Class _Ei--3_2^ 
 Book.S£jt_ 
 
SPEECH 
 
 OF 
 
 HON. AYILLIAM R. SAPP, OF OHIO, 
 
 .-«*^* 
 
 BILL TO ORGANIZE TERRITORIAL GOVERNMENTS IN 
 
 NEBRASKA AND KANSAS, 
 
 OPPOSING THE REPEAL OF THE MISSOURI COMPROMISE. 
 
 »■# 
 
 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, APRIL 28, 1854. 
 
 WASHINGTON: 
 
 PRINTED AT THE CONGRESSIONAL GLOBE OMICE. 
 
 1854. 
 

 EKeHAME 
 
NEBRASKA AND KANSAS. 
 
 The House being in Committee of the Whole ' 
 on the state of the Union — 
 
 Mr. SAPP rose and said: 
 
 Mr. Chairmak: When I reflect upon the mag- 
 nitude of interests involved inihe Senate >'ebraska 
 and Kansas bill, I do not wonder at the intense 
 excitement its introduction and passage by the 
 United States Senate has created throughout the 
 leneth and oreadth of the land, it is, sir, in the 
 discussion of the merits and demerits of this meas- 
 ure that I propose to consume the hour allotted to 
 me by the rules of this House. 
 
 Sir, the reneal of the eiffhth section of the Mis- 
 souri compromise of 1820", which reads as follows: 
 
 " And le't further enacted. That in all ihat tprriiory ceded 
 
 bv France lo i.'ie L'nited States onder the name of Louis^ 
 
 iana. which lies north of 36' aO' norih latitude, not included 
 
 «,i within the limit* of the Sute contemplated by this act, 
 
 \ Uavery <^n4 intolunlaru sertitude, otnertcue than in tke mn- 
 
 K ithment of crimes, ,chh-eof tke partus sAc!.' fc^re tfei du.y 
 
 'i\ oOficirfed, skaU be, and hereby is, prohibited forever, 
 
 ^ is the great object which the friends of this bill de 
 sire to attain. Mr. Chairman, by whom was this 
 compromise passed ? Let the record speak, and it 
 will lell you thai it was carried in il^ Senate oy a 
 Tote of 34 veas to 10 nays, and in ibe House by 
 134 yea3to'42 navs. In the Senate fourteen south- 
 ern Senators voted for it, and but eight against a, 
 and in the House there were 39 yeas, to 37 nays 
 from the South, who recorded their votes on the 
 enactmeat of the prohibition of slavery north of 
 the Missouri comDromise line. And yet, sir, we 
 are told that the South had no agency in the pas- 
 age of thai measure. 
 "Su-, at the time of its passage Mr. Monroe was 
 President of the United States, who had m his 
 Cabinet John auincy Adams, B. W. Crownmg- 
 shield, John C. Calhoun, Wi.ham Wirt, and 
 William H. Crawford, a galaxy of men of talent 
 iufficient to know whether it was consututional, 
 and of integrity thai would have forced them to 
 declare their convictions of its unconsututionahty 
 had thev deemed it so. The compromise received 
 their sanction, which it could not have done were 
 it unconsiituiional. And who, sir, were three 
 of the Cabinet of Mr. Monroe? Three of the 
 brightest intellects the South ever produced, wno, 
 though the shadows of the grave have descended 
 upon them, their principles still h« as guides 
 for their c^runtrymen to the path of duty. 
 
 But, Mr. Chairman, the exercise of the po^f^ 
 by Con-'ress to legi-Iaie upon this subject did 
 not besia ihere. In 17ST the old Congress, com- 
 posed In a great part of the men who were then 
 members of the Convention for the formation of 
 our Constitution, passed an ordinance, originated 
 
 by Mr. Jefferson, to exclude alarery northwest of 
 the Ohio river. 
 
 This restriction was applied to what was then 
 slave territory. 
 
 In 1803 we purchased Louisiana of 1- ranee, 
 which was slave territory, and Congress exer- 
 cised its power then over the subject, by prohib- 
 iting the introduction of slaves from beyond the 
 United States, or from any of the States into said 
 territory, other than by their bona Jidt owners. 
 Thus ii will be seen that the very power which 
 this bill denies the existence of was exercised by 
 some of the framers of our Constituuon, wno 
 were supposed to know the intent and meaning of 
 the instrument of their own creation. It will also 
 be seen that it received the sanction of Mr. Jeffer- 
 son, first bv his origination of the ordinance of 
 1787, and secondlv, bv his approval of the bill 
 restricting the importauon of slares mto Louisiana 
 
 Territory. > i. -j 
 
 Mr. Chairman, the eentlemen on the other ^e 
 of the House are very fond of quoting Mr. Jeffer- 
 son as hi^h authority, whenever his views may 
 favor their notions on any particular subject of 
 moment. They will not, therefore, dispute their 
 own authority, as I have shown that Mr. Jeffer- 
 son was clear'lv in favor of the same principles that 
 are the essence of the Missouri compromise, bir, 
 lei me, in this connection, say that I regard the 
 auihorl-.v of Thomas Jefferson, the author of the 
 Declarat'ion of Independence, and the ordmance 
 of 17c7, as also the action of the ^rly fathers of 
 . the Republic, who held seats both in the oid Con- 
 gress and the Constitutional Convenuon, as far 
 luperior to that of any of the big or UtUe giants of 
 the present day. , »» • 
 
 Mr Chairman, I contend that the Missoun 
 compromise, which this bill proposes to repeal, 
 was never designed to be a repealable law. It was 
 enacted as a perpetual statute, to be beyond the 
 possibilitv of repeal. It was a finality which waa 
 construa'ed to calm the excitement on the slavery 
 question which then existed, and to drive out of 
 tr.e Halls of Congress the ajitation which, sia.king 
 f.irth with fearful aspect, threatened to destroy the 
 Union, and, simultaneous with its destrucuon, to 
 blast the hopes of the American people. 
 
