The decision of this question involves the constitu- 
 tional power of Congress to pass laws prescribing and reg- 
 ulating the domestic institutions of the various Terrjtories 
 of the Union. In the opinion of those eminent statesmen, 
 who hold that Congress is invested with no rightful author- 
 ity to legislate upon the subject of slavery in the Territories, 
 the eighth section of the act preparatory to the admission of 
 Missouri is null and void ; wiiile the prevailing sentiment in 
 large portions of the Union sustains the doctrine that the 
 Constitution of the United .States secures to every citizen 
 an inalienable tight to move into any of the Territories with 
 his properly, of wl:atever kind and description, and to hold 
 and enjoy the same under the sanction of law. Your com- 
 mittee do not feel themselves called upon to enter into the 
 discussion of these controverted questions. They tsvolve 
 the same grave issues which produced the agitation, the 
 sectional strife, and the fearful struggle of 1850. As Con- 
 gress deemt-d it wise and prudent to refrain from deciding 
 the matters in controversy then, either by affirming or re- 
 pealing the Mexican laws, or by an act declaratory of the 
 true intent of the Constitution and the extent of the protec- 
 tion afiiirded by it to slave property in the Territories, so 
 your committee are not prepared now to recomniend a de- 
 parture from the course pursued on that memorable occa- 
 sion, either by affirming or repealing the eighth section of 
 the Mrssouri act, or by any act declaratory of the meaning 
 of the Consliiution In respect to the legal points in dispute. 
 
 " Your committee deem it fortunate for the peace of the 
 country, and thesecurity of the Union, that the controversy 
 then resulted in the adoption of the compromise measures, 
 which the twogreat political parties, with singular unanim- 
 ity, have affirmed as a cardinal article of their failh, and 
 proclaimed to the world as a final settlement of the contro- 
 versy and an end of the agitation. A due respect, therefore, 
 for the avowed opinions of Senators, as well as a proper 
 sense of patriotic duty, enjoins upon your committee the 
 propriety and necessity of a strict adherence to the princi- 
 ples, and even a literal adoption of the enactments of that 
 adjustment in all their territorial bills, so far as the same are 
 not locally inapplicable." 
 
 Now, Mr. Chairman, I do not feel called upon 
 to assent to the doctrine of that report, so far as 
 it can be said to assert a doctrine or opinion as to 
 the effect of Mexican legislation upon slavery in 
 the countries acquired under the treaty df Guada- 
 lupe Hidalgo, concluded in February, 1848. 
 
 This, hovrever, is agreed upon all hands, that 
 the United Stales had not an admitted title to that 
 territory before the ratification of the treaty. But 
 ill 1820 the United States did own other territory. 
 That had been ceded to th'em by the French trea- 
 ty of April, 1803 After the disagreements and 
 discussions, which kept the two Houses of Con- 
 gress apart in 1819-'20, and theState of Missouri, 
 lying north of 36° 30', was admitted as a slave 
 State, and the proposition of Illinois was accepted 
 establishing in terms forever the parallel of lati- 
 tude dividing possible slavery from absolute and 
 affirmative freedom; after the southern gentlemen 
 had gained that victory as they themselves, when 
 heated and panting after the battle, claimed it 
 to be; when at three o'clock in t^e morning of 
 March 2, 1820, that letter was written announcing 
 
 to the South that they had secured a pret-ent boon 
 to slavery at the price of future, and far future, as 
 i it was then believed, concession to the spiritof lib- 
 I erty; after this time and these proceedings, how 
 did the statesmen of the South and of the North 
 I regard that legislative action, and the countries 
 j wnich were its subjects ? 
 
 The historical research and the amount of proof, 
 I more than plenary, if that mfiy be, which this 
 I discussion has required and has spread before 
 j the committee, in direct reply to that inquiry, 
 'permit me to take the historic fact, as proved, 
 j that no man was bold enough to draw into public 
 (discussion the inviolable integrity of that line of 
 [ freedom, as applicable to the territory through 
 I which it was extended, until after the period when 
 it was deeiTied advisable to organize Nebraska as 
 I a Territory. 
 
