liitiliW 
 
 
 iHHii^ 
 
 MMk 
 
 iiill 
 
 imB 
 
 1iil 
 
 iiiiiilii 
 
 mm 
 
 m 
 
 t 
 
 
 fiHtiiiitiiHily 
 
>■ ■/* 
 
 v^ ^^ 
 
 ^ -^c^. 
 
 ^* c^ 
 
 /• .>^- 
 
 '■'■^' <y 
 
 A' 
 
 .\\' 
 
-0'- 
 
 ■'*,_ .■»' 
 
 
 ,d^ 
 
 
 \^ 
 
 
 %. ^^ 
 
 v^ 
 
 ''^^..# 
 
 ->^^ ' 
 
 
 r -'^r^ 
 
 ■ ■^ 
 
 ^^ '->. 
 
 
 V 
 
 A- 
 
 ■V. 
 
 ^^^^ 
 
 v<>- 
 
 "V 
 
 ' A^^"^' 
 
 s^^' -/>. 
 
 
 
 
 v- 
 
 ,^^- - 
 
 ..>^ 
 
 s 
 
 
 
 
 
 xO°<. 
 
 
 
 fc 
 
 o^ - "-' 
 
 
 
 •^ ^ ■ 'S. "' <x\ <. ^ ' ' * ^^ 
 
 ^ V 
 
 ^^/- v' 
 
 
 5.0^^ 
 
 
 
 
 ,aO 
 
 c 
 
 C^' * r:^ 
 
 %<.^ 
 
 A' 
 
 
 X 
 
 
 
 .^^' 
 
 •^^. 
 
 ■ ^ r. 
 
 ^#\\ 
 
 O^ 
 
 
 V ^ 
 
 ■7 , 
 
 a. 
 
 
 
 i „ 1, s 
 
 .4: 
 
 •^oo^ 
 
 
 A-^ 
 
 0^' 
 
 ^ o 
 
 '% 
 
 '?, 'O o >. '"• .0 ^ ''' /* S'^ \\ 
 
 %■ 4^ 
 
 
 .-A 
 
 
 ■.V 
 
 o^ 
 
 ' « * -^^ 
 
 
 ''. 'c- 
 
 \> ^ ^- ' « A "> 
 
 v^-^. 
 
 
 A' 
 
 o'" s " * " 
 
 
 '>^*^ ,^^ 
 
 - \^' 
 
 * 
 
 
 K^ 
 
 \s- 
 
 lV 
 
 .0 
 
 
 s^ % 
 
 
 .^'^ 
 
 ■^c^. 
 
 
 ^->- V 
 
 
 -/ 
 
 % 
 
 
 >... 
 
 "r/-. 
 
 .C, 
 
 ■V 
 
 -A^^ 
 
 "-^^ 
 
 
 ^^ -''ci 
 
.^"^'f 
 
 -A 
 
 7J Ly 
 
HISTORY OF 
 
 MISSOURI COMPROMISE 
 
 AND 
 
 SLAVERY 
 
 IN 
 
 AMERICAN POLITICS 
 
 A TRUE HISTORY OF THE MISSOURI COMPROMISE 
 
 AND ITS REPEAL, AND OF AFRICAN SLAVERY 
 
 AS A FACTOR IN AMERICAN POLITICS 
 
 BY 
 
 MRS. ARCHIBALD DIXON 
 
 SLCONi> ^DmON 
 
 CINCINNATI 
 
 THE ROBERT CLARKE COMPANY 
 
 1903 
 
T,l _ ^:3-, 
 
 -■fV OF 
 
 CONSK : 
 
 ss, 
 
 One COfv H 
 
 ^eeivED 
 
 JAN. 1^ 
 
 1904 
 
 0««»VT»l«HT 
 
 ENTHY 
 
 CI A<nR v 
 
 - f '^f 8' 
 -5to. No. 
 
 dOPT 
 
 A. 
 
 •If 43 
 
 Co py BIGHT, 1898, 
 By The Robert Clarke Company. 
 
 C I 
 
 t « c 
 
 > S « I 
 
 t « t « 
 
 • '• • « 
 
 • ■ 
 
TO 
 
 THE TRUTH OF HISTORY 
 
 AND 
 
 THE PEOPLE OF THE UNITED STATES 
 OF AMERICA 
 
PREFACE. 
 
 The truth of history, and justice to the Author of the 
 Repeal of the Missouri Compromise, Hon. Archibald 
 Dixon, of Kentucky, alike demand, from one who was 
 in a position to know the facts, a clear statement of the 
 origin, the motives and the circumstances of that Re- 
 peal. 
 
 The history of the Repeal necessitates that of the 
 Compromise itself. 
 
 So far as the writer is aware, no historian has ever 
 given, or even attempted to give, any special account 
 of these important measures, although they embrace in 
 their full scope the life of a nation, and cover more than 
 the period of a century. On the contrary, the events, 
 motives and purposes leading up to these Acts have 
 been mostly ignored by our historians, or else much 
 misrepresented, and the many misstatements made have 
 done great injustice not only to the Author of the Re- 
 peal, but also to the Hon. Stephen A. Douglas, who 
 adopted it as his own measure, and embodied it in his 
 Kansas-Nebraska bill, which was passed in 1854, after 
 the greatest Congressional struggle that had as yet been 
 recorded. Only the truth is needed for the vindication 
 of both of these distinguished men as lofty and most 
 sterling patriots. 
 
 Neither has any writer yet presented sufficient reasons 
 for the extraordinary metamorphoses that took place 
 within that period, in both the Northern and Southern 
 sections of our country. The North, from being an 
 
 (v) 
 
vi Preface. 
 
 early advocate of secession and disunion, becoming most 
 devoted to the Union — whilst the South, from being for 
 years most devO'vfcd to the Unloii, became afterwards an 
 advocate of secession ; not only in theory, but in prac- 
 tLce, giving her best blood to carry it mvo eiiect, and 
 forsaking that Union, which she had done so much to 
 form, and for which she had fought in 1812, when New 
 England refused to do so. 
 
 It is true also, that the majority of the Southern 
 States desired to stop the slave trade in 1787 — and that 
 the Northern States entered into a combination with a 
 minority of the Southern States to prevent its prohibi- 
 tion by Congress for a period of twenty years — even 
 putting this provision into the Federal Constitution 
 itself. Yet afterwards, we find the North in favor of 
 freeing the slaves of the South, many of whom had been 
 brought into the country under this very provision ; 
 and the South, from having regarded slavery as a most 
 dangerous element, afterwards defending it as the very 
 bulwark of liberty itself. In the events and causes 
 leading up to the Missouri Compromise and its Repeal, 
 we find the only solution of the enigma of these singu- 
 lar and phenomenal transformations. 
 
 In relating these events, my object has been, not to 
 justify, nor yet to criminate, either the Northern, or the 
 Southern, section of our country ; but simply to repre- 
 sent facts and feelings as they actually existed ; to show 
 the utterly irreconcilable differences between the sec- 
 tions upon the one subject of slavery and the absolute 
 necessity for the establishment of that great principle of 
 non-intervention by Congress with the domestic regula- 
 tions of the States, which alone could have preserved 
 peace between the sections, left the Constitution invio- 
 
Preface. vii 
 
 late, and presented the dread accession of tliose V-win 
 evils, secession and coercion ; which principle was as- 
 serted to be the only correct one in the Congressional 
 legislation of 1850, and was reasserted and established, 
 in 1854, by the Repeal, by Congress, of the Missouri 
 Compromise Act of 1820. 
 
 This work is designed to state the facts connected w^ith 
 those two great measures fully, clearly, truthfully and 
 without fear or favor. It has been written under many 
 disadvantages, such as illness, family cares and sorrows, 
 and at long intervals of time ; the study of the subject 
 having been begun in 1877, one year after the death of 
 Hon. Archibald Dixon, of Kentucky, Author of the Re- 
 peal of the Missouri Compromise, and the beloved hus- 
 band of the writer. 
 
 I will state that in writing this history, I wrote as I 
 read, and from first impressions, sometimes finding them 
 mistaken and subject to correction : but much oftener 
 finding them confirmed and strengthened the more I 
 read, and the more deeply I went into the subject. 
 
 In 1893, the partially completed manuscript, with my 
 entire library, was destroyed by fire, and the task of re- 
 writing it seemed an impossibility. 
 
 But owing to the kindness of friends in lending books 
 and procuring data, I have been enabled to carry out my 
 purpose, however imperfectly it may have been done. 
 And I wish now to thank them for their assistance : more 
 especially. Col. Henry Powell, of Henderson, Kentucky, 
 who furnished me with the Congressional Records and 
 Annals of Congress, belonging to his late honored father. 
 Senator Lazarus W. Pow^ell, without which I should 
 have been unable to proceed at all ; Hon. Robert L. 
 Wilson, of Cape Girardeau, Mo., who procured forme 
 
viii Preface. 
 
 duplicates of valuable papers lost ia the burning of my 
 residence; Hon. Wm. Wirt Henry, of Richmond, Va., 
 through whose kindness I obtained the Act of Virginia, 
 of 1788, found in the Appendix ; the Rev. R. M. Hayes, 
 who sent me the data of the Methodist Conference of 
 1849 ; Vice-President Stevenson and the late Hon. 
 Daniel Voorhees, to whose courtesy I was indebted for 
 the permission of the Senate to have a copy made of 
 Mr. Dixon's motion for the Repeal of the Act of 1820, 
 made January 16, 1854 ; Justice John M. Harlan, who 
 sent me some volumes from Washington City that were 
 indispensable ; Hon. Micajah Woods, of Charlottesville, 
 Va., for autograph letter of Mr. Clay, hitherto unpub- 
 lished ; also Hon. Geo. Yeaman, of New York, Hon. 
 Wm. Wirt Henry, Hon. John W. Lockett and Major 
 John J. Reeve, of Henderson, Ky., who were most 
 kindly critics, and offered suggestions of the greatest 
 value. 
 
 It has been with me not only a labor of love, but of 
 the deepest interest in the subject which so broadened 
 and deepened with the study of it as to include far more 
 than one set of men or measures. 
 
 Should the following pages succeed in establishing the 
 simple truth of history, which is far more valuable than 
 rounded periods or high-sounding phrases, such success 
 will be a sufficient reward for all the time and labor ex- 
 pended on them, and the Author's aim will have been 
 accomplished. Susan Bullitt Dixon. 
 
CONTENTS. 
 
 CHAPTER I. 
 