 Such, Mr. Chairman, is the cnaracter of the 
 measure which this bill desires to make inopera- 
 tive And yet, Mr. Chairman, this pacific meas- 
 ure, this sacred compact, is to be repealed by the 
 Senate Nebraska and Kansas bill, which, in 
 solemn forms of legislauon, says: 
 
 "Thai the Constiiotioa. ar.d a!! law? of the United St«« 
 which Jrenoi loo.Hy inapplicable. ^^^' ^J^ ^ .^ 
 Srd^ and eSect wiOun Uie aud TemtOfy of Nebr*:^ •» 
 
•Isewh(!re within the United Statns; except the eifrhth sec- 
 tion of the fict preparatory to the admission of Missouri 
 into the Union, ap(iroved Marcli 6, 1820, which was super- 
 seded hy ilie principles of the legislation of l«oO,coiiinionly 
 called the compromise measures, and i8 hereby declared 
 inoperative." 
 
 " It heing the true intent and m(!aning ef this act not to 
 legislate slavery into any Territory or State, nor to exclude 
 it therefrom, hut to h'ave the people thereof perfectly free 
 lo form and regulate their domestic institutions in their 
 own way, subject only to the Constitution of the United 
 States." 
 
 '' Prodded, That nothing herein contained shall be con- 
 Btrued to revive or putin force any law or regulation which 
 may have existed prior to the act of the 6th of March, 1820, 
 either protecting, establishing, prohibiting, or abolishing 
 sJavery." 
 
 Mr. Chairman, what are the reasons advanced 
 for the repeal of the Mi.s.souri compromise.' First, 
 as asserted by the bill itself, and reiterated over 
 and over asrain in this House, and in the other 
 end of the Capitol, " because it was superseded hy 
 the legislation of 1850." What effect has the legis- 
 lation of 1850 upon the Nebraska and Kansas 
 Territory.' That legislation was intended to apply 
 to domain entirely distinct from that affected by 
 this bill, acquired under a different treaty, having I 
 BO affinity whatever with it. It was never said i 
 in 1850 that it was to do anything more; and to 
 torture it into a different cotistruction now is an j 
 experiment too dangerous to contemplate, too 
 absurd to respect. I defy the friends of this 
 measure to point me to a single period during the 
 construction of the legislation of 1850, when any 
 man, either upon the floor of this House, or the 
 other, upon the hustings, in the public journals, or 
 any where in this country, asserted that that legisla- 
 tion was to affect the Missouri compromise. It was 
 never asserted. Was it the intention of its friends 
 to accomplish it.' If it was, under the cloak of 
 silence they attempted to perpetrate a cheat upon 
 the country, which, if it had been discovered, 
 would have been nailed to the counter as false 
 coin, and those measures never would have been 
 enacted. 
 
 _ And now, Mr. Chairman, as to the constitu- 
 tionality of the Missouri compromise, the action 
 of tke fathers of the Republic will settle that 
 point. The action of Mr. Jefferson, originating 
 the ordinance of 1787, and of the meml^ers of the 
 eld Congress and Constitutional Convention in 
 passing it, and of Congress in 1803, which re- 
 stricted the importation of slaves into Louisiana 
 Territory, shows clearly thatjf hose sages, to whom 
 we are indebted for all the privileges we now enjoy, 
 clearly recognized the principle embraced in the 
 Missouri compromise. And to come down to a 
 later day: the action of Congress in passing the 
 Texas resolutions which prohibited slavery north 
 of the Missouri compromise line, and in passing 
 the Oregon bill which contained a like prohibition, 
 proves beyond the peradventure of a doubt, that 
 the principle of the Missouri compromise was 
 recognized as constitutional and settled. 
 
 I have said, Mr. Chairman, that the Missouri 
 compromise is a compact, to form which a con- 
 sideration was involved. The property affected 
 by the compact was 'the whole of the Louisiana 
 Territory. The North yielded to the South the 
 right to hold slaves in the State of Missouri, and 
 in that portion of the territory lying south of 36° 
 30'; the South conceded that that part north of 
 36° 30' should forever be free. The motive for i 
 these concessions was the preservation of the I 
 Union. That was the object to be obtained. It li 
 was accomplished. You cannot, therefore, dissolve I! 
 
 this compact without the consent of all the parties 
 to it. The South has already reaped her share of 
 this bargain; and, let me ask, is it jiisl for her to 
 insist upon the North yielding up without the en- 
 joyment of the consideration which induced her to 
 become a party to it.' 
 
 Mr. Chairman, it has been well said that one 
 fact is worth a thou.-:and theorie.*; and if we look 
 back to the Congressional Globe of March 1,1845, 
 we will find that after Mr Milton Brown offered 
 his Texas resolutions, he accepted an amendment 
 proposed by Mr. Douglas, of Illinois, which says: 
 
 " And in such States as shall be formed out of said Terri- 
 tory, north of said Missouri compromise line, slavery or in- 
 voluntary servitude, except for crime, shall be proliibited."' 
 