 I And, Mr. Chairman, standing ufjon the vantage 
 1 ground of the present to review the past, two kinds 
 j of legislation are distinguished; one of which is 
 j applicable to the territory acquired from France, 
 land the other of which concerns that country 
 [which the treaty of 1848 secured to us. 
 
 I cannot blame the South if they insist so far 
 and so effectively as they may upon the policy 
 of 1850, when Territories are to be formed, not 
 affected, by the compromise line of 1820. Asa 
 northern man, believing slavery to be wrong in 
 itself; believing it to be a curse and not a blessing 
 to the land and its inhabitants; believing that 
 our Constitution was made, and ourUnion formed, 
 to establish Liberty forever, and only to that 
 end consented to slavery for a season, I should 
 be a traitor to my convictions of right as a man, 
 and of constitutional obligation as a citizen, if I 
 did not oppose, at all times, the introduction of 
 slave territory not known when the Union was 
 formed into this brotherhood of Stales. But, I 
 can appreciate none the less the weight of argu- 
 ment which the South might well adduce, afforded 
 by the legislation of 1850, so far as applicable to 
 lands not consecrated to freedom by the legislation 
 of 1820. And, sir, it is that which was antici- 
 pated and feared while you were here holding in 
 debate the territorial bills of that year. The South 
 insisted upon what they termed " non-interven- 
 tion." I hope to have time before my hour has 
 expired, to consider that phrase and its historic 
 meaning. There is a " non-intervention" whieh 
 I subscribe to. But, the non-intervention against 
 slavery was insisted on. The North remonstrated, 
 and argued, and yielded. And why, sir, did they 
 yield.' This was the argument to them: 
 
 "As to California and New Mexico, I hold slavery to 
 be excluded from these Territories, by a law even S4ipe- 
 rior 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 forever, 
 with a strength beyond all terms of human enactment, that 
 slavery cannot exist in Calilbrnia or Vew Mexico." * 
 * * * * * " I mean to say that African slavery, as we 
 see it among us, is as utterly impossible to find itself or to 
 be found in California or New Mexico, as any other natu- 
 ral impossibility." ***»*"[ look upon itthei»- 
 fore, as a fixed fact, to use an expression current at this day, 
 that both Ciiliforniaand New Mexico are destined to be free,, 
 so far as they are settled at all." * » * * * "Free 
 by the arrangement of things, by the Power abave us. I 
 have, therefore, to say that this counf' ' fixed for freedom, 
 to as many persons who shall ever It .n it, by as irrepeal- 
 able and more irrepealable a law than the law that attache* 
 to the right of holding slaves in Texas; and I will say fur- 
 ther, that if a resolution or a law were now before us to pro- 
 vide a territorial goverr . New Mexico, I would.uoS 
 
vote to put any prohibition in it whatever. The nseofsiich 
 a prohibition would he idle, as it respects any effect it 
 would have upon the Territory, and I would not lake pains 
 to reatlirin an ordinance of nature or to reenact the will of 
 God." 
 
 It was by such reasoning that the position as- 
 'sumed by the South was maintained against the 
 convictions of many northern men, and against 
 their strenuous legislative efforts. But, whether 
 the reasoning were based upon the solid ground of 
 truth, or upon its unsubstantial resemblance, the 
 South carried their point; and then, for the first 
 time, new territory was organized without direct 
 or remote reference to the question of human 
 freedom. And so a precedent was established; 
 and thereafterwards the quick eye of southern 
 statesmen soon detected a principle. 
 
 Now, without at this moment discussing that 
 principle at all, 1 appeal to southern gentlemen 
 that it applies, and can apply, only to Territories, 
 not anteceilenlly to their organization, impressed 
 with the broad seal of freedonn. It cannot be 
 made, by fair and honest reasoning, to apply to 
 other lands than those concernin*: which the legis- 
 lation was carried on. The argument coming 
 from the South, and applied to Territories other 
 than those affected by the Missouri line, would 
 be of weight. Because, although the reason which 
 may have operated to induce the concession ivas, 
 that a restriction upon slavery would be a useless 
 reaffirmation of the law of God, yet the South 
 would avail themselves of the act, uncommitted to 
 the reason. The argument, however, exhausts 
 itself upon other lands, otherwise acquired, than 
 those about which we are now concerned. 
 