 Slavery under the Constitution — Slaves first brought to the Western 
 Hemisphere by Spain — American Colonies all owned slaves 
 — Patrick Henry bitterly opposed to slavery — Three-fifths rep- 
 reseiitation — Fugitive slave law — Continuance of the slave uade 
 under the Constitution for a period of twenty years — General 
 Washington's account of the "bargain" by which this was 
 effected, and the "two-thirds vote" measure defeated — Mr. 
 Madison's record of the proceedings — All of the Southern States 
 but two opposed to the bai-gain .....:.,.. 1 
 
 CHAPTER II. 
 
 Ordinance of 1787, by which slavery was prohibited in the North- 
 western Territory ceded by Virginia to the United States — 
 Virginia's assent to the ordinance — Her motives — Explanation 
 of inconsistency in the prohibition of slavery by the Congress 
 of 1787 and the continuance of the slave trade by the Constitu- 
 tional Convention of 1787 — Louisiana purchased — Treaty of 
 purchase protects all rights of inhabitants — Sectional jealousies 
 — Letters of Adams and Jefferson — Great Britain's plot to pro- 
 cure the secession of New England, the moving cause of the 
 war of 1812— The Missouri difficulty begins in 1819— Mr. Clay, 
 Speaker of the House, casts the deciding vote against territorial 
 restriction in Arkansas 23 
 
 CHAPTER III. 
 
 1819-'20— Act of 1820, commonly called "The Missouri Compro- 
 mise," — Prohibition of slavery north of 36° 30^ offered by Mr. 
 Thomas, of Illinois, as an ofTset to the admission of Missouri 
 with her slave property into the Union — Intense excitement 
 over the whole country — Proposition accepted as the only way 
 to prevent disruption of the Union — Half of the Southern (and 
 most distinguished) members of the House vote against it as 
 being unconstitutional and unjust , 54 
 
 (ix) 
 
Contents. 
 
 CHAPTER IV. 
 
 1821— Missouri not permitted to enter the Union under the Act of 
 1820— Rejected by the Northern majority on a mere pretext 
 — Disunion again strongly threatened— Business interests com- 
 pletely prostrated — Conditions most alarming — Missouri at last 
 admitted under a new act proposed by Mr. Clay 91 
 
 CHAPTER V. 
 1836 — Abolition Agitation of 1836 — John Quincy Adams 125 
 
 CHAPTER VI. 
 
 1S38 — Mr. Calhoun's Resolutions — Sustained by Franklin Pierce, 
 Senator from New Hampshire — Mr. Pierce's speech. .. = ,.,.... 138 
 
 CHAPTER VII. 
 
 1840-'44— Congress adopts "21st Rule "—Petition to dissolve the 
 Union presented by John Quincy Adams — Annexation of 
 Texas a Jacksonian measure — Defeat of Henry Clay for the 
 Presidency 154 
 
 CHAPTER VIII. 
 
 Archibald Dixon (author of The Repeal of the Missouri Compro- 
 mise) — His early life and character 166 
 
 CHAPTER IX. 
 
 1845-1849— Texas admitted to the Union— Origin of the war with 
 Mexico — Gen. Taylor elected President in 1848— Victorious 
 Whig Party and Administration face the momentous question 
 of division of territory acquired from Mexico — Wilmot Proviso 
 — Clayton Compromise — Oregon — Boundaries of Texas, New 
 Mexico, and California — Mr. Calhoun's Southern Address 175 
 
 CHAPTER X. 
 
 1849— Mr. Clay's Emancipation Letter, February, 1849— Decadence 
 of the "Whig Party in Kentucky — Archibald Dixon opposes 
 emancipation in the Constitutional Convention of the State — 
 It is defeated in the new Constitution 200 
 
Contents. xi 
 
 CHAPTER XI. 
 
 ] 850— "Compromise of 1850," so-called— President Taylor's posi- 
 tion—Democratic Speaker elected— Extract from speech of Mr. 
 Clemens— Mr. Seward's Abolitionism— Southern sentiment as 
 to Abolition and Secession — Mr. Clay's Resolutions — Extracts 
 from his speeches — He denies the authorshio of the line of 
 36° 30^, known as the Missouri Compromise line — At the close 
 of his great speech of February 6th, advocating Union, Mr. 
 Hale presents a petition to dissolve the Union 225 
 
 CHAPTER XII. 
 
 1850 — Bell's Resolutions — Foote's Committee of Thirteen— Extract 
 from Mr. Calhoun's last Speech — From Mr. Webster's Eloquent 
 and Celebrated Speech of March 7th — Cass — Douglas — Foote — 
 Mr. Calhoun's Death 282 
 
 CHAPTER XIII. 
 
 1850 — Petition to arm slaves presented by Mr. Seward — Rejected 
 by Senate— Identity of position of Clay and Douglas on Non- 
 intervention — Douglas author of the bills known as the " Com- 
 promise of 1850," advocated by Mr. Clay, and commonly at- 
 tributed to him — Mr. Clay's arraignment of the President — 
 Mr. Bell's defense of him — Death of President Taylor 312 
 
 CHAPTER XIV. 
 
 1850 — Mr. Clay on Abolition, Disunion, Secession and Non-Inter- 
 vention — California admitted — Utah and New Mexico given 
 Territorial Governments — Texas Boundary Bill passed — Also 
 Fugitive Slave Law — Abolition of Slave Trade in District 
 of Columbia — Seward proposes amendment — Defeated — Clay, 
 Benton, Winthrop, Douglas and others 348 
 
 CHAPTER XV. 
 
 1851-'52 — Division and defeat of the Whig Party in Kentucky in 
 1851 — Archibald Dixon elected Senator, December 30th, vice 
 Henry Clay, resigned — Division and disintegration of the Na- 
 tional Whig Party in 1852— Death of Henry Clay 386 
 
xii Contents. 
 
 CHAPTER XVI. 
 
 1852 — The principle of Non-intervention indorsed in Pierce's elec- 
 tion to the Presidency — Archibald Dixon takes hie seat in the 
 Senate — Death of Webster — Attempt to organize the Nebraska 
 Territory 417 
 
 CHAPTER XVII. 
 
 1853-'54 — Repeal of the Missouri Compromise — Offered by Archi- 
 bald Dixon, and accepted by Stephen A. Douglas and the 
 Democratic party — Embodied in the Kansas-Nebraska bill 430 
 
 CHAPTER XVIII. 
 
 1854 — President Pierce's position — Letter from Hon. Jefferson 
 Davia — Free Soilers' Address — Speech by Douglas 455 
 
 CHAPTER XIX. 
 
 1854 — Chase's amendment — He attacks President Pierce and Mr. 
 Douglas in his speech — Extracts from speeches of Hon, Archi- 
 bald Dixon, Gov. Jones (of Tennessee), Hon. Ben. Wade (of 
 Ohio), and Hon. Wm. H. Seward (of New York) 487 
 
 CHAPTER XX. 
 
 1854 — The Repeal under consideration — Mr. Badger (of North Caro- 
 lina) makes a statement to the Senate — Dixon and Chase — 
 Debate of March 2d and 3d — Mr. Badger's amendment — Douglas' 
 great speech — Kansas-Nebraska bill finally passed. May 25th — 
 Was signed by President Pierce, May 30th 512 
 
 CHAPTER XXI. 
 
 After the Repeal — Historical mistakes in regard to it — Mr. Seward's 
 alleged misstatement as to its origin and purpose — Hon. 
 Montgomery Blair's letter to Mr. Secretary Welles — Henry C. 
 Whitney's version — Letters from Hon. Robert L. Wilson and 
 Thos. E. McCreery — Mr. Dixon's letter to the St. Louis Republi- 
 can denying Mr. Seward's statement contained in the Blair 
 letter — Major Whitney's version shown to be incorrect and 
 altogether illogical — Letter from Hon. John C. Bullitt 585 
 
/ 
 
 THE TRUE HISTORY 
 
 OF 
 
 THE MISSOURI COMPROMISE 
 
 AND ITS REPEAL. 
 
 CHAPTER I. 
 
 Slavery under the Constitution — Slaves first brought to the Western 
 Hemisphere by Spain — American Colonies all owned slaves — Pat- 
 rick Henry bitterly opposed to slavery — Three-fifths representa- 
 tion — Fugitive slave law — Continuance of the slave trade under 
 the Constitution for a period of twenty years — General Washing- 
 ton's account of the " bargain " by which this was efiected, and the 
 " two-thirds vote " measure defeated — Mr. Madison's record of the 
 proceedings — All of the Southern States but two opposed to the 
 bargain. 
 
 The Act of 1820, known as the Missouri Compromise, 
 was the first surrender of the great vital principle of 
 political equality between the States of the American 
 Union, and the first authorized demarkation of a sec- 
 tional line between them ; this line was drawn by Con- 
 gress itself, was its first interference w^ith the rights of 
 the people of the States in the Territories of the United 
 States, and was an exercise by Congress of powers not 
 delegated to that body under the Constitution. 
 
 The Repeal of that Act (or, rather, a portion of it) , in 
 1854, meant a restoration of that lost equality, the 
 elimination of that line and of sectionalism ; the resto- 
 ration to the people of their just rights, and the annul- 
 ment of that arbitrary exercise of power ; and was dic- 
 tated by the loftiest patriotism and the purest love of 
 
 countTj. 
 
 (1) 
 
2 The True History of 
 
 The liistory of the Missouri Compromise includes the 
 cause of the late war between the States. 
 
 That cause was slavery. 
 
 Darkly and in bold relief it stands out in the records 
 of the past hundred years as the point whence all sec- 
 tional animosities arose, and upon which all sectional 
 jealousies and hatreds were concentred. 
 
 This Gordian Knot of the nineteenth century could, per- 
 haps, only have been cut, as it was, by the sword, for sev- 
 eral reasons : in the first place, the South never saw the 
 day when she would have surrendered her property to 
 force without a fight, and the Northern people were never 
 willing for the government to pay the South for her 
 slaves in order to their deportation and freedom — every 
 proposition to that effect being rejected by the Northern 
 majority in Congress, even though made by Northern 
 members. It was, moreover, a question of land, for 
 which the Anglo-Saxon race vjill ahvays fight. The 
 South wanted the territory from which she had been 
 unjustly excluded by act of Congress, as a place of exodus 
 for her surplus blacks, whose increase was daily becom- 
 ing more and more a burden ; whilst the North wanted 
 the fertile fields of the South, from which her people 
 were excluded by the existence of slave labor as effectu- 
 ally as though by act of Congress, for the maintenance 
 of her surplus white population which was increasing 
 every year by the thousands, owing to foreign emigra- 
 tion. And last, but not least, the political equality of 
 the States became a point of honor with the South, as 
 well as a means of self-preservation, for which her peo- 
 ple preferred to fight, even if they lost, rather than to 
 surrender it tamely and without a struggle. 
 