 Again, on page eighty-five, of the same Globe, 
 will be found the following: 
 
 " Tiie re.<!olutions of Mr. Docglas are in the following 
 words : 
 'Joint Resolutions for the reannexation of Texas to the 
 
 United States, in conforiiiily with the treaty of 1803, for 
 
 the purchase of Louisiana. 
 
 ' Whereas, i,-c. * * * * * * 
 
 '8th. Jind beit ftiither res'ilved, That nothing herein con- 
 tained shall be construed to affect or in any way interfere 
 with the eighth section of the act, approved the sixth of 
 March, 1820, admittitis the Smie of Missouri into the Union, 
 and commonly called the Missouri compromise, that act 
 having been passed and approved prior to the ratification of 
 the treaty commonly called tlie Texas treaty, by which 
 Texas was ceded to Spain.' " 
 
 It will thus be seen, Mr. Chairman, that, in 
 1845, a member of this House, by the name of 
 Stephen A. Douglas, from the State of Illinois, 
 offered two amendments to the Texas bill — one 
 prohibiting slavery north of the Missouri com- 
 promise line, and the other expressly prohibiting 
 the construction of that measure into an interfer- 
 ence with the Missouri compromise. And yet 
 this l)ill, which I am now discussing, for v.-hich he 
 stood as sponsor, declares this same compromise ' 
 inoperative, because it is superseded by the legis- 
 lation of 1850, and because it is, in his opinion, 
 unconstitutional. If unconstitutional in 1854, why 
 was it not unconstitutional in 1845.' What new 
 light is it that has been hidden under a bushel, 
 that gleams at once, as it were, on his intellectual 
 vision, and opens his eyes to the idea that this 
 measure, which he deemed so absolutely necessary 
 in 1845 to be applied to the Texas resolutions, is 
 now unconstitutional.' 
 
 And now, Mr. Chairman, let me give the views 
 of a distinguished southern gentleman, who is 
 now the Presiding Officer of the other branch of 
 the National Legislature, [Mr. Atchisont, of Mis- 
 souri,] whose opinions have great weight in the 
 South, who, at the last session of Congress, in 
 speaking on the Nebraska bill then under consid- 
 eration, said: 
 
 " I have always been of opinion that the first great error 
 committed in the political history of this country was the 
 ordinance of 1787, rendering the Northwest Territory free 
 territory. The next great error was the Missouri compro- 
 mise. But they are both irremediable. Tliire is no remedy 
 for them. We must submit to them. I am prepared to do 
 it. It is evident that the Missouri comiinimise cannot be 
 repealed. So far as that question is concerned, we might 
 as well .-igree to the admission of this Territory now as next 
 year, or five or ten years hence. — " CoitgressUmal Globe, 
 '2d Sess. 3id. Cong. vol. 26, page 1113. 
 
 You perceive, Mr. Chairman, that the Missouri 
 compromise was then, at that late day, placed 
 beyond the possibility of repeal, and yet not a 
 single advocate of this new-fledged doctrine had 
 the boldness, if be entertained the notion, lo con- 
 trovert this opinion of the distinguished President 
 pro tempore of the Senate at the time.f 
 
And, Mr. Chairman, we find that ex-President 
 Polk approved of the Missouri compromise line, 
 and evinced his approval, not only by sisning the 
 Oregon bill, but, in giving his reasons for doing so. 
 Here is what he says: 
 
 "Had ttic bill embraced territories soiitb of that com- 
 nroniiffi, the (iiie-^tii)n presented forriiy consideration would 
 have been ola far ditferent character, and my action upon 
 it must have corresponded witli my convictions.-' 
 
 Mr. Chairman, if time permitted, and I deemed 
 it necessary, [ might produce innumerable author- 
 ities of great men, of the past and present day, 
 repudiating the unconstitutionality of the Missouri 
 compromise; but, sir, the remainder of my hour 
 will not permit it, nor have 1 the disposition to 
 travel over an already well reaped field, to prove 
 what has already been sufficiently done— the con- 
 stitutionality of the Missouri compromise. 
 
 Mr. Chairman, the fine sand which is to be 
 thrown into the eyes of the people to blind them to 
 the consideration of the repeal of the Missouri i 
 compromise, or at least to break the fall which a i 
 suggestion of repeal would have upon them, is the | 
 idea'advanced by the supporters of this mea.sure, \\ 
 that they are in favor of it because it asserts the ji 
 great princit)le of nonintervention, or popular i| 
 sovereignty. Sir, I deny this iri tolo. Examine 
 it section by section, and you will find it replete 
 with intervention 
 
 Mr. Chairman, 1 say that this bill is replete 
 with intervention. I will not go into the minute 
 details of the intervention it contains, becau.se, if 
 I were to exhihit every single instance of inter- 
 vention it contains, I .could string them out in 
 length almost as long as the bill it.self. It takes 
 away from tlie people the election of Governor, 
 and makes him appointabl? by the President, and 
 gives him the power to veto the wishes of the 
 people speaking through their representatives in 
 the Territorial Legislature. Thus, if the people 
 desired to prohil)it slavery in the Territories, the 
 Governor could veto their wishes. It gives the 
 appointment of judges to the President, and not 
 to the people; the judges who, liaving the con- 
 struction of the laws, possess equally as much, if 
 not more, power than the Governor to negative 
 the legislation of the people. These two branches 
 of theGovernmeni, the Executiveand the judicial, 
 entirely irresponsible to the people of the Terri- 
 tories, and amenalile only to the Pre.sident of the 
 United States, from whom they derive their ap- 
 pointment, could eifectually knock any idea of the 
 sovereignty of the people in the Territories in the 
 head. And what guaranty have we that they 
 will not .' On the contrary, iookins: at the shame- 
 less interference of the Executiveand his Admin- 
 istration in the last elections in New York and 
 Massachusetts, we have every reason to believe 
 that on account of their having the government 
 of these Territories effectually under their control, 
 they will more shamelessly interfere than they 
 did in Massachusetts and New York to subserve 
 their slavery notions, which they have clearly 
 evinced by their mainienance of this bill, and the 
 idea of the unconstitutionality of the Missouri 
 compromise. 
 