 This, then, Mr. Chairman, has been the history 
 of the past. The ordinance of 1787 was in aid of 
 freedom. The right to reclaim the servant was 
 the first concession to the requirements of the 
 South. In 1821 Missouri, a noble central Slate,' 
 containing more than sixty-seven thousand square 
 miles of territory, was admitted into the Union. 
 That State lies north of the 36th degree, and ex- 
 tends as far north as 40° 36'. From twenty thou- 
 sand inhabitants, in 1810, her population had in- 
 creased to more than sixty-six thousand in 1820. 
 In 1850 it exceeded six hundred and eighty-four, 
 thousand. Passing to the south along its western 
 line, and coursing through the State for nearly four 
 hundred miles, the Missouri pours itself into the 
 majestic Mississippi, which itself flows along the 
 eastern borders of the State for i^iore than -five 
 hundred miles. Nor are these her only rivers. 
 Seven other streams, one of which is said to fur- 
 nish boat navigation for more than six hundred 
 miles, contribute to fertilize hersurface, and enrich 
 her treasury. Near the union of her two great 
 rivers, the old city of St. Louis stands, inviting, 
 yes, compelling the South and the West to con- 
 tribute of their wealth to her prosperity. From 
 four thousand six hundred inhabitants, when the 
 State was admitted into the Union, the returns 
 Bhow, in 1850, a population of more than eighty- 
 two thousand persons. On the west bank of the 
 river, and raised above it by alluvial and limestone 
 banks, it commands commercial advantages not 
 surpassed by any city in the world which is not 
 built upon the line of ocean coast. No man can 
 predict the destinies of that State! If only she 
 were free ! There was a State which the sagacious 
 statesmen of the South coveted ! Of what value 
 were the wilds of Nebraska, with the Rocky 
 
 Mountains upon one side, and the Missouri upon 
 the other.' So lately as 1853, a standard writer 
 has said: 
 
 " It? broad expanse is yet to be subdivided and gradually 
 furnished with distinct forms of civil government, or re- 
 main the barren heritage of the untamed races for whose 
 b^ioof it seems naturally desicned. At present it is almost 
 exclusively the abode of the snvaae and wild beasts, and is 
 traversed by civilized man only through the like necessity 
 which impels him to cross the pathless ocean on his way 
 to countries beyond. Its natural resources have never been 
 developed, and little more is known of its topography, its 
 waters, forests, plants, minerals, &c.,than what has been 
 gathered by diiitof a few partial explorations, or by travel- 
 ers in th«ir hurried journeys toward Oregon and Cali- 
 fornia." 
 
 With such a region as that is now, what could 
 slavery have done thirty years ago ? 
 
 They secured an increa.«ed power in the Sen- 
 ate instead ; and that the new State well undersood 
 iiow best to use her influence there is made man- 
 ifest by the fact that, from the 2d of October, 
 1820, to the 3d of March, 1851, a period of more 
 than thirty years, the distinguished statesman now 
 representing upon this floor the constituency of 
 St. Louis, occupied a seat in that asseiribly. 
 
 Missouri is what they obtained, and Louisiana 
 they had, and Arkansas they were bound to get 
 and did obtain, by jfirtue of the compromise line, 
 in the year 1836. 
 
 Mr. STEPHENS. I will tell the gentleman 
 what Massachusetts said: • 
 
 '' It is demanded of us, Doyou seek to impose restrictions 
 on Arkansas in violation of the compromise under which 
 Missouri entered the Union.' I might content myself with 
 replying that the State of Massachusetts was nota par'y to 
 that compromise. She never directly or indirectly assented 
 to it. Most of her Representatives in Congress voted against 
 it." 
 
 That is what Mr. Gushing said. 
 
 Mr. ELIOT. Who is that? 
 
 Mr. STEPHENS. Mr. Gushing. 
 
 Mr. ELIOT. Mr. Galeb Gushing.' 
 
 Mr. STEPHENS. Yes, the present Attorney 
 General. 
 
 Mr. ELIOT. Well, sir, go on. 
 
 Mr. STEPHENS. This is what Governor 
 Briggs said. 
 