 Some very distinguished and able men have expressed 
 the belief that, as Alexander Stephens said, "slavery 
 was only an incident of the war," and not the cause of 
 it. But this appears to the writer to be a mistaken view. 
 It would seem, on the contrary, that slavery had hitherto 
 been the only question of difference between the States 
 
/ 
 
 / 
 
 The Missouri Compromise and its Repeal. 3 
 
 that could have brought on the war — as it is the only 
 one that involved the rights of property, the possession 
 of territory, the principle of the equal rights of the 
 States, and was sectional in its character, dividing the 
 nation into two separate geographical divisions. 
 
 Slavery was not a matter of choice with the American 
 people. Bequeathed to them in their infancy, it cast its 
 shadow upon their very cradle. Had King George III., 
 in the plentitude of his power, desired, like some wicked 
 Fairy of old, to curse with a fatal gift the fair child of 
 Liberty, he could have chosen nothing more sure, more 
 deadly, than this. 
 
 To appreciate properly the repeal of the Missouri 
 Compromise, the Compromise itself and the relation of 
 its subject. Slavery, to the Constitution of the United 
 States must first be understood. 
 
 The colonies had all owned slaves. An almost imme- 
 morial custom, it was not then viewed with the abhor- 
 rence which has since become its portion. But the sen- 
 timent of their best people was decidedly against it, and 
 protest after protest, especially from Virginia, against 
 the further introduction of slaves went up to his majesty 
 of England, but in vain ; for King George derived a 
 handsome revenue from the products of slave labor, 
 and moreover regarded slavery as an element of weak- 
 ness calculated to keep the Colonies in subjection to his 
 rule. 
 
 The early colonists, more especially in Massachu- 
 setts, had attempted to make slaves of the Indians ; but 
 found them entirely imsuited to their purposes, being 
 irreclaimably opposed to either work or submission. 
 
 It was at the suggestion, in about the year 1517, of a 
 kind and well-meaning Catholic priest, Bartholomew 
 Las Casas, that the regular commerce in African ne- 
 groes began. He was engaged in the work of con- 
 verting the Indians of the Spanish colonies in the West 
 Indies, many of whom had been forced into a state of 
 slavery by their Spanish captors, and compelled to labor 
 
\ 
 
 4 The True History of 
 
 in the mines of Cuba, and Hispaniola (or St. Domingo) } 
 In pity for them and to ameliorate their sufferings, he 
 proposed that the negroes from Africa be substituted for 
 the Indians whose souls he was trying to save. (The 
 souls of the negroes appear to have been a secondary 
 consideration with the good priest.) The negroes stood 
 captivity and slavery so much better than the Indians, 
 who rapidly pined away and died under those condi- 
 
 ' " The impossibility of carrying on any improvement in America, un- 
 less the Spanish planters could command the labor of the natives, was 
 an insuperable objection to his plan of treating them as free subjects. 
 In order to provide some remedy for this, -without vehich he found it 
 was in vain to mention his scheme, Las Casas proposed to purchase a 
 sufficient number of negroes from the Portuguese settlements on the 
 coast of Africa, and to transport them to America, in order that they 
 might be employed as slaves in working the mines and cultivating the 
 ground. One of the first advantages which the Portuguese had derived 
 from their discoveries in Africa, arose from the trade in slaves. Various 
 circumstances concurred in reviving this odious commerce, which had 
 been long abolished in Europe, and which is no less repugnant to the 
 feelings of humanity, than to the principles of religion. As early as 
 the year one thousand five hundred and three, a few negro slaves had 
 been sent into the New World. In the year one thousand five hundred 
 and eleven, Ferdinand permitted the importation of them in greater 
 numbers. They were found to be a more robust and hardy race than 
 the natives of America. They were more capable of enduring fatigue, 
 more patient under servitude, and the labor of one negro was computed 
 to be equal to that of four Indians. Cardinal Ximenes, however, when 
 solicited to encourage this commerce, peremptorily rejected the propo- 
 sition, because he perceived the iniquity of reducing one race of men 
 to slavery, while he was consulting about the means of restoring liberty 
 to another. But Las Casas from the inconsistency natural to men who 
 hurry with lieadlong impetuosity toward a favorite point, was incapable 
 of making this distinction. While he contended earnestly for the lib- 
 erty of the people born in one quarter of the globe, he labored to enslave 
 the inhabitants of another region ; and in the warmth of his zeal to 
 save the Americans from the yoke, pronounced it to be lawful and ex- 
 pedient to impose one still heavier upon the Africans. Unfortunately 
 for the latter. Las Casas's plan was adopted. Charles granted a patent 
 to one of his Flemish favorites, containing an exclusive right of import- 
 ing four thousand negroes into America. The favorite sold his patent 
 to some Genoese merchants for twenty-five thousand ducats, and they 
 were the first who brought into a regular form that commerce for 
 slaves between Africa and America, which has since been carried on to 
 such an amazing extent." — (Wm. Kobertson, History of America, Vol. 
 1, page 310-12.) 
 
The Missouri Compromise and its Repeal. 
 
 tions, and were besides so much more docile and sub- 
 missive than the Indians, that they were brought over 
 in large numbers, first to the West Indies and Spanish 
 Colonies of South America, and then to the North 
 American Colonies ; to the Northern or Eastern as well 
 as the Middle and Southern Colonies. But the negroes, 
 from their lack of acclimation probably, proved to be 
 very worthless laborers in the colder regions of the 
 North, and the greater part of them gradually drifted 
 to the more Southern Colonies where the climate ^ was 
 better suited to them. 
 
 "With the dawning of intellectual and religious freedom 
 
 ^ And now, after all the years, taking a purely philosophical \'iew 
 of the question, is it not possible that climatic differences may 
 have been really responsible for the war between the states? They 
 evidently had primarily a vast influence in creating the differ- 
 ence in institutions between the North and South. Fundamentally, 
 slavery was the result of greed and selfishness. There is certainly noth- 
 ing to indicate that human selfishness was more lacking in the North 
 than in the South, and there was necessarily a stronger reason than any 
 moral one which made a sectional line of demarkation between slave 
 and free territory. Had climatic influences been the same, had the 
 slaves whom the Northern States so largely assisted to import from 
 Africa, regardless of the question of morality, proved as profitable an 
 investment in those states as they were in the South, is it not at least 
 probable that slavery would have been universal in our country ? Would 
 not the Northern people have felt that employment of the African savage 
 in labor of a kind which no white man could stand, but for which his 
 constitution and previous climatic surroundings peculiarly fitted him, 
 was entirely justifiable on the ground of necessity? Would they not 
 have believed that the civilization of American slavery was really pre- 
 ferable for this savage over the slavery of benighted barbarism and can- 
 nibalism in which he dwelt? Would they not have claimed his civili- 
 zation and Christianization as high moral and religious results of his 
 subjugation and deportation from his native land? That they did not 
 receive the same revenue from slave labor in the North as in the 
 South, is probably the genuine reason, as the economic one, for its re- 
 jection by them. That the failure of the negro as a source of revenue 
 to his Northern master was due to his lack of acclimatization, was ren- 
 dered very apparent by the contrast between the just-arrived Dahomey 
 negroes who sat shivering in midsummer at the World's Fair in Chicago, 
 1893, and the acclimatized American negro who has been spreading him- 
 self throughout the North so regardless of climate that he may in time 
 be expected to perhaps rout the Esquimaux from the North Pole, and 
 chase the polar bear from the frozen seas of the Artie regions. 
 
6 The True History of 
 
 upon the world had also, however, arisen the idea that 
 personal slavery was wrong ; that the enslavement of 
 one man by another, for his own benefit, was an in- 
 fringement of the rights of man ; but, like all new 
 ideas, this opinion was held mainly by the advanced 
 thinkers of the day, and had scarcely yet permeated the 
 masses. 
 
 Whilst the struggle for Independence from Great 
 Britain was coming on, the feeling against African 
 slavery was growing too, in the American Colonies, and 
 nowhere was this feeling stronger than in Virginia 
 among all the better classes of people. 
 
 In a letter written by Patrick Henry to a correspond- 
 ent who sent him Anthony Benezet's book against the 
 slave trade, after expressing his "wonder that this 
 abominable practice has been introduced in the most 
 enlightened ages," he says : 
 
 "Would any one believe I am the master of slaves of 
 my own purchase ! I am drawn along by the general 
 inconvenience of living here without them. I will not, 
 I can not justify it ... I believe a time will come 
 when an opportunity will be offered to abolish this 
 lamentable evil. Every thing we can do is to improve 
 it if it happens in our day ; if not, let us transmit to 
 our descendants, together with our slaves, a pity for 
 their unhappy lot and an abhorrence of slavery. . . . 
 I could say many things on this subject, a serious view 
 of which gives a gloomy perspective to future times." 
 
 This letter was written in 1773 (see Vol. 1, p. 152, 
 Wm. Wirt Henry's Life of Patrick Henry) , and in 
 1774, in an address of the "Freeholders of Hanover 
 County" to Patrick Henry and John Syme, their dele- 
 gates to the Virginia Convention which met August 1st 
 at Williamsburgh to appoint her delegates to the first 
 Continental Congress, we find the following as a part 
 of their instructions : 
 
 "The African trade for slaves we consider as most 
 dangerous to the virtue and welfare of this country ; we 
 
The Missouri Compromise and its Repeal. 7 
 
 therefore most earnestly wish to see it totally dis- 
 couraged." (Idem, p. 193.) 
 
 But the negro, -with all his indolent, shiftless ways — 
 though so unprofitable in the cold climate of the North 
 as to be not only not a success there as a pecuniary in- 
 vestment, but, instead, an incubus on society — yet, 
 when transferred to the warmer climate of the South, 
 had become a useful laborer and a valuable member of 
 the community. The exports from the Southern Colo- 
 nies had made them far more wealthy than were the 
 Northern, and these exports were the products of slave 
 labor. ^ So that however opposed the Southern Colonists 
 might be to slavery in sentiment, their interests were all 
 bound up in this labor which had opened their forests 
 and drained their swamps, which had found health 
 where the Anglo-Saxon would have found only a grave, 
 and which had become, from a race of most ignorant 
 barbarians, under the teachings and control of their* 
 American masters, contented, useful, and happy as any 
 laboring class in the world. 
 
 The interests of the Northern Colonists meantime 
 were entirely divorced from slave labor ; they were turn- 
 ing their attention to fisheries, to commerce, to naviga- 
 tion, and whatever promised them some increase of 
 their wealth. Among other articles of commerce, they 
 carried on a considerable trade in African slaves, for 
 whom they found a ready market in the South, whose 
 fertile lands were not yet by any means all opened up 
 to cultivation. 
 