 Mr. Chairman, I will not lend my sanction to 
 the passage of any measure pretending to be based 
 upon the doctrine of popular sovereignty, which 
 has but a semblance of that essence in it — a suf- 
 ficiency of it to delude men who may be carried 
 off by mere names, and not reason, to its support. 
 Sir, this bill is not a non-intervention measure. 
 
 It is preposterous and absurd — it is an imputation' 
 upon the judgment of the people to attempt to 
 delude them with that idea. It is a measure got 
 up expressly to sub.serve the purposes of slavery 
 by the repeal of the Missouri coinprdmise. Pass 
 itj and you leave thntcompromise on your statute- 
 books as an evidence of the insincerity ot com- 
 pacts. Pass it, and you will prevent tlie people 
 of the North from emigrating there, because they 
 naturally have an aversion to be thrown into a 
 degrading competition with slave labor. They- 
 will go to other Territories, where they can pursue 
 their avocation, undesecrated by being obliged to 
 work with slaves, and where they can associate 
 with freemen, who look upon labor as respectable 
 and honorable. 
 
 Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Pennsylva- 
 nia [Mr. Wright] says that " the power of Con- 
 gress to legislate upon the subject of slavery in 
 the Territories is imbecile. It is barren." That 
 is the opinion of a northern supporter of this 
 measure, upon which he places liis support of it. 
 Now, Mr. Chairman, what is the opinion ofthe 
 South upon this doctrine? The Federal Union, 
 an influential Democratic journal of the South, 
 published at the seat of government of Georgia, 
 the organ of the Democratic party of that State, 
 and the mouth-piece of the distinguished Execu- 
 tive of Georgia, in its issue of April 18, says: 
 
 "' Squatter Sovereignty.'— We see a disposition in 
 some quarters of the DernocraUc party to discuss the ques- 
 tion of squatter sovereignly as anphed to the Nebraska bill. 
 We see no use in raisins the issue ai this lime. It can do 
 no good, while it may occasion n)iich evil to the Democratic 
 party. Some profess in support the Nebraska bill because 
 the doctrine of squatter sovereignty is embodied in it; 
 others support it because the doctrine is not admitted in the 
 bill, ff llie bill is a good one and suits all parlies, why 
 should wequnrrel about a provi.sion which is both admilted 
 and denied .' Why peril the bill by an unnecessary dispute 
 as to some sufposieil admission or denial of a doctrine ? We 
 (ieprecale uU discussion at present us useless and provocative 
 of controvej fiies that can only end in hurl As for ourselves, 
 we are prepared, whenever the issue arises, to maintain 
 our position, as we have always heretofore ; that is, (/g«ins« 
 the squatter sovereigviv doctrine, giving to our Democratic 
 brethren who may diifer with us. the right to whatever 
 opinion lliey prefer on the subject, and the use of our col- 
 umns for expressing ilie same." 
 
 Mr. Calhoun said, in his speech in 1850, in the 
 Senate of the United States: 
 
 " In claiming the right for the inhabitants, instead of 
 ConereKS, to legisl.ate for the Territories, the E.xecntive pro- 
 viso assumes that the govereignty over the Teiritories is 
 vested in the former: or, to express it in language used in a 
 resolution offered by one of the Senators from Texas, [Gen- 
 eral Houston,] have ' the same inherent right of sell gov- 
 ernment as the people in the Stales.' Tlie assumption is 
 utterly unfounded, unconstitutional, without example, arid 
 contrary to the entire -practice of the Government, from its 
 commencement to the jnesent time." 
 
 Mr. Westcott, of Florida, said, in a speech in 
 the Senate: 
 
 " The people of a Territory, by which I mean those rec- 
 ognized as citizens of the United States, residing in such 
 Territory, cannot exercise any of the sovereign powers 
 that pertain to a sovereign and independ nt Slate, i .xcept 
 sui h as are absolutely necessary to the preservation ot the 
 peace and good order of society." " Until they form and 
 organize their sovereign State government, their rights ot 
 sovereignly are dormant and in abeyance." " Yes, sir, 
 this thing you create and call a territorial government, is a 
 mere temporary, fugacious, local police instlliilioli— a lim- 
 ited, dependent muiiicip.al corporanon, similar to those 
 exi.stmg in counIie>, cities, parishes, town?, or boroughs, 
 incorporated by our Stale Legislatures. " " The institution 
 of domestic servitude is a political institution ; it is not a 
 mere municipal regulation." 
 
 And yet, Mr. Chairman, we find distinguished 
 gentleme'i from theSouth supporting this meisure. 
 I find my friend from South Carolina, [Mr. Keitt,] 
 
6 
 
 the particular champion of Mr. Calhoun, who i 
 says of hitn: . 
 