 Mr. ELIOT. A good man. 
 
 Mr. STEPHENS. Mr. Briggs, of Massachu- 
 setts, said, after replying to Mr. Wise, that Mr. 
 Adams's amendment was not equivalent to the 
 Missouri restriction: 
 
 " But, sir, upon this subject of slavery, I cannot go the 
 breadth of a hair beyond the obligations imposed upon me 
 by that instrument, (the Constitution.) I never can con- 
 sent, with the views which 1 now entertain, to give a vote 
 or do any other act which shall snnctioii the prini.iple or 
 extend the existence of human slaverj'." 
 
 Mr. ELIOT. Good! 
 
 Mr, STEPHENS. That is what Mr. Briggs 
 said. 
 
 Mr. ELIOT. Gertainly. 
 
 Mr. STEPHENS. Those are the grounds 
 Massachusetts stood upon. 
 
 Mr. ELIOT. On those grounds an honest man 
 in Massachusetts stood. Now let the gentleman 
 read the vote, and I will stop to hear it. 
 
 Mr. STEPHENS. The vote was forty-nine 
 northern men against the admission. 
 
 Mr. ELIOT. Will the gentleman tell me what 
 was the number in favor of it.' 
 
 Mr. STEPHENS. I do not think a single man 
 from Massachusetts voted for it. 
 
Mr. ELIOT. Whatwas the number of noi-thern 
 men who voted for it ? 
 
 Mr. STEPHENS. I have an.swered as to 
 Massachusetts. There was not a man from Mas- 
 sachusetts who voted for it. 
 
 Mr. ELIOT. I am glad of it. 
 
 Mr. STEPHENS. 1 do not doubt it. 
 
 Mr. ELIOT. There is no need to doubt it, and 
 I should have been still more glad if there had not 
 been one man from Massachusetts in favor of the 
 fugitive act of 1850. 
 
 And now, sir, without offering to surrender 
 Missouri, or to give up Arkansas, they coolly 
 propose to absorb Kansas, and put their hand 
 upon Nebraska! And when the amazed North 
 arouse from their lethargy, and call upon them to 
 desist, they say, " It was no bargain. It was no 
 compact. It v/as no compromise ! Wearehonest 
 people ! We are honorable men ! We are chiv- 
 alric gentleman, if the truth must be spoken, with- 
 out fear and without reproach." 
 
 Mr. Chairman, I should be slow to believe that 
 a statesman from the South could have been found 
 to initiate this scheme. No, sir; if the Spirit of 
 Evil had presented himself to the statesman of the 
 South, whispering this: " Fraud upon all lati- 
 tudes, "and pointing out to him those wide spread- 
 ing fields, where kingdoms of this world might be 
 builded, I trust that he would have looked upon 
 that consecrated line, and replied, " Am I a dog, 
 that 1 should do this thing.'" And if the tempter 
 had not forthwith left him, he would have buffeted 
 him upon the spot, and said, "Get thee behind 
 me, Satan !" 
 
 No, sir; let us do justice always. It took a 
 northern Senator, under a more northern Presi- 
 dent, to conceive and bring to the light of day this 
 evil deed, which, of itself, would shrink right 
 back again into the darkness of the night. But 
 it would be harmless if southern votes should be 
 withheld. Though it starts from a northern head 
 it comes from a southern heart, and addresses 
 itself to the prejudices and apparent interest of the 
 South — 1 say apparent, for I do not believe real. 
 The South would be better off, and purer, and 
 more hnpjiy, and more honored, to reject this 
 offered bribe, by which their honor is sought to 
 be bought out. 
 
 And now, Mr. Chairman, I wish to consider, 
 somewhat, the modern doctrine of " non-inter- 
 vention." If there is any truth established by 
 our national legislation, it is, that from the besin- 
 ning there has been intervention to restrain slavery, 
 and never until 1820 mtervention to extend it. 
 Our venerated ancestors would have deemed their 
 action a tempting of the Divine anger if they had, 
 as a nation, legislated to extend its area. 
 