 With such diverse interests, with such totally differ- 
 ent systems of labor and habits of life, it is not won- 
 derful that it was a difficult thing for these Colonies to 
 form a Union ; and they probably would never have 
 done so, but for the strong outside pressure from Great 
 Britain which impelled them to unite for self-protection. 
 With their very birth then as Confederated States, there 
 
 ' They also owned three times as much territory previous to Vir- 
 ginia's cession of the North-western Territory. — The Autuok. 
 
8 The True History of 
 
 arose between them that mighty conflict of interest and 
 opinion which less than a century later culminated in 
 the greatest Civil War the world has ever known. 
 
 It is a matter of interest to mark, and of philosophy 
 to note, that this giant contest grew, as most contests 
 do, out of the ever-recurring, never-to-be-settled, ques- 
 tion of dollars and cents. 
 
 After the independence of the Colonies had been de- 
 clared, in 1776, the next step was to maintain it. Taxes 
 were apportioned to the States for this purpose, based on 
 the value of their lands, instead of the numbers of their 
 inhabitants, as at first proposed, because of the impossi- 
 bility of getting the Eastern (or Northern) and Southern 
 States to agree as to the relative value of the slaves as 
 inhabitants — the South contending that ' ' they ought not 
 to be taxed equally with the white laborers of the North 
 for two reasons. A white man would do three times as 
 much work as a negro, so one white man ought to count 
 for as much as three negroes ; and further, it would be 
 manifestly unjust to tax the Soutli for her negroes when 
 they were property" — "you had as well include the 
 cattle of the Northern farmer as the negroes of the 
 Southern planter — ^you would be taxing the South 
 doubly, on her numbers and on her wealth conjointly." * 
 The Northern men, on the other hand, claiming that 
 "your laborers are inhabitants, be they slaves or free- 
 men, and add equally to the w^ealth of the country, and 
 should therefore be equally included in any rule of tax- 
 ation." ^ 
 
 Owing to this irreconcilable difference of opinion it 
 was then decided to make the value of the lands the 
 basis of the taxes ; but in 1783, finding these values so 
 fluctuating and uncertain as to be very unsatisfactory, 
 Congress determined to base the taxes on the numbers 
 of inhabitants, as being the only available plan. Again, 
 all the arguments were gone over, pro and con; when 
 
 ' See Mr. Madison's papers. — Notes of the Convention. 
 ' Idem. 
 
The Missouri Compromise and its Repeal. 9 
 
 finally, Mr, Madison proposed, as a compromise, that, 
 in the census which should be taken to determine the 
 number of inhabitants for taxation, five negroes should 
 be counted as three white men. This proposition passed, 
 and when, in 1787, the representation of the States in 
 Congress was under consideration by the Constitutional 
 Convention, it was agreed to adopt this rule of taxation, 
 as also the rule of representation,^ it being alleged as the 
 reason for it that a people should be represented in pro- 
 portion as they are taxed, and vice versa. 
 
 In the course of these debates, it came out very strongly 
 that when the negro was to be taxed the North rated 
 him very highly, and the South very low ; but when he 
 was to be represented, it was the South that valued him 
 at a very high rate, and the North correspondingly low. 
 The vice versa aspect of diff'erence in opinion on these 
 points is almost amusing to the reader of the discussions 
 which are recorded in Mr. Madison's Notes of the Con- 
 vention. 
 
 This three-fifths representation of the slaves of the 
 South in Congress was the cause of much jealousy and 
 antagonism on the part of the North for many years — 
 her freemen deeply resenting even the partial equality 
 of a race so inferior and degraded as the blacks of the 
 South ; and being jealous, also, of the superior race who 
 received, as they imagined, the benefit of the representa- 
 tion of their slaves. This jealousy and sensitiveness 
 were aroused whenever the question was brought up in 
 any shape or form, and, at the time of the formation of 
 the Constitution, came very near preventing altogether 
 the Union of the States ; as the Southern States refused 
 absolutely to unite with the Northern unless they should 
 receive the benefit of some representation for their 
 slaves, when they were taxed for them as part of their 
 population — and would only agree to enter the Union 
 with the further condition that their slave property 
 
 ^ Madison's Notes. 
 
10 The True History of 
 
 should be protected by law from any aggressions of their 
 neighbor States. Whilst some of the Northern men de- 
 Glared "it was monstrous that the citizen of Georgia, 
 who would go to the coast of Guinea and import the 
 wretched Africans, reducing them to a state of slavery, 
 should have more votes in a government instituted for 
 protection of the freedom of mankind than the freeman 
 of the Northern States, who scorned to so violate the 
 riglits of human nature ; and moreover that it was un- 
 fair to bring these savages into the country, and then 
 expect the North, in case of insurrection among them, 
 to rush to arms in defense of the South. "^ The Southern 
 men retorted that "they would never ask the North to 
 defend them against their own slaves, as they felt amply 
 able to take care of themselves without any assistance. 
 That this was not a question of morality — nor did they 
 acknowledge the right of the Northern States to dictate 
 to them as to morals — ^but the only question at issue 
 was, should the States unite? That interest was the 
 governing principle with nations, and all they had to 
 decide was whether it was for their mutual interest to 
 form a Union." ^ 
 
 The young Republic had been singularly surrounded 
 by difficulties from the beginning of her existence. 
 There were foreign foes whom she must keep off, and 
 the foreign powers of the world whose respect she must 
 command ; there were the Indians on her borders, whom 
 she must conquer or conciliate ; and Tories in her midst 
 whom she must watch and guard against ; there were 
 dissensions and jealousies among the States themselves — 
 the larger States considering themselves entitled to more 
 power than the small States, and the small States fearful 
 lest the larger ones might claim out to the Mississippi or 
 "down to the South Sea," as the Pacific Ocean was then 
 called. The East had her fisheries and her commerce, 
 the South had her slaves, and the West her great Missis- 
 
 ^ Gouverneur Morris (of Pa.) ^ Mr. Rutledge (of S. C.) 
 
The Missouri Compromise and its Repeal. 11 
 
 sippi River, as perpetual subjects of discord between the 
 different sections. Each State too was sovereign in 
 character, and it was a difficult thing for them to deter- 
 mine to lay down any of their sovereign powers. They 
 preferred to make their own treaties, and collect their 
 own revenue, and rejected every proposal of Congress 
 looking to collection of revenue by the Confederated 
 Government. 
 
 The war debt was unpaid, and there was no power to 
 enforce any contributions from the several States. With 
 no money in the Treasury, and no means to provide for 
 its support, it was evident that the Government must 
 collapse speedily. The best men of the country were 
 therefore selected to hold a Convention, and it was un- 
 der the sternest pressure of necessity from without and 
 within that our present Union was agreed upon ; the 
 defiant pride of state-powers and the haughty independ- 
 ence of State-sovereignties yielding only to the inevita- 
 ble, and hedging themselves about with every protection 
 to those powers and sovereignties that might be con- 
 sistent with the general good, and with the requirements 
 of a defined and regulated general government. 
 
 The history of the Constitution is so well known, it is 
 not necessary to repeat it here. But there is one part of 
 the history of slavery under the Constitution that is not 
 so well known as it should be, and that is, that the con- 
 tinuance of the slave trade for twenty years, or until the 
 year 1808, was due to a bargain made between the three 
 New England States, viz., Massachusetts, New Hamp- 
 shire, and Connecticut, on the one side, and South 
 Carolina and Georgia on the other, in utter contraven- 
 tion of the views of the other Southern States. 
 
 Hear Gen. Washington's statement of it as reported 
 by Mr, Jefferson in his "Anas," in which is given the 
 purport of a conversation with Gen. Washington, Sept. 
 30, 1792, when he tells Mr. Jefferson: "The Constitu- 
 tion, agreed to till a fortnight before the Convention 
 rose, was such a one as he would have set his hand and 
 
12 The True History of 
 
 heart to. 1st. The President was to be elected for seven 
 years. 2d. Rotation in the Senate. 3d. A vote of two- 
 thirds in the legislature on particular subjects, and ex- 
 pressly on that of navigation. 
 
 "The three New England States were constantly with 
 us in all questions (Rhode Island not there, and New 
 York seldom) , so that it was these three States, with 
 the five Southern ones, against Pennsylvania, New Jer- 
 sey, and Delaware. 
 
 "With respect to the importation of slaves, it was left 
 to Congress. This disturbed the two southernmost 
 States, who knew that Congress would immediately 
 suppress the importation of slaves. These two States, 
 therefore, struck up a bargain with the three New 
 England States. 
 
 "If they would join to admit slaves for some years, 
 the southernmost States would join in changing the 
 clause which required two-thirds of the legislature in 
 any vote. It was done. 
 
 "These articles were changed accordingly, and from 
 that moment the two southernmost States, and these 
 three northern ones, joined Pennsylvania, New Jersey, 
 and Delaware, and made the majority eight to three 
 against us, instead of eight to three for us, as it had 
 been through the whole Convention. 
 
 "Under this coalition, the great principles of the Con- 
 stitution were changed in the last days of the Conven- 
 tion."* 
 
 The above is fully borne out by Mr. Madison's record 
 of the votes and proceedings of the Convention. 
 
 He says, that on August 25th: "The Report of the 
 Committee of eleven (see Friday the twenty-fourth) , 
 being taken up, General Pinckney,^ moved to strike out 
 the words, 'the year eighteen hundred,' as the year 
 limiting the importation of slaves ; and to insert the 
 words, 'eighteen hundred and eight.' " 
 
 ' Jefferson's Works, Ninth Vol., " The Anas." = Of South Carolina. 
 
The Missouri Coinpromise and its Repeal. 13 
 
 "Mr Gorlian^ seconded the motion. 
 
 "Mr. Madison.^ Twenty years will produce all the 
 mischief that can be apprehended from the liberty to 
 import slaves. So long a term will be more dishonor- 
 able to the American character, than to say nothing 
 about it in the Constitution. 
 
 "On the motion, which passed in the affirmative — 
 New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Connecticut, North 
 Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, aye — 6 f New Jersey, 
 Pennsylvania, Delaware, Virginia, no — 4."* 
 
 On the 29th day of August, we find — "Article 7, Sec- 
 tion 6,^ by the Committee of eleven" reported to be 
 struck out (see the twenty-fourth instant) , being now 
 taken up — 
 
 "Mr. Pinckney' moved to postpone the Report in 
 favor of the following proposition : 'That no act of the 
 Legislature for the f)urpose of regulating the commerce 
 of the United States with foreign powers, among the 
 several States, shall be passed without the assent of two- 
 thirds of the members of each House' " 
 
 "Mr. Martin^ seconded the motion. 
 