 "Sir, lliR history of Mr. C.'illioim, fur forty years, is i 
 largely iiiHiititii'il wiili tli<; lii-lory ofiliK Union. .Splendid, j 
 too, as was tiis inlellfcl, fjlorious as were his detuls, his j 
 moral purity yi;t hiTuitified his character like the bow set in 
 the clouds. No indireiMion ever ni;irlti'd his course. Wiri 
 or fail, he ever marched to his object directly. Others 
 might win tlieir way to the pi(niacle of power by tortuous 
 twisliiigs, as the serpent climbs upwards by sinuous folds, ' 
 yet leaving behind, through bush and bramble, a track of 
 slime to mark his course. He stooped down upon the sum j 
 mit as stoops the eagle from his lolly companionship with ; 
 tlie Kun. Never did criminal ambition seduce liim from , 
 the patriot's duty." ; 
 
 Yes, Mr. Chairman, my friend, who speaks 
 thus of Mr. Calhoun, is found suppotting the bill, 
 which its northern friend.s .say contains the very 
 principle, Ihe assnmpti"n of lohich Mr. Calhoun de- 
 clares to be ulterlij unfounded, unc' institutional, with- 
 out example, and contrary to the entire practice cf the 
 Government from its commencement to the present ; 
 time. I 
 
 The supporters of this measure come forward j 
 here; some support it for this reason, others fori 
 another reason, and so on; they all see a different | 
 aspect in the organization of the bill upon which [ 
 they base their supportof It. Now, Mr. Chairman, 
 with all this conflict of opinion bet A'een the friends 
 of the measure, I must confess that there is gooil ! 
 reason to suspect something is rotten in Denmark, i 
 
 But, Mr. Chairman, indenendent of tlie viola- 1 
 tion of ihe Missouri compromise, I have other! 
 and very strong oljections to the passage of thisi 
 bill. It [irovides " that no officer, seaman, marine, 
 or any other person in the Army or Navy of the i 
 United States, shall vote in said Territory." j 
 
 So far as the Navy is concerned, it is super-' 
 fluons; because it is not to be presumed that any ] 
 of the members of that branch of the public ser- 
 vice would loMte in a place isolated from the sea- 
 port towns of the Republic. But when we come 
 to the Army, the protection of our white popu- 1 
 lation agnint^t the encroachments of the Indians 
 will make it necessary lo have a large force there. 
 When soldiers are ordered to a distant locality, 
 like Nebraska and Kansas, it is not to stop for a 
 day, or a week, or a month, or a year, but for a 
 long time — perhaps until the expiration of their 
 term of enlistment. Responsible as they would 
 be to the municipal regulations of the Territory, 
 it would not be proper to deprive them of a parti- 
 cipation in the election of the Legislatures who are 
 to make those regulations. Will you tell me, Mr. 
 Chairman, with what propriety this Congress can 
 pass this bill, excluding those men who, perhaps,! 
 have borne the brunt of battle, and show iheir dis- j 
 position to do so again by goin^ to those Terri - ! 
 tories.' — I say, with what propriety can you ex-j 
 elude those men from participating in the election | 
 of the Legislatures to frame the laws to which 
 they are to be held amenal)le.' 
 
 But, Mr. Chairman, I oliject to this bill also, 
 because it prevents those foreigners, residents of 
 the Territory, who have not had time to become 
 citizens of the United States, from votin?. Who 
 are those men who are prevented from voting by 
 this bill .' Men who, oppressed by the tyranny of 
 their governments in the Old World, attracted by 
 the beacon-light which hangs from the mast head 
 of our Republic as their guide to a home where 
 freedom can be breathed as pure as the air of 
 heaven; and who, coming here, desire not to spend 
 a lazy life in the cities, but emigrate to the mighty 
 West to hew down the forest, spread civilization, 
 
 and substitute, in place of wild blanks of unculti- 
 vated land and almost impenetrable woods, beau- 
 tiful farms, thriving villages, hand.some towns, 
 and populous cities. They do this because they 
 feel that they have an interest in the firo.sperity of 
 the country. This, Mr. Chairman, is the char- 
 acter of the people who are excluded by this bill 
 from exercising the highest esteemed privilege of 
 a freeman — the right of suffrage — until they have 
 spent five years in toil. 
 
 When, Mr. Chairman, I look at the foreign 
 population of our country — when 1 reflect upon 
 the gallant military services of .Montgomery, 
 Steuben, Lafayette, De Kalu, Pulaski, and other 
 illustrious men, who took a prooiiiient part in 
 the revolutionary struggle of the Colonies for lib- 
 erty — when 1 look at the credit foreii^ners have 
 done to whatever position s have been held by them 
 in America — and when I reflect that all the battle- 
 fields of America have been enriched by their blood, 
 and its history illustrated by the tales of their 
 heroic deeds of valor — 1 cannot see how any gen- 
 tleman on this floor can vote for this bill, perpe- 
 trating, as it does, this great wrong. 
 
 Mr. Chairman, 1 have thus somewhat discon- 
 nectedly given some of my principal olijections to 
 this bill; and 1 desire now to turn my attention 
 to another branch of the su'iject, and to inquire 
 who is it that has asked for the enaciment of this 
 measure.' Has the South asked lor it.' Has the 
 North asked for it.' Was it brought forth to effect 
 any good purpose, or was it originated as a kind 
 of easy vehicle to ride into the Presidential chair 
 upon.' TheNonh never asked for it; onthecon- 
 trary, it is opposed to it. Toe South has never 
 asked for it; but at the same time I blame the 
 South for echoing a too ready response to its spirit, 
 instead of coming out as a uniiand sianding upon 
 the same platform as some of her representatives 
 have done, and throw back with indignity this 
 attempt to induce her to sacrifice her honor, her 
 chivalry, her well-earned historical reputation, by 
 this attempted violation of the Missouri compro- 
 mise. 
 