 Before the time when Missouri was received 
 into the Federal Union, there had been uniform 
 action on the part of the General Government to 
 restrain and to determine slavery. There never 
 had been the slightest interference with slavery 
 in the Slates; and it is that non-interventio7i which 
 has furnished to those who are desirous to enlarge 
 the bounds of slavery their argument. I do not 
 contend that the National Government have ever 
 claimed the risrht to interfere with the institution 
 as legalized within the State by the State. Then 
 and there it is beyond the reach of Congress; and 
 it has been always. But Congress never, that I 
 can learn, from the first session under the Consti- , 
 
 tution until the final passage of the Missouri bill, 
 sanctioned slavery in Territories where it had not 
 been recognized before, and did not then exist in 
 fact. By the French law slavery misht have been 
 established within this region. At New Orleans, 
 and in the Territory of Orleans, it did exist in 
 fact when Louisiana was admitted in 1812. It is 
 possible that it may, to a very limited extent, have 
 been established at St. Louis. I do not know how 
 the fact was. If it was so, it did not extend into 
 the interior, or exist de facto, except in the direct 
 neighborhood of the city itself. If it did not, then 
 it will be found that Missouri was the first State 
 j[ into which the institution can be fairly said sub- 
 stantially to have been carried by our legislation. 
 If it did exist there then, we must come down to 
 a still later period before we find Congress legis- 
 lating slavery into a free country. 
 
 I do not forget that before the State of Missouri 
 was admitted, our Old Thirteen had been joined 
 by Kentucky, Tennessee, Mississippi, and Ala- 
 bama. But Kentucky was formed from Virginian 
 territory, and the home of slavery was not en- 
 larged by her admission. Tennessee was ceded by 
 North Carolina, and Mississippi, and Alabama by 
 Georgia; and by the terms of cession the sixth 
 article in the ordinanceof 1787 was excepted, and 
 made inapplicable to the Territories ceded. So 
 that before 1820 it cannot be truly said, as I be- 
 lieve, that the Congress of the United States had, 
 by any legislative intervention, established slavery 
 in lands where, but for such action, it would not 
 by local law exist 
 
 Now, Mr. Chairman, what is the fact of his- 
 tory, when at the beginning Congress was in- 
 voked to action upon Territories not a portion of 
 the old thirteen States.' I say nothing of Ver- 
 mont, which came from New York, or of Maine, 
 which was set off from Massachusetts when Mis- 
 souri became a State, but of new lands not com- 
 prised within the admitted limits of the old States 
 
 And it is to be observed that no one doubted 
 that Congress had a right to legislate upon the 
 sul-jpct of slavery in these Territories. Before 
 the Federal Constitution was framed, the lands 
 northwest of the Ohio river were ceded by the 
 Legislature of Virginia; and without delay the 
 Congress of the Confederation acted. Here was 
 the occasion when the doctrine of non-interven- 
 tion was to be recognized, if anywhere or at any 
 time applicable. But the statesmen of Virginia, 
 and their patriotic fellow-laborers in constitutional 
 legislation, earnestly working to establish liberty 
 and the eternal rights of men, had not among 
 their truths " self-evident" discovered this. They 
 were " wise" men, but this cardinal principle of 
 modern Democratic law-givers was "concealed" 
 from them! To whom, sir, has it been "re- 
 vealed .'" 
 
 Thomas .Tefferson had declared, not long before, 
 at his own home in Virginia, that the greatest ob- 
 ject of his desire v/as to " abolish domestic slavery 
 in those Colonies where it was unhappily intro- 
 duced in their infant state." Upon his blinded 
 vision this miracle-light could not fall. It was 
 reserved for our own times, and for those who 
 were born and reared among the homes of freedom, 
 to perceive how ignorant of its principles those 
 men were who formed the Constitution under 
 which we live. Within ten years from the time 
 when theDeclarationof Independence was signed, 
 
6 
 
 its immortal author introduced his resolutions for 
 freedom before the confederated States. He did 
 not "intervene" alone for the countries which 
 were the subject of the ordinance of 1787. But it 
 was the desire of his heart that no slave should 
 stand upon any territory which the blood of the 
 Revolution had cleansed. Wherever the Terri- 
 tories of the United States are, said he, there let 
 there be freedom ! The resolution which he offered, 
 if only it could have prevailed, would have se- 
 cured to freedom the noble State from which, but 
 just before 1 had the honor of a seat among you, 
 that eloquent voice was heard which denounced 
 this scheme as "a plot against the peace and quiet 
 of the country," [Mr. Cullom, of Tennessee.] 
 And more than that — it would have covered, with 
 its broad, bright shield, the land of the honorable 
 gentleman whose classic and pungent speech en- 
 tranced this committee a few days since, [Mr. 
 Harris, of Mississippi.] 
 