 "Gen. Pinckney said it was the true interest of the 
 Southern States to have no regulation of commerce, but 
 considering the loss brought on the commerce of the 
 Eastern States by the Revolution, their liberal conduct 
 toward the views ^ of South Carolina, and the interest 
 the weak Southern States had in being united with the 
 strong Eastern States, he thought it proper that no 
 fetters should be imposed on the power of making com- 
 
 ^ Of Massachusetts. ^ Of Virginia. 
 
 ' In the Madison Papers, this is " 7," a misprint of course. 
 
 * Madison's Papers,Vol. 1, p. 1427. * As to a navigation act. 
 ® One member from each State. '' Of South Carolina also. 
 
 * Luther Martin, of Maryland. 
 
 ^ " He meant the permission to import slaves. An understanding on 
 the two subjects of navigation and slavery, had taken place between those 
 parts of the Union, which explains the vote on the motion depending, 
 as well as the language of Gen. Pinckney and others." — (Madison's 
 Papers, Vol. 3, pp. 1450-1451.) 
 
14 The Trne History of 
 
 mercial regulations, and that Ms constituents, though 
 prejudiced against the Eastern States, would be recon- 
 ciled to this liberality. He had himself, he said, pre- 
 judices against the Eastern States, before he came here, 
 but would acknowledge that he had found them as 
 liberal and candid as any men whatever." 
 
 The debate continued, showing great diversity of 
 opinion among members, even from the same States. 
 Finally — 
 
 "On the question to postpone, in order to take up Mr. 
 Pinckney's motion — 
 
 "Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, Georgia, aye — 
 4 ; New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Connecticut, New 
 Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, South Carolina, no — 7. 
 
 "The Report of the Committee for striking out Section 
 6, requiring two-thirds of each House to pass a naviga- 
 tion act, was then agreed to, nem. con.''^^ 
 
 It will be seen from the above votes that whilst North 
 Carolina had voted with South Carolina and Georgia on 
 the question of the importation of slaves until 1808, yet 
 Maryland and North Carolina, and even Georgia (who 
 seems to have repented at the last moment) , now voted 
 with Virginia to postpone the whole report, in order to 
 take up Mr. Pinckney's motion. Which motion meant 
 defeat of the entire Report ; for if he had carried his 
 proposition in favor of the two-thirds vote, it would 
 have been equivalent to the defeat of the clause per- 
 mitting the slave trade. As the Eastern States would 
 never have voted for the Report had it contained the 
 two-thirds clause. And the great mistake and misfort- 
 une of the continuance of the slave trade would have 
 been avoided. But whilst Pennsylvania, New Jersey 
 and Delaware had voted with Virginia against the im- 
 portation of slaves, yet, on the question to postpone 
 the Report in order to take up Mr. Pinckney's motion 
 in favor of the two-thirds vote, Pennsylvania, New 
 
 ' Madison's Papers, Vol. 3, p. 1456. 
 
The Missouri Compromise and its Repeal. 15 
 
 Jersey and Delaware joined the three New England 
 States and South Carolina, as against Virginia, Mary- 
 land, North Carolina and Georgia ; thus defeating every 
 effort of those men who were opposed to the consumma- 
 tion of this bargain in the interest of greed on both 
 sides. 
 
 And so was passed that famous (or infamous?) clause 
 in the Constitution, by which it was declared that "the 
 migration or importation of such persons as any of the 
 States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall 
 not be prohibited by Congress, prior to the year 1808." 
 
 New England was especially interested in navigation, 
 and for the sake of gaining some commercial advan- 
 tages for herself (in which she was sustained by Penn- 
 sylvania, New Jersey, and Delaware) , she joined hands 
 with South Carolina and Georgia in fastening upon the 
 country for twenty years that fatal institution of slavery, 
 which grew, from a few wretched captives in Boston 
 and on the James River, to such colossal proportions, 
 and became so interwoven with the interests, the affec- 
 tions, and the prejudices of a great portion of the Amer- 
 ican people, as to make it a difficult and dangerous 
 question for any man to handle, and almost impossible 
 to get rid of. 
 
 The fugitive slave law, by which, "If any person 
 bound to service or labor in any of the United States, 
 shall escape to another State, he or she shall not be dis- 
 charged from such service, or labor, in consequence of 
 any regulation subsisting in the State to which he may 
 escape, but shall be delivered up to the person justly 
 claiming their services or labor," was first made a part 
 of the 6th Article of the Ordinance of 1787 for the gov- 
 ernment of the North-western Territory, which had 
 been ceded by Virginia to the United States : and by 
 which slavery was forever prohibited in all of that great 
 Territory north of the Ohio and east of the Mississippi 
 River. 
 
 This "fugitive slave law," as it was called, was a 
 
16 The True History of 
 
 montli later, with some changes of verbiage, incorpor- 
 ated into the Constitution, 
 
 There can not be a doubt that the prohibition, by the 
 old Congress, of slavery in the Territory, was the con- 
 sideration granted to the North for the three-fifths rep- 
 resentation and this law for the recovery of slaves ; 
 although it was considered then by some of the most 
 superior minds that Congress had not the right under 
 the Articles of Confederation to make such prohibition. 
 
 All of these arrangements were most distinctly quid 
 pro q\LO in their nature. The three-fifths representation 
 and tlie fugitive slave law, given in exchange for the 
 prohibition of slavery in the North-west Territory, and 
 the continuation of the slave t^^ade in exchange for the 
 defeat of the two-thirds vote were politely termed 
 "Compromises of the Constitution," and Gen. Washing- 
 ton's word "bargain" was entirely dropped and lost out 
 of memory. They were afterward denounced by the 
 Abolition leaders of New England as "a league with 
 Hell and covenant with the Devil," though made by 
 their own people.^ 
 
 But between these so-called compromises of the Consti- 
 tution, there was a vast difference, not perhaps ap- 
 preciable on a casual view. 
 
 * Since the war between the States, some secessionists also have de- 
 nounced the men who made the Constitution, in that " they did not 
 settle the question of secession then — because they left it an open ques- 
 tion." 
 
 When a man builds a house for himself and his posterity, he puts 
 the stones together with care, and cements them as strongly as possible ; 
 but no precaution he may take can prevent his descendants from pull- 
 ing those stones apart and tearing down that house. Only their own 
 good sense and judgment can be relied on to preserve it. 
 
 So with our Constitution. The men who made it were endeavoring 
 to form a Union, and found great difficulty in doing it. On posterity 
 depended the preservation of both Union and Constitution. But the 
 idea of secession iras distinctly rejected when one of the States (New 
 York, I think) proposed that the right of secession be made a condition 
 of her ratification of the Constitution, and Mr. Madison replied in the 
 negative, saying that the ratification must be unconditional and final. — 
 Author. 
 
The Missouri Corriproinise and its Repeal. 1? 
 
 That one which included the three-fifths representa- 
 tion of the slaves of the Southern States arid the fugitive 
 slave law involved no sacrifice of principle on either 
 side. In demanding these measures, Virginia and the 
 States who acted with her violated no principle of jus- 
 tice or humanity. The negroes were already in the 
 country, had been brought into it against their earnest 
 and rej)eated protests. Now that they were here, justice 
 and wisdom alike demanded proper measures for the 
 protection of the white population of the South in their 
 property and their political equality. Nor did the 
 Northern majority in yielding these measures violate 
 any principle. In granting to the Slave States a repre- 
 sentation commensurate with their taxation, they acted 
 in accordance with the same principle for which they 
 had fought the Revolutionary war ; and in enacting the 
 fugitive slave law, they simply gave the assurance that 
 they would protect their sister States in their right to a 
 property which all the States had alike owned, which 
 was recognized as property, and which only the cir- 
 cumstance of climate had transferred chiefly to the 
 South — in other words, they gave an assurance that 
 they would act honestly and fairly. In this there was 
 no violation of principle. 
 
 In exchange for this assurance and for the three-fifths 
 representation, they desired Virginia to agree to the pro- 
 hibition of slavery in the North-western Territory. She 
 did so — and in this there was no sacrifice of principle. 
 Virginia had exactly the same right to agree to prohibi- 
 tion of slavery in her territory that Georgia had to make 
 slavery perpetual in hers when she ceded it to the 
 United States. She was also acting in accordance with 
 the sentiments and principles which her greatest men 
 had always maintained as regarding slavery to be a 
 most dangerous element in the country. She may have 
 felt it to be a compromise of her own interests, but she 
 was willing to make that sacrifice for the sake of effect- 
 
18 The True History of 
 
 ing a permanent Union of the States, so necessary to 
 their protection and prosperity. But in this whole 
 transaction, we find no trace of selfishness nor any com- 
 promise of correct principles. 
 
 On the other hand, that so-called compromise, which 
 Gen. Washington entitled a "tarf/am," was a distinct 
 sacrifice of 'principle onhoth sides. The Northern majority 
 in the Convention, who by their votes imposed the con- 
 tinuance of the slave trade on the country for twenty 
 years, professed to be opposed to slavery, and de- 
 nounced it and the slaveholders often in most violent 
 terms ; yet they voted a clause into the Constitution 
 forbidding Congress to prohibit the imf)ortation of slaves 
 into this country for twenty years — and for what? To 
 procure for themselves some advantages by which they 
 could and did coin millions and millions of money. 
 One of these advantages, and not the least, being that 
 they themselves could still carry on the slave trade and 
 reap its profits. Crying out against slavery, yet they 
 bargained to have negroes stolen for twenty years, con- 
 verting their flesh and blood into gold ! 
 
 The two Southern States who made the bargain with 
 them were equally guilty (or more so if possible, as they 
 first made the proposition which was to work such dire 
 injury to their own sister States as well as themselves) 
 of a direct sacrifice of principle for what they mis- 
 takenly imagined to be their own interest. They had 
 been in favor of the two-thirds vote, and were opposed 
 to granting that power to the North over the South, 
 which their majority would give to that section, unless 
 controlled by such a restriction as the two-thirds pro- 
 vision in regard to the vote of Congress. But they, too, 
 were tempted by the prospect of more and more wealth ; 
 and, utterly regardless of the remonstrances of the other 
 Southern States, utterly reckless of the consequences to 
 them, and to themselves as well, they entered into that 
 accursed bargain which not only made all after attempts 
 to rid the country of slavery and the negroes an utter 
 
The Missouri Compromise and its Repeal. 19 
 
 failure, but also placed the South at the mercy of the 
 Northern majority in all legislation, her only safety in 
 the after years consisting in the fact of her holding the 
 balance of power as between the two great political 
 parties of the North. 
 
 To this sacrifice of principle to greed, on the part of 
 these contractors of a cruel and selfish bargain, to this 
 compromise of all right principle , maybe traced directly 
 or indirectly the greater part, if not perhaps all, of 
 the dissensions which have since arisen between the 
 States. 
 