 Sir, it is the creature of a desire on the part of 
 certain men to secure ulterior obje'-ts, to effect 
 which, they create this trick to blind the people 
 to a sense of their real purposes. It is a direct 
 violation of the pled<:es which the Democratic 
 party made to the country by its platform adopted 
 at the last national convention of that party, held 
 in Baltimore in 1852, which reads as follows: 
 
 " V. Rejoined, That Ihe Demncralic pariv will resist all 
 attempts at renewing, in Congress or out ol ii, the agitation 
 of the slavery question, under whatever shape or color tti« 
 alic'inpt may be made." 
 
 Mr. Chairman, it is in direct violation of the 
 pledge given by the Whig party in its late national 
 platform, which solemnly says: 
 
 "VI I r. The series of acts of Ihe Thiru-First Congress, 
 commonly known as the compnnnise ailjn-iment, (ihe act 
 for Ihe recovery of fmiilives (roni l.itior included,) are re- 
 ceived and ac-(]nie.sced in by tiie VViiigs ol ihe United States 
 as a final seuienieni, in principle and snlislance, of the sub- 
 jects to which they relate ; and so far a- these acts are con- 
 cerned, we will maintain them, and nisist on their strict en- 
 forcenienl, niilil time and experience shall demonsirate the 
 necessity of further legislali'in to gn inl against llie evasion 
 of Ihe laws on the one hand, and tin- .ihns.- oflht-ir present 
 etficifi.cvlo .arry outthe requirenienls of the ('ori>illntion ; 
 and we deprecate all further agil.uion of ihe (iiicsiions thus 
 settled, as ilangerous 10 our peace, ajid will di-coniilenance 
 all efl'orts tocontinne or renew such a','itiiiion, whenever, 
 wheri-ver, or however made ; and will inainmin this settle- 
 ment asesseniial to the nalioimlity of the Whig party and 
 tlie integrity of tlie Union." 
 
It is a most unprincipled violation of the reso- 
 lutions of this House passed in 1852, on motion 
 by Mr. Joseph W. Jackson, of Georg^ia, which 
 distinctly stated that " I'Fe recognize the binding 
 efficacy of the compromises of Hie ConstihUion," 
 meaning unequivocally the Missouri compromise 
 as one of the compromises of the Constitution. 
 In fact, sir, it is a most palpable violation of the 
 most solemn assurances made to this country by 
 the supporters of this measure that this agitation 
 should cease. 
 
 And now, Mr. Chfiirman, as this bill pretends 
 to be a great people's bill, embracing popular sov- 
 ereignty in its purest essence, it ia well enough 
 that"the views of the people of Nebraska should 
 be known. Indeed, sir, it is peculiarly appropri- 
 ate that they should be, as that people are to be 
 the receivers of the effects of this bill in the event 
 of its.pas.sage. In a Nebraska convention, held 
 at St. Joseph 's, they passed resolutions, which are 
 reported as follows: 
 
 ''Resolved, That we consider the agitation of the slavery 
 question, in connection with the organization of Nebraslia 
 Territory, dangerous to the peace of the country, fatal to 
 the best intere.-ts of Nebraska itself, and even threatening 
 the harmony, if not tlie perpetuity, of tlie vi'liole Union. 
 
 " Resolved, That we are utterly <ipposed to any reagita- 
 tionnf that ' vexed question,' now happily at rest ; and we 
 will resist all attempts at renewing, in Congress or out of 
 it, the agitation of tlie slavery question, under whatever 
 shape or color the question may be made." 
 
 Mr. Chairnnan, let me call the attention of the 
 committee generally, and the Representatives from 
 Missouri particularly, to the following resolutions 
 of the Legislature of Missouri, passed in 1847: 
 " Joint resoltilion in relation to the Missouri compromi.se 
 act of lf-20. 
 
 " Resolved by the General Assembly of the State of Mis- 
 souri, as follows : 
 
 "Sec. 1. Tliat the peace, permanency, and welfare of our 
 national Union depend upon a strict adherence to the letter 
 and spirit of the eighth section of the act ofCongress of the 
 United States, eiititlidd 'An act to authorize the people of 
 the Missouri Territory to form a constitution and State 
 government, and for the admission of such State into the 
 Union on an equal footing with the original States, and to 
 prohibit slavery in certain Territories,' approved March 6, 
 
 1820; 
 
 " Sec. 2. ThatourSenatorsin the Congress ofthe United 
 States are hereby instructed, and our Representatives re- 
 quested, to vote in accordance with the provisions and the 
 spirit ofthe said eighth section ofthe said act, in all ques- 
 tions which may come before them in relation to the organ- 
 ization of new Territories or States, out of the territory now 
 belonging to the United States, or which may hereafter be 
 acquired, either by purchase, by treaty, or conquest. 
 
 " Sec. 3. That a copy of these resolutions shall be for- 
 warded, by the Secretary of Slate, to each of our Senators 
 and Representatives in Congress of the United States." 
 
 Mr. Chairman, what did the Executive promise 
 the people of the United Spates? In his last an- 
 nual message he said: 
 
 "A successful w.ir had just terminated. Peace brought 
 with it a vast augmentation of territory. Disturbing ques- 
 tions arose, bearing upon the domestic institutions of one 
 portion ofthe Confederacy, and involving the constitutional 
 rights of the States. But, notwithstanding ditferences of 
 opinion and sentiment, which then existed in relation to 
 details and specific provisions, the acquiescence of dis- 
 tinguished citizens, whose devotion to the Union can never 
 be doubted, lias given renewed vigor to our institutions, and 
 restored a sense of repose and securitv to the public mind 
 throughout the Confederacy. That this repose is to suffer 
 no shock during my official term, if I have power to avert 
 it, those who placed me here may be assured." 
 