 But although Mr. Jefferson failed in thatattempt 
 to impress forever upon all territories, whether they 
 had been ceded, or were to be ceded to the Gen- 
 eral Government, the character of freedom, he did 
 not fail because of any belief or doctrine enter- 
 tained or promulgated that it was outside of the 
 power of Congress to legislate in that behalf. 
 Four years afterwards the ordinance of 1787 was 
 passed. And it cannot be forgotten by any one 
 who has made the action of our Government at 
 this period hia study, that not the voiceof a single 
 State was finally raised against the passage of 
 that law. With the moral power of the whole 
 brotherhood of States this ordinance claimed the 
 early care of the General Government after our 
 Constitution was adopted and our present Union 
 formed. Not a voice was heard that has echoed 
 down the ages to us from that proud assembly of 
 great men, who first assumed to direct the course 
 of their common country, when she was yet learn- 
 ing how to walk among the nations of the earth, 
 to tell those patriotic legislators that they violated 
 any right, or committed any wrong, when they 
 affirmed the ordinance of Mr. Jefferson. 
 
 Mr. Chairman, the lands about which this 
 House is now debating are secured to freedom 
 by an ordinance as irrepealable by rightful legis- 
 lation, as that which has covered the northwest 
 territories since the session of our first Con- 
 gress. 
 
 The argument of "compromise" and "com- 
 pact" has been exhausted. The father of com- 
 promises, if he were in this Hall, made classic by 
 his lofty form and his persuasive voice, could find 
 no logic that had not been employed by eloquence 
 kindre'd to his own. 
 
 But he would have heard some squatter logic 
 about which he had not read. 
 
 The people have a right to govern themselves. 
 The squatters are the people. Therefore, the 
 Missouri compromise should be repealed. There 
 is the syllogism. 
 
 " This is a question of self-government, and the 
 people have a right to form their own institutions." 
 That is the proposition. 
 
 But does it follow from that that we cannot 
 legislate to inhibit slavery in the Territories.' 
 What people have a right to form their own in- 
 stitutions? Can colored eople form such insti- 
 tutions as they wish to establish.' If these bills 
 shall be so amended that free colored citizens may 
 
 remove their families and their effects into Ne- 
 braska and Kansas, and be considered as good as 
 squatters, one objection to the bills would be ob- 
 viated. But this House have decided that colored 
 citizens, however free and however educated they 
 may be, cannot " squat." It takes a white man 
 to do that. He may be what is called a " poor 
 white man;" but the color of the skin secures 
 the right. It is not, then, all people that may form 
 their own institutions, but while people only. 
 
 Mr. Chairman, the time will come when we 
 shall see the iniquity of such exclusive legislation. 
 There is not another nation upon the face of the 
 earth, that is civilized and not barbarous, that 
 would condemn, and ostracize, and degrade a free- 
 man because God had not made him white. The 
 people have a right to govern themselves. What 
 people.' First, the white people. But not all 
 white people. For it is plain, that as the bill 
 came to this House, none, or almost none of the 
 foreign population, although residing there, and 
 that with the intent of remaining permanently 
 there, would be entitled to say whether or not 
 slavery should find a home among them. 
 