 But, however wrong, or mistaken, or by whatever 
 name called, whether bargain, or covenant, or compro- 
 mise (excepting as regarded the Ordinance of 1787, 
 which was only an act of Congress) , these compacts 
 were made by sovereign States, acting in their sovereign 
 capacity, whose right to do so could be questioned by 
 no power on earth. Being confirmed in the most solemn 
 manner by the members of the Convention, and after- 
 ward ratified by the people of the States, there was 
 only one way to have gotten rid of the obligations im- 
 posed by them, and this was by amending the Constitu- 
 tion in those particulars. 
 
 Just here, however, lay the difficulty. To amend the 
 Constitution by mutual consent was the one thing that 
 was never practically recognized as the proper method 
 to get rid of those obligations. 
 
 The truth is, whilst the men who made the Constitu- 
 tion were keenly alive to its defects, yet such was the 
 necessity for Union among the States that they accepted 
 it with all its faults as the best that could be procured 
 in view of the great diversity of sentiment and interest 
 between the States, trusting to the wisdom of future 
 generations to so amend or alter it as might be best 
 suited to the needs of those living under it. Mr. King, 
 the most prominent of the Northern members, said he 
 "had always expected that, as the Southern States are 
 the richest, they would not league themselves with the 
 
20 The true History of 
 
 Northern, unless some respect were paid to their supe- 
 rior wealth. If the latter expect those preferential dis- 
 tinctions in commerce, and other advantages which they 
 will derive from the connection, they must not expect 
 to receive them without allowing some advantages in 
 return." ^ 
 
 When, therefore, the Constitution came before the 
 people of the States for their acceptance or rejection, its 
 advocates so ignored its faults and blazoned its virtues 
 in order to secure its acceptance, that loyalty to country 
 and Constitution became synonymous terms. After a 
 time the Constitution was held to be a sacred thing, and 
 to alter it would have been looked upon almost as sacri- 
 ligious. 
 
 Patrick Henry, who, with some others, most vehe- 
 mently opposed its adoption, yet became, when once it 
 was accepted, the most pronounced of its adherents, and 
 advocated in the strongest terms the strictest obedience 
 to its obligations.^ 
 
 With the growth of this sentiment as to the sacredness 
 of the Constitution, disappeared all possibility of its 
 alteration by common consent. 
 
 Its provisions respecting slavery were : 
 
 1. The three-fifth representation. 
 
 2. The fugitive slave law. 
 
 3. The uninterrupted continuance of the slave trade 
 for the period of twenty years, or until 1808. 
 
 And these were constitutional provisions, which 
 neither Congress nor the States could, except by regu- 
 lar constitutional amendment, interfere with in any 
 way. 
 
 However it came to be made, or by whatever name 
 called, the compact of the Constitution, as regarded 
 
 * Madison's Papers. 
 
 * Patrick Henry denounced the defects of the Constitution, as at first 
 made, so powerfully as to lead directly to the first ten amendments 
 to it. 
 
The Missouri Compromise and its Repeal. %1 
 
 slavery, was rigidly adhered to during all the early years 
 of the Republic. 
 
 The Quakers, at once upon the adoption of the Con- 
 stitution, began to petition Congress to take steps for 
 the abolition of slavery, and even Dr. Franklin signed 
 one of the first, if not the first, of these petitions ; 
 though he had so recently signed the Constitution and 
 so indorsed all its obligations ; but upon the South 's 
 protesting against such legislation as a violation of the 
 compact just made between the sovereign States, it was 
 decided to lay all such petitions on the table without 
 discussion, and this was the course pursued for many 
 years. 
 
 In 1808, the slave trade was abolished by an act of 
 Congress, and there is not a more interesting episode in 
 our history than is furnished in the difficulty which was 
 found in framing this act, which yet every member of 
 Congress was anxious to pass.^ The special points of 
 difficulty were, what punishment to inflict upon the 
 captains of the slave vessels,^ and on the rich Northern 
 merchants who owned them ; and what disposition to 
 make of the cargo ; for it would be monstrous to have 
 the slaves forfeited to the United States, and sold, as in 
 the instance of ordinary forfeiture ; and yet it would be 
 inhuman to take them back to Africa, to be eaten by their 
 cannibal foes or remanded to a worse slavery ; whilst 
 none of the States would be willing to have these sav- 
 ages fresh from the wilds of Africa landed on their 
 shores, to become a burden upon society ; ignorant as 
 
 ^ It had become a matter of finance with South Carolina and Georgia. 
 So many slaves had been imported that their value had materially de- 
 creased, and they were as anxious to stop the trade now as they had 
 been to encourage it before. 
 
 ^ It was at first proposed to hang the captains, but that seemed unfair 
 unless the merchants were to be hung also ; and a member from Rhode 
 Island remarked that " a man ought not to be hung for merely stealing 
 a nigger." The debates on these questions were exceedingly lively and 
 animated. — Author. 
 
22 The True History of 
 
 they would be of the language, incapable of supporting 
 themselves, and deprived of the only civilization possi- 
 ble to them, the civilization of slavery. The act was, 
 however, finally shaped to meet all difficulties, and in 
 such a way as not to interfere with the rights of any of 
 the States, nor yet to make the United States a dealer 
 in slaves, nor to inhumanly return them to their own 
 country. 
 
The Missouri Compromise and its Repeal. 23 
 
 CHAPTER II. 
 
 Ordinance of 1787, by which slavery was prohibited in the North- 
 western Territory ceded by Virginia to the United States — Vir- 
 ginia's assent to the ordinance — Her motives— Explanation of 
 inconsistency in the prohibition of slavery by the Congress of 1787' 
 and the continuance of the slave trade by the Constitutional Con- 
 vention of 1787— Louisiana purchased — Treaty of purchase protects 
 all rights of inhabitants — Sectional jealousies — Great Britain's plot 
 to procure the secession of New England, the moving cause of the 
 war of 1812 — The Missouri difficulty begins in 1819— Mr. Clay, 
 Speaker of the House, casts the deciding vote against territorial re- 
 striction in Arkansas. 
 
 Ill the debates of the Constitutional Convention on 
 the questions of representation and taxation are to be 
 seen, in most marked lines, the differences of opinion, 
 of feeling, of ideas, and of interest, as they existed, 
 even at that early day, between the Northern and South- 
 ern sections of our country, and which were only held 
 in abeyance from the imperative necessity of union for 
 self-protection, not only against foreign powers, but, 
 also, from the aggressions and encroachments of the 
 several States upon one another. 
 
 The Ordinance of 1787 having been regarded by many 
 as next in importance to the Constitution, whilst by 
 many others its constitutionality has been seriously 
 questioned, and its provisions having been often referred 
 to in all the debates on the Missouri Compromise, some 
 statement as to its inception would seem to be in order. 
 From the best sources of information at command of the 
 author, it appears that the government, in 1780, being 
 greatly in need of funds to carry on the war for Inde- 
 pendence, the Continental Congress called upon several 
 of the States, by a resolution of September 6th, to cede 
 certain portions of their territory to the general govern- 
 ment for the purpose of enabling it to raise those funds. 
 
24 The True History of 
 
 And, further, to induce the said States to accede to the 
 proposition, on the 10th of October following, 1780, 
 Congress passed this resolution : 
 
 "In Congress op the Confederation, 
 "Tuesday, October 10, 1780. 
 
 ^'Resolved, That the unappropriated lands that may be 
 ceded or relinquished to the United States by any par- 
 ticular State, pursuant to the recommendation of Con- 
 gress of the 6th day of September last, shall be disposed 
 of for the common benefit of the United States, and 
 settled and formed into distinct republican States, which 
 shall become members of the Federal Union, and have 
 the same rights of sovereignty, freedom, and independ- 
 ence as the other States ; that each State which shall be 
 formed shall contain a suitable extent of territory, not 
 less than one hundred nor more than one hundred and 
 fifty miles square, or as near thereto as circumstances 
 will admit ; that the necessary and reasonable expenses 
 which any particular State shall have incurred since the 
 commencement of the present war, in subduing any 
 British posts, or in maintaining forts and garrisons 
 within and for the defense, or in acquiring any part of 
 the territory that may be ceded or relinquished to the 
 United States, shall be reimbursed. 
 
 "That the said lands shall be granted or settled at 
 such times, and under such regulations, as shall here- 
 after be agreed on by the United States, in Congress as- 
 sembled, or by nine or more of them." 
 
 On the 1st of March, 1784, Virginia, in pursuance of 
 the recommendation of Congress of the 6th of Septem- 
 ber, 1780, which declared that the lands so ceded should 
 be "disposed of for the common benefit of the United 
 States," made cession of all her territory, north of the 
 Ohio River, to the United States ; and which extended 
 to the great lakes on the North and the Mississippi on 
 the West. 
 
The Missouri Compromise and its Repeal . ^0 
 
 An ordinance for the temporary government of this 
 territory was then drawn up by a committee, of which 
 Mr. Jefferson was chairman.^ 
 
 * The following is a copy of Mr. JeflFerson's plan : 
 
 " The committee appointed to prepare a plan for the temporary gov- 
 ernment of the Western Territory have agreed to the following resolu- 
 tions: 
 
 Resolved, That the territory ceded or to be ceded by individual States 
 to the United States, whensoever the same shall have been purchased 
 of the Indian inhabitants, and oflFered for sale by the United States, 
 shall be formed into distinct States, bounded in the following manner, 
 as nearly as such cessions will admit — that is to say : northwardly and 
 southwardly by parallels of latitude, so that each State shall compre- 
 hend, from south to north, two degrees of latitude, beginning to count 
 from the completion of thirty-one degrees north of the equator ; but any 
 territory northwardly of the forty-seventh degree shall make part of 
 the State next below ; and eastwardly and westwardly they shall be 
 bounded, those on the Mississippi by that river on one side, and the 
 meridian of the lowest point of the rapids of Ohio on the other; and 
 those adjoining on the east by the same meridian on their western side, 
 and on their eastern by the meridian of the western cape of the mouth 
 of the Great Kanawha ; and the territory eastward of this last meridian, 
 between the Ohio, Lake Erie, and Pennsylvania, shall be one State. 
 
 That the settlers within the territory so to be purchased and offered 
 for sale, shall, either on their own petition, or on the order of Congress, 
 receive authority from them, with appointments of time and place for 
 their free males, of full age, to meet together for the purpose of estab- 
 lishing a temporary government, to adopt the constitution and laws of 
 any one of these States, so that such laws nevertheless shall be subject 
 to alteration by their ordinary legislature ; and to erect, subject to a 
 like alteration, counties or townships for the election of members for 
 their legislature. 
 