 It will be seen by this message that he distinctly 
 pledged himself that •' this repose shall suffer no 
 shock." Yet, no sooner is that imessage delivered 
 to Congress, than a bomb-shell is thrown into its 
 halls to agitate the nation, which not only receives 
 encouragement from his own mouth, but is trum- 
 
 peted forth to the country in his organ, the 
 Washington Union, as a peculiar favorite of Gen- 
 eral Pierce. 
 
 Hear the Union: 
 
 " It need not now be repeated that President Pierce was 
 an early, and that he has been an ardent and constant 
 advocate of the Nebraska bill. It has beco.me a prom- 
 inent MEASURE of his ADMINISTRATION. If it 1)6 de- 
 feated in the House, it will, it must be admitted, he a defeat 
 of the Administration. The Whigs of Uie North and the 
 1 Abolitionists have coalesced in opposition to the .Admin- 
 > isiraiion, upon the ground of its support of the measun!. 
 jTHE IS.-5UE IS THUS MADE— THE TEST IS THUS 
 APPLIED." 
 
 I Mr. Chairman, it has been again and again 
 said upon this floor that the northern people are 
 ithe aggressors. The honorable gentleman from 
 ; Kentucky, [Mr. Preston,] not now in his seat, 
 [ said in his late speech here upon this bill: 
 I "An impartial judgment, based upon the history of the 
 Territories, must convince us that the Norili has been, in 
 \ point of tact, guilty of the very aggression of which she 
 ! accuses the South." 
 
 j Was the concession which the North made in 
 j 1820, in consentmg to the enactment of the Mis- 
 souri compromise line, aggression .' If, sir, that was 
 'aggression, then I admit the force of the charges 
 jof the honorable gentleman from Kentucky. 
 ! Was the concession which she made in 1836, 
 I granting to theStuteof Missouri iheright to extend 
 her western boundary over a tract of land contain- 
 1 ingabout three thousand five hundred square miles, 
 'situated north ofthe compromise line, which has 
 since been divided into six counties, and which, 
 [ contrary to the compact which formed the basis 
 j of the Missouri compromise line, is used for the 
 I purposes of slavery, I say, was that concession 
 [ofthe North, submitting to three thousand five 
 j hundred square miles of free territory being 
 1 reduced to slavery, what is called here aggression ? 
 Was the compromise measures of 1850, among 
 which was a bill placing at the disposal of the 
 slaveholder the means of catching his runaways, 
 what is termed aggression by the gentleman from 
 Kentucky.' Sir, the North has never aggressed 
 upon the South. Standing upon the broad platform 
 of the Constitution and the Union, she has never 
 committed aggressions upon her sisters. Pursuing 
 the discussion of the subject of slavery no further 
 than it came within the purview of the General 
 Government, she has never made war upon the 
 constitutional rights of the South. Sir, let the 
 South stand by her obligations. Let her repu- 
 diate all offers tending to induce her to break 
 them. Let her condemn all this agitation of a 
 question as applicable to a locality, relative to 
 which it has long since been settled, by ceasing 
 to agitate it herself, through her Representatives 
 here, and then she will no longer imagine that the 
 i North is aggressing upon her rights. It is only on 
 ' account of her own love for excitement, where her 
 crimination begets recrimination, that she loses 
 sight of the cause of the agitation, and lays at the 
 door of aggression the very mischief which she 
 performed a prominent part in creating. 
 
 The North had the power to defeat all the meas- 
 ures which I have mentioned, and which were so 
 conducive to the interests ofthe South; yet, mag- 
 nanimously avoiding the use of her power, which 
 her great niamerical strength in the Union gives her, 
 she has permitted all these measures, depriving her, 
 1 of many things she could have claimed, to pass. 
 ]! Mr. Chairman, pray what is the size of this 
 I territory, the government for which is attempted 
 !i to be legislated, rough-shod, through this House? 
 
<f.,.^ 
 
 It is a territory twelve timea as large as the State 
 of New York, containiiig land for agricuUural 
 purposes equal to any in the world, and affording 
 inducements to settlers which will soon cause it to 
 be populated. This is something worth contend- 
 ingftr. Tell me not that slavery will nutgo there; 
 that it is excluded by the laws of nature. This, 
 is ail nonsense. Pass this bill, and you will see 
 whether it will. 
 
 Mr. Chairman, it has been said that the home- 
 stead bill would ca'iise Nebraska to be populated 
 with an anti slavery people, which would preclude 
 the possibility of slavery going there. Sir, we 
 should not halloo before we get out of J,he woods. 
 The homestead l)ill has tiot passed the Senate as 
 yet, and, unless some great popular expression, is 
 made to bring that body to a sense of the anxiety 
 of the people for its passage, I am afraid it will 
 not become a law this Congress. But, sir, even if 
 it does, it cannot affect Nebraska and Kansas. 
 Owing to the existence of Indian titles — which 
 will prevent the land being surveyed and placed 
 p market until they are extinguished — the people 
 there could derive no benefits from the homestead 
 policy. The hope of using that measure as a 
 preventive of the existence of slavery is without 
 foundation. 
 