 I do not propose to examine the positions for or 
 1 against this second exclusion; nor do I feel called 
 I upon at this time, or for the purpose of my pres- 
 \ ent argument, to express any opinion upon that 
 point. But the design is obvious, and to that I 
 object. A precedent has been established in other 
 ! territory for giving rights to our emigrant popu- 
 lation, seeking homes in these unsettled regions, 
 more extensive than are enjoyed in older settle- 
 ments, and under organized governments. And 
 j if no better reason can be assigned for withhold- 
 ing from them the right to vote upon the questions 
 affecting the form of institutions under which they 
 I wish to live than that there are not many "John 
 Mitchells" among them, and that they believe in 
 the superior efficacy of free labor over slave labor, 
 1 I confess myself then prepared to say that 1 should 
 ; accord to them at once the right to vote. 
 I But this second exclusion narrows the people 
 I down to those few who shall make their " pitch," 
 I or their " location," as it would be termed at the 
 1 North, upon these lands, who are emigrants from 
 other States. Well, sir, and when are they to 
 settle this mighty question of human freedom that 
 is to give character to this vast region for untold 
 I ages.' Is it to be done at once ? Shall the first 
 hundred or the first thousand "white people" de- 
 cide this question.' And how are they to do it.' 
 By vote and enactment of some sort, clearly. 
 But before this vote, and before their territorial 
 act shall become an operative law, what is to be 
 the " status" of the slave who has been carried 
 I there by his master.' Where is the jurist upon 
 this floor that shall tell us that upon territory of the 
 United States, free at the time, he may carry his 
 slave, and hold him there in bondage? It cannot 
 \ be done. Judge Story says: 
 
 1 " Tliere is a uniformity of opinion among foreign jurists 
 I and foreign tribunals, in giving no effect in the state of 
 slavery of a party, whatever it might have been in the 
 country of his birlii, or of that in vviiirh he had been pre 
 viously domiciled., unless it is also recognized by the laws 
 of the country of his actual domicile, and where he is 
 found and it is sought to be enforced. In Scotland, the 
 like doctrine has been soleninly adjudged. The tribunals 
 of France have adopted the same rule, even in relation to 
 slaves coming from and belonging to their own colonies. 
 I This is also the undisputed law of England. Independent 
 ' of the provisions of tlie Constitution of the United States 
 
for the prott'Ction of the rights of masters in rejiard to do- 
 mestic fiigilive slaves, there is no doubt tliat the same prin- 
 ciple pervades the common law of the non-slavth tiding 
 States in America — that is to say, foreign slaves would be 
 no longer deemed such after their removal thither." — Con- 
 jpict of Laws, § 96. , 
 
 Nor has this eminent jurist been left without 
 corroborating' authority. In the case of Saul vs. 
 his creditors, in an opinion delivered by Judge 
 Porter, in Louisiana, as reported in the 17th iVIar- 
 tin, 569, the learned Judge, who was an eminent 
 juristand statesman also, has said, by way of illus- 
 tration : 
 
 " By the laws of this country slavery is permitted, and 
 the rights of the master can be enforced. Suppose the in- 
 dividual subject lo it is carried to England, or to Massa- 
 chusetts.' VVoulil their courts sustain the argument that 
 bis State or condition was fixed by ttie laws of his domicile 
 of origin.' We know they would not." 
 
 And this is the clear reason as stated by that 
 court: 
 
 " If the law is limited as to place, the tacit agreement 
 which is founded on a supposed consent that the law should 
 govern ihem, must be considered to have that limitation in 
 view. The parties are presumed to have agreed the law 
 should bind them as far as tliat law extended, no further." 
 
 This principle has been sanctioned and con- 
 firmed in other States, and by judicial tribunals 
 at either section of the country. Now, Mr. 
 Chairman, unle.'ss, against all precedent and all 
 constitutional law, as heretofore defined and re- 
 cognized, it shall be held to be the law that sla- 
 very is national and not local; unless it shall be 
 held that the Constitution of our common Union 
 converts our national domain into slave territory, 
 so that a slave voluntarily carried there yet re- 
 mains in bondage; unless it shall come to be the 
 law that the stripes upon the flag of our nation 
 shall shut out the stars, and ingloriously protect 
 that institution whose "unhappy introduction" 
 Jefferson lamented, it must follow, that upon this 
 soil no slave can stand until, after its admission 
 as a sovereign State, fit legislation shall so pro- 
 vide. 
 
 A sovereign Territory is a political anomaly. 
 That proposition has been too ably discussed to 
 need revision. The rights of sovereignty can no 
 more attach to the Territories within our borders 
 than the rights of majority can attach to the infant 
 within our homes. 
 