 That such temporary government shall only continue in force in any 
 State until it shall have acquired twenty thousand free inhabitants; 
 when, giving due proof thereof to Congress, they shall receive from 
 them authority, with appointments of time and place, to call a conven- 
 tion of representatives to establish a permanent constitution and gov- 
 ernment for themselves : Provided, that both the temporary and perma- 
 nent governments be established on these principles as their basis: 
 1. (That they shall forever remain a part of the United States of Amer- 
 ica) ; 2. That, in their persons, property, and territory, they shall be 
 subject to the government of the United States in Congress assembled, 
 and to the Articles of Confederation in all those cases in which the 
 original States shall be so subject; 3. That they shall be subject to pay 
 a part of the Federal debts contracted or to be contracted, to be appor- 
 tioned on them by Congress according to the same common rule and 
 measure by which apportionments thereof shall be made on the other 
 
2G The True History of 
 
 This ordinance included all the territory "ceded or to 
 be ceded by the individual States" from the 31st degree 
 of latitude (tlien our extreme southern boundary) , and 
 east of the Mississippi river, which was then our west- 
 ward boundary. Among its other provisions was the 
 following : 
 
 5. "That after the year 1800 of the Christian era, 
 there shall be neither slavery nor involuntary servitude 
 in any of the said States, otherwise than in punishment 
 of crimes, whereof the party shall have been duly con- 
 victed to have been personally guilty." 
 
 A second report was made by the same committee, 
 which agreed in substance with the first, only altering 
 some minor details. 
 
 On the 19th of April, it was before Congress for con- 
 sideration, and the clause above quoted, which prohib- 
 ited slavery in the territory, was struck out, on motion 
 of Mr. Spaight, of North Carolina.* 
 
 States ; 4. That their respective governments shall be in republican 
 forms, and shall admit no person to be a citizen who holds any heredi- 
 tary title ; 5. That after the year 1800 of the Christian era there shall be 
 neither slavery nor involuntary servitude in any of the said States, oth- 
 erwise than in punishment of crimes, whereof the party shall have been 
 duly convicted to have been personally guilty.* 
 
 This paper is indorsed as follows, in a different handwriting, supposed 
 to be that of a clerk : 
 
 " Eeport — Mr. Jeffekson, 
 Mr. Chase, 
 Mr. Howell. 
 
 Temporary government of Western Country, 
 Delivered 1 March, 1784, 
 Ent'd— Read- 
 March 3. 
 
 Monday next assigned for the consideration of this report. 
 March 17, 1784, 
 Recommitted." t 
 
 * I have left out what follows, which relates to their admission to the Confedera- 
 tion, and their names. 
 
 fSee Appendix to Congressional Globe, Vol. 20, 1st Session, 30th Congress, page 294. 
 Journals of Congress, Vol. 4, 1782-1785. 
 
 * " Congress took into consideration the report of a committee, con- 
 sisting of Mr. Jefferson, Mr. Chase, and Mr. Howell, to whom was re- 
 
The Missouri Compromise and its Repeal. 27 
 
 After further consideration and amendment/ which 
 
 committed their report of a plan for a temporary government of the 
 Western Territory : 
 
 " "When a motion was made by Mr. Spaight, seconded by Mr. Read, to 
 strike out the following paragraph : 
 
 " ' That after the year 1800 of the Christian era, there shall be neither 
 slavery nor involuntary servitude in any of the said States otherwise 
 than in punishment of crimes whereof the party shall have been con- 
 victed to have been personally guilty.' And on question, shall the 
 words moved to be struck out stand ? the yeas and nays being required 
 by Mr. Howell : 
 
 " New Hampshire, Mr. Foster, 
 
 Blanchard, 
 " Massachusetts, Mr, Gerry, 
 
 Patridge, 
 " Rhode Island, Mr. Ellery, 
 
 Howell, 
 " Connecticut, Mr. Sherman, 
 
 Wadsworth, 
 " New York, Mr. De Witt, 
 
 Paine, 
 " New Jersey, Mr. Dick, 
 
 " Pensylvania, Mr. Mifflin, 
 
 Montgomery, 
 
 Hand, 
 " Maryland, Mr. M'Henry, 
 
 Stone, 
 " Virginia, Mr. Jefferson, 
 
 Hardy, 
 
 Mercer, 
 "North Carolina, Mr. Williamson, 
 
 Spaight, 
 " South Carolina, Mr. Reed, 
 
 Beresford, 
 
 " So the question was lost and the words were struck out."* 
 • " Resolved: That so much of the territory ceded, or to be ceded, by 
 individual States of the United States, as is already purchased, or shall 
 be purcha^od, of the Indian inhabitants and offered for sale by Congress, 
 shall be divided into distinct States, in the following manner, as nearly 
 as such cessions will admit : that is to say, by parallels of latitude, so 
 that each State shall comprehend from North to South, two degrees of 
 latitude, beginning to count from the completion of 45 degrees north of 
 the equator, and by meridians of longitude, one of which shall pass 
 through the lowest point of the rapids of the Ohio, and the other through 
 the western cape of the mouth of the great Kenhaway : but the terri- 
 tory eastward of this last meridan, between the Ohio, Lake Erie and 
 Pennsylvania, shall be one state, whatsoever may be its comprehension 
 
 * From the Journals of Congress, Vol. 4, 172-1783, p. 3783. 
 
 aye") 
 aye/ 
 
 aye 
 
 aye-) 
 aye/ 
 
 aye 
 
 aye") 
 aye/ 
 
 aye 
 
 aye"! 
 aye/ 
 
 aye 
 
 ayei 
 aye/ 
 
 aye 
 
 aye 1- 
 
 aye 
 
 aye) 
 ayeV 
 aye) 
 
 aye 
 
 no \ 
 no / 
 
 no 
 
 
 aye' 
 no ■ 
 
 no 
 
 no J 
 
 
 ayei 
 
 no J 
 
 div. 
 
 no 1 
 no J 
 
 no 
 
 
2§ The True History of 
 
 reduced the territory in question to ttiat lying north of the 
 Ohio River, which now became its southern boundary, 
 instead of the 31st degree of latitude, as at first pro- 
 posed, the report was agreed to, without the clause pro- 
 hibiting slavery and involuntary servitude after the 
 year 1800 ; ten States voting aye, one State, South Caro- 
 lina, voting nay — Delaware and Georgia, absent. 
 
 This ordinance remained the law of the land until its 
 repeal by the Ordinance of 1787. 
 
 In July, of 1786, Mr. Grayson, of Virginia, made a 
 motion recommending it to the States of Massachusetts 
 and Virginia that : "They so alter their acts of cession, 
 that the States may be bounded," etc. After several 
 amendments, the resolution of recommendation as to 
 the alteration of the boundaries and number of States 
 to be formed out of the territory passed, and concluded 
 thus: "which States . . . shall have the same 
 rights of sovereignity, freedom and independence as 
 the original States, in conformity with the resolution of 
 Congress of the 10th of October, 1780.'''^ 
 
 On May 9, 1787, a new ordinance was under consid- 
 eration by Congress, and was being read the second 
 time when Mr. Grayson offered an amendment that 
 "the representative thus elected should serve 'three' 
 years in place of two." The amendment was lost and 
 
 of latitude. That which may lie beyond the completion of the 45th de- 
 gree between such meridian, shall make part of the State adjoining it on 
 the south ; and that part of the Ohio, which is between the same me- 
 ridian coinciding nearly with the parallel 39 degree shall be substituted 
 so far in lieu of that parallel as a boundary line. . . . And in order 
 to adapt the said articles of confederation to the state of Congress when 
 its numbers shall be thus increased, it shall be proposed to the legisla- 
 tures of the States, originally parties thereto, to require the assent 
 of two-thirds of the United States in Congress assembled, in all those 
 cases wherein, by the said articles, the assent of nine States is now re- 
 quired, whicb being agreed to by them, shall be binding on the hew 
 States. Until such admission by their delegates into Congress, any of 
 the said States, after the establishing of their temporary government, 
 shall have authority to keep a member in Congress, with a right of de- 
 bating but not of voting."— (Journals of Congress, April 23, 1784, p. 379.) 
 ' Journal of Congress, Vol. 11, p. 972. 
 
( . ■, > r, ■ . ■ «, I .1 I. 
 
 The Missouri CompromiU and its Repeal. 29 
 
 the ordinance ordered to its third reading on the next 
 Thursday.^ But it would seem to have been indefinitely 
 postponed, as on the 11th of July, 1787, a Committee 
 consisting of Mr. Carrington and R, H. Lee, of Vir- 
 ginia, Mr. Dane, of Massachusetts, Mr. Smith, of New 
 York, and Mr. Kean, of South Carolina, reported 
 another and entirely different ordinance for the govern- 
 ment of the North-western Territories, which was then 
 read for the first time, re-read, and passed, on the 13th 
 of July, by the vote of eight States, and with only one 
 dissenting voice, Mr, Yates, of New York.^ 
 
 This ordinance was much fuller in its provisions than 
 
 ^ Journal of Congress, Vol. 12, p. 48. 
 
 * Friday, July 13, 1787. 
 
 Congress assembled : Present as yesterday. 
 
 According to order, the ordinance for the government of the Territory 
 of the United States north-west of the river Ohio was read a third time 
 and passed as follows : 
 
 An ordinance for the Government of the Territory of the United 
 States north-west of the river Ohio. 
 
 Be it ordained, etc. 
 
 
 
 
 On passing the above ordinance, the yeas and nays 
 
 being rec 
 
 uired by 
 
 Mr. Yates, 
 
 
 
 
 Massachusetts, 
 
 Mr. Holten, 
 
 aye) 
 
 aye 
 
 
 Mr. Dane, 
 
 aye 
 
 
 New York, 
 
 Mr. Smith, 
 
 aye 
 
 
 
 Mr. Haring, 
 
 aye) 
 
 aye 
 
 
 Mr. Yates, 
 
 no 
 
 
 New Jersey, 
 
 Mr. Clarke, 
 
 aye) 
 
 aye 
 
 
 Mr. Scheurman, 
 
 aye 
 
 
 Delaware, 
 
 Mr. Kearny, 
 
 aye) 
 
 aye 
 
 
 Mr. Mitchell, 
 
 aye 
 
 
 Virginia, 
 
 Mr. Grayson, 
 
 aye 
 
 
 
 Mr, R. H. Lee, 
 
 aye) 
 
 aye 
 
 
 Mr. Carrington, 
 
 aye 
 
 
 North Carolina, 
 
 Mr. Blount, 
 
 aye 
 
 
 
 Mr. Hawkins, 
 
 aye) 
 
 aye 
 
 South Carolina, 
 
 Mr, Kean, 
 
 aye 
 
 
 
 Mr, Huger, 
 
 aye) 
 
 aye 
 
 Georgia, 
 
 Mr. Few, 
 
 aye 
 
 
 
 Mr. Pierce, 
 
 aye) 
 
 aye 
 
 So it was resolved in 
 
 the affirmative.* 
 
 
 
 • Journal of Congress, Vol. 12, p. 58. 
 