 There is nothing, sir, magical about the parallel 
 of 36° 30' north latitude to preyent slavery exist- 
 ing north of it. All Missouri, a large portion of 
 Kentucky, Virginia, and Maryland, lies north of 
 it, and yet slavery is used to advantage in those 
 States. What then would prevent it from existing 
 in Nebraska and Kansas .' Is there any difference 
 between those Territories and the States I have 
 mentioned, that would cause it to exist in one and 
 not in the other? I repeat it, sir, it is idle to say 
 that slavery is restricted by the laws of nature. It 
 will go, sir, wherever you permit it. ' is not 
 confined to climate, but to conscience. Thi slave 
 power rests occasionally, but never sleeps. 
 
 Mr. Chairman, the fact that the Senate has 
 passed this bill gives it no favnr in my eyes. 
 That body has always been pro-slavery. Wneii- 
 ever there has i)een a contest between freedom and 
 slavery, the Senate has taken the side of slavery. 
 When the House refused to admit Missouri with 
 her slave constitution, the Senate went in, heart 
 and soul, for it, and at last got the House into the 
 passage of the Missouri compromise, which was 
 a great concession on the part of the North. 
 
 I can only account for this character of the Sen-, 
 ate from the fact of Senators deriving their exist- 
 ence from the Legislature, whilst the Representa- 
 tives come fresh from the people. It is well that 
 the Representatives are here; they represent the 
 people; they are instruments of popular represent- 
 ation, without which the people are essentially 
 dead, or only live to servitude. 
 
 Mr. Chairman, I submit that we of the House 
 of Representatives cannot, with any propriety, 
 act upon this measure at this time. We are the 
 reflectors of the people's will in the National Le- 
 gislature. Previous to our elections, it was never 
 hinted that this measure would be brought forth 
 here. It was never dreamed that this hydra- 
 headed monster would pollute the Halls of Con- 
 gress with its venomous presence. We were 
 elected upon no such issue; and, so far as we 
 understand, there is a general uprising of the 
 people of the North on this subject. But I am 
 willing that the thing should be fairly tested before 
 the people, and to abide by their decision. Let it 
 
 rest until alter the coming elections, at least; but 
 to act more properly, let it rest until the nex^ Con- 
 gress, by which tune the people — by the next 
 election of their Represenlative.s — will more fully 
 indicate their sentiment upon the bill. 
 
 Mr. Chairman, let me suggest to the friends of 
 this bill that it does not speak much for the merits 
 of their measure to hear them constantly pro- 
 claiming that this is a battle of the Abolitionists 
 against the principles of this bill. Sir, this looks 
 to me as if it was an attempt to ad viiice the inter- 
 ests of this bill by enlisting in its behalf any pre- 
 judice that may exist in this Hou.se against the 
 term Abolitionist. Who, sir, are the opponents 
 of this measure.' Sir, nearly the entire people of 
 the North oppose it. And when I come to the 
 South, I am glad to see those Repre.sentatives on 
 this floor from that section who oppose this meas- 
 ure, and thereby maintain pliglited faith. Sir, 
 their names will ever be revered; and when the 
 history of the present day is written, inscribed 
 upon its contents in letters of living light will be 
 found the names of those gentlemen, as i.atriots 
 and friends of the Union, who, coming forward 
 and despising any advantage that their section 
 might obtain by this measure, repudiate the re- 
 peal of the Missouri compromise as a gross vio- 
 lation of a sacred agreement. 
 
 Sir, this bill is opposed by great compromise 
 men of 1850, by men who have the strictest re- 
 gard for the constitutional rights of the South, 
 who looked upon the platforms of the two great 
 (>arties of the country, the rfsolutions of this 
 House, and other actions, as a binding recognition 
 of the Missouri compromise, which they believed 
 (though unjust to the North at the time) should 
 be adhered io,as the Souih had received her share 
 of the bargain, and the North had not. Such, Mr. 
 Chairman, is the character of the opposition to 
 this measure; and I think it would be at least 
 di.-creet for its friends not to attempt to delude the 
 country with the idea that it meets but the antag- 
 onism of a single party, and that the Abolition 
 party of the North. Sir, the opposition is con- 
 fi.ied to no section; here, there, every where, from 
 the ice-bound regions of the North to the Gulf of 
 Mexico, and from the rocky Atlantic oast to the 
 Pacific ocean, may be heard murmurings as loud, 
 in the language of a di.stinsruished ex-Senator, as 
 the mighty cataract that thunders upon the west- 
 ern borders of the Empire Stale, proclaiming the 
 iniquity of the repeal of the Mis.-^ouri compro- 
 mise. 
 
 Pass this bill, Mr. Chairman, and no sooner is 
 it done than the excitement which now exists in 
 this country will be elevated to iis highest pitch, 
 and where peace and tranquillity existed previous 
 to the introduction of this measure, turbulence 
 and discontent will pervade the land. It is by the 
 excitement created by the enactment of a measure 
 of this kind, that you do more to nnpairthe integ- 
 rity of the Union than by a direct blow at its sta- 
 bility. A periodical existence of an excitement 
 like this may seem to do it no harm; but I warn 
 this House and the country that every measure 
 of this kind gradually impairs its strength. Like 
 the water dripping on the stone, it may seem to 
 do it no hurt, but eventually it will make its im- 
 pression; decay will take the place of strength, 
 and the proud Union erected by our fathers as 
 a monument of the capability of man for self- 
 government will 0»"» ^"^^ with its fall leave to 
 another generation the solution of that problem. 
 
I