 It has been argued here tha! the *' law of na- 
 ture" will exclude slavery from Kansas. But if 
 the South contend for an abstraction in favor of 
 slavery, sliall the North surrender a princijile in 
 favor of freedom. If territory secured to fi-eedom 
 by solemn covenant, held peaceably and unin- 
 terruptedly by liberty for thirty years, is now to 
 be yielded up to slavery, what hope have we of 
 the North in the future .'' What can we claim that 
 is secure? 
 
 But it must follow, that when the ordinance of 
 1787 was passed, the same law of nature did not 
 prevail ! Thomas Jefferson had not found it out. 
 It was not known, indeed, when Oregon was 
 formed in 1848. It is a law of recent formation. 
 Against the argument stands out the fact that 
 along the whole western border of Missouri these 
 Territories lie. No, Mr. Chairman, slavery is no 
 respecter of latitude ! It may be true thht where 
 southern staples are not relied upon as articles 
 of commercial profit, slave labor, upon a large 
 scale, would not be useful. If not useful, it would 
 
 
 not be f^Hl. But domestic servitude would cer- 
 tainly e^ft. Will any gentleman attempt to 
 prove that slavery might not be carried into New 
 Hampshire.' 
 
 This region of Nebraska runs far up into the 
 north, and the eflfect of establishing these Territo- 
 ries as now desired, may be to join American 
 slave soil with the free soil of Canada. Between 
 the two the physical line of separation would not 
 be visible. Would the moral line be equally un- 
 seen } Upon that border land what free Ainerican 
 would desire to live } Poor enough is the conso- 
 lation to be derived from the memory of English 
 serfdom, or extravagance, or crime, when such 
 legislation is at hand ! 
 
 But, Mr. Chairman, I cannot longer ask to de- 
 tain the cotnmittee, and mu.^t bring my argument, 
 desultory as it has been, to a close. 
 
 I have listened with interest to the earnest argu- 
 ments and eloquent addresses which have come to 
 us from the South in support of these bills, and 
 of the principle upon which our legislation is de- 
 mantjed. So long as gentlemen confine themselves 
 to those considerations, based upon the compro- 
 mises of the Constitution, which affect the integ- 
 rity and inviolability of slavery within the known 
 limits of their respective States, I have no reply 
 to make. There is the bond, and until, under the 
 wise providfnce of God, sorne change shall be 
 wrought in them, or in our laws, no man can 
 fairly be heard upon the floor of Congress. And 
 1 can understand how it has come to pass that 
 their feelings are aroused and quickened upon this 
 subject. I desire not to wound, or heedlessly to 
 irritate them. I yield to them full right of freest 
 speech. That same right I claim fpr myself. 
 
 Some gentlemen have used strong language in 
 defense of their institutions. Their birthplace was 
 among them; their education has been there, and 
 all their earliest associations of home, and family, 
 and kindred. They speak boldly for slavery. Let 
 them do so without offense. 
 
 But if by any means it could be possible that 
 the man who drew his first breath under a free 
 sky, who learned, among the earliest lessons at 
 home, at school, at church, which his mother, or 
 his teacher, or his pastor taught him, to love free- 
 dom, and to hate oppression, if such a man could 
 forget old principles for new honors, and advocate 
 slavery for a price, no feeling of respect is enter- 
 tained for him to qualify the deep disgust of hon- 
 orable men at such oflending. 
 
 For my own part, Mr. Chairman, I have no 
 opinions to conceal or to disguise. I am a north- 
 ern Whig. Upon the question of slavery I can 
 have but one judgment; and when its extension 
 is sought to be effected over Territories now free, 
 I would resist it without misgiving and without 
 fear. Although the youngest in my place in this 
 House, I have the distinguished honor to represent 
 a section of Massachusetts where are to be found 
 her earliest pilgrim homes. It was there the first 
 constitution was formed and the first school 
 established and the first church dedicated to our 
 God. The footfall that first touched that Rock of 
 Plymouth struck it with a blow more potent for 
 good than that which followed the prophet's rod 
 within the wilderness; for from it there have 
 poured, for many generations, the waters of Edu- 
 cation, of Religion, of Life. 
 
■Sl°!: CONGRESS 
 
 011 897 "24 
 
 "m