30 The True History of 
 
 any previous one offered. It contained six articles 
 which were declared to be "articles of compact between 
 the original States and the people and States in the said 
 Territory, unalterable, unless by common consent." 
 
 The 6th Article was the celebrated one prohibiting 
 slavery forever in the Territory, and was offered by Mr. 
 Dane, of Massachusetts, on the 12th of July. Mr. 
 Force, when searching for material for his work, 
 "American Archives," found the copy of the ordinance 
 with all the alterations marked on it just as it was 
 amended at the President's table, among which the 
 clause respecting slavery remains attached to it as an 
 amendment in Mr. Dane's handwriting in the exact 
 words in which it now stands in the ordinance. Mr. 
 Grayson, as did every representative from Virginia, 
 voted for the entire ordinance, but he did not offer the 
 6th Article, as afterward stated by some, which is as 
 follows : 
 
 "Article the 6th. There shall be neither slavery nor 
 involuntary servitude in the said Territory, otherwise 
 than in the punishment of crimes, whereof the party 
 shall have been duly convicted. Provided always, that 
 any person escaping into the same, from whom labor or 
 service is claimed in any of the original States, such 
 fugitive may be lawfully reclaimed and conveyed to 
 the person claiming his or her labor or service as afore- 
 said." 
 
 Virginia, in accordance with the request of Congress, 
 in 1786, to alter her deed of cession as regarded the 
 boundaries of the new States and the number of them 
 to be formed out of the ceded territory, did so alter her 
 act of cession on Dec. 30, 1788. And, in the act of that 
 date, she also confirmed fully all of the articles of com- 
 pact of the Ordinance of 1787. For, after citing that 
 part of this ordinance which "declared the following as 
 one of the articles of compact between the original 
 States and the people and States in said territory," she 
 declares her assent to the terms of that article, which 
 
The Missouri Compromise and its Repeal. 31 
 
 contained this clause : "Whenever any of the said States 
 shall have sixty thousand free inhabitants therein, such 
 State shall be admitted by its delegates into the Con- 
 gress of the United States, on an equal footing with the 
 original States in all respects whatsoever, and shall be 
 at liberty to form a permanent Constitution and State 
 government. Provided, the Constitution and government 
 so to be formed shall be republican, and in conformity to 
 the principles contained in these articles,^ ^ etc} 
 
 ^ Henning's Statutes, Index, Vol. 12, page 780. 
 
 An Act concerning the territory ceded by this Commonwealth to the 
 United States. [Passed the 30th of December, 1788.] 
 
 1. Whereas, the United States, in Congress assembled, did, on the 
 seventh day of July, in the year of our Lord one thousand seven hun- 
 dred and eighty-six, state certain reasons showing that a division of the 
 Territory which hath been ceded to the said United States by this Com- 
 monwealth into States, in conformity to the terms of cession, should 
 the same be adhered to, would be attended with many inconveniences, 
 and did recommend a revision of the act of cession, so far as to em- 
 power Congress to make such a division of the said Territory into dis- 
 tinct and republican States, not more than five nor less than three in 
 number, as the situation of that country and future circumstances 
 might require. 
 
 And the said United States, in Congress assembled, hath, in an ordi- 
 nance for the government of the Territory north-west of the river Ohio, 
 passed on the thirteenth of July, one thousand seven hundred and 
 eighty-seven, declared the following as one of the articles of compact between 
 the original States and the people and States in the said Territory, viz.: 
 "That there shall be formed in the said Territory not less than three 
 nor more than five States, and the boundaries of the said States, as 
 soon as Virginia shall alter her act of cession, and consent to the same, 
 shall become fixed and established as follows, to wit: The western 
 State in said Territory shall be bounded by the Mississippi, the Ohio, 
 and the Wabash rivers ; a direct line drawn from the Wabash and Post 
 Vincents due north to the territorial line between the United States 
 and Canada; and by the said territorial line to the Lake of the Woods 
 and Mississippi. The middle State shall be bounded by the said direct 
 line, the Wabash from Post Vincents to the Ohio, by the Ohio by a 
 direct line drawn due north from the mouth of the Great Miami to the 
 said territorial line, and by the said territorial line. The eastern State 
 shall be bounded by the last-mentioned direct lines, the Ohio, Pennsyl- 
 vania, and the said territorial line. Provided, however, and it is further 
 understood and declared, that the boundaries of these three States 
 shall be subject so far to be altered that, if Congress shall hereafter find 
 it expedient, they shall have authority to form one or two States in that 
 
32 The True History of 
 
 But whilst she thus certainly did, by implicaiibii at 
 least, virtually and decidedly consent to all of the arti- 
 cles of the Ordinance of 1787, she did not in this act 
 make any special mention of the 6th Article, nor any 
 formal ratification of it. And, as that article was in 
 direct contravention of the Act of 1780, which was in 
 full force when her deed of cession was made, and 
 which declared that the land so ceded should be "dis- 
 posed of for the common benefit of the United States" — 
 and also "that said lands" should be granted and set- 
 tled as should be agreed on "by the United States, in 
 Congress assembled, or any nine or more of them" — as 
 it was contrary to the principle of the Ordinance of 
 1784, which had rejected all interference by Congress 
 with slavery in the North-west Territory — and also of 
 the Act of Recommendation of 1786, under which she 
 had altered her deed of cession, and which stated ex- 
 pressly that the States to be formed out of that Terri- 
 tory "shall have the same rights of sovereignty, free- 
 dom, and independence as the original States, in con- 
 formity with the resolution of Congress of the 10th of Octo- 
 
 part of the said Territory which lies north of an east and west line drawn 
 through the southerly bend or extreme of Lake Michigan ; and when- 
 ever any of the said States shall have sixty thousand free inhabitants 
 therein, such State shall be admitted by its delegates into the Congress 
 of the United States, on an equal footing with the original States in all 
 respects whatsoever, and shall be at liberty to form a permanent Con- 
 stitution and State government. Provided, the Constitution and gov- 
 ernment so to be formed shall be republican, and in conformity to the 
 principles contained in these articles; and, so far as it can be consistent with 
 the general interest of the Confederacy, such admission shall be allowed 
 at an earlier period ; and when there may be a less number of free in- 
 habitants in the State than sixty thousand : "And it is expedient that 
 this Commonwealth do assent to the proposed alteration, so as to ratify 
 and confirm the said article of compact between the original States and 
 the people and States in the said Territory. Be it therefore enacted by the 
 General Assembly, that the afore-recited article of compact between the 
 original States and the people, and the States in the Territory north- 
 west of Ohio River, be, and the same is, hereby ratified and confirmed; 
 any thing to the contrary, in the deed of cession of said Territory by this Com- 
 monwealth to the United States, notwithstanding.^' 
 
The Missouri Compromise and its Repeal. 33 
 
 ber, 1780'''' — it was afterward claimed, that, inasmuch as 
 Virginia had ceded her territory for the common benefit 
 of the United States, the passage of an act by which 
 not only her citizens, but the whole of the people of the 
 Southern States, were virtually excluded from such ter- 
 ritory [inasTYiuch as their system of labor was excluded) , 
 was not only unjust, but illegal and void, as not being 
 contemplated in her act of cession. That, moreover, the 
 Ordinance of 1787 was passed by the vote of only eight 
 States, whereas the Resolution of 1780 expressly re- 
 quired the vote of nine States, or more, in any regula- 
 tions made for the settlement of lands that might be 
 ceded "to the United States by any particular State." 
 
 All of these circumstances were adduced to show that 
 this article had no feature of compact about it — that it 
 was merely an act of Congress ; that as such it was not 
 authorized by the Articles of Confederation, and was 
 therefore illegal and void, Mr. Madison being quoted as 
 having declared "that the act was without the shadow 
 of constitutional authority." ^ 
 
 On the other hand, it was contended that the Act of 
 1780 gave to Congress the full right to make regulations 
 for the Territories — that the eight States constituted the 
 "Congress assembled," as contemplated in the said act — 
 and therefore Congress could rightfully exclude slavery 
 from the Territories. 
 
 Of course the two differing parties would naturally 
 view the matter from their own different stand-points, 
 and we can see how differences of opinion might hon- 
 estly exist. 
 
 But every member of Congress from Virginia voted 
 for the Ordinance of 1787 ; Virginia afterward made no 
 opposition to it ; and it was carried into effect. And 
 then she was quoted as having proposed the 6th Article 
 through Mr. Grayson ; the prohibition of slavery in the 
 
 ^ John C. Calhoun's speech in Senate, June 27, 1848. 
 
 3 
 
34 The True History of 
 
 Nortli-western Territory was commonly believed to have 
 been her act, and was used as an argument for the con- 
 stitutionality of prohibition of slavery, by Congress, in 
 the Louisiana Territory. 
 
 The fact is, that on the 12th of July the Constitu- 
 tional Convention had voted for the three-fifths repre- 
 sentation of the slaves of the South in Congress, and on 
 the 13th the old Congress voted for the Ordinance of 
 1787 prohibiting slavery in the North-western Territory, 
 Some of the members of Congress were also members of 
 the Convention, and doubtless the two measures had 
 been discussed fully before they were offered. The 6th 
 Article was no doubt the price paid by the South for 
 the three-fifths representation and the fugitive slave law 
 {vice versa) , and Virginia's acquiescence in it was also 
 without doubt one of the many sacrifices she made as 
 being the only way to secure that Union of the States 
 which she regarded as of paramount importance. For 
 she had opposed this same provision when offered by 
 Mr. Jefferson only a few years before, and now she 
 acquiesced in it, for the same reason that she acquiesced 
 in the Constitution, although containing that provision 
 for the continuance of the slave trade, to which she was 
 so much opposed ; and the North-western Territory not 
 being settled up by slave-holders, she probably felt that 
 she was not depriving any one of rights or property 
 therein by that acquiescence. 
 
 What effect might have been produced on the future 
 of our country, had Mr. Jefferson's measure, applying 
 the prohibition of slavery to all of our territory north of 
 the 31st degree of latitude, succeeded, is interesting 
 matter for speculation. How far it might have aff"ected 
 his purchase of the Louisiana Territory, with its slaves 
 already owned by the French and Spanish inhabitants, 
 or altered the terms of that purchase, can only be con- 
 jectured. 
 
 The motives that actuated Virginia and the other 
 Southern States in rejecting that prohibition were evi- 
 
The Missouri Compromise and its Repeal. 35 
 
 dentlj of the same economic character as prompted the 
 people of the Louisiana Territory in their petitions to 
 Congress, made immediately after their admission to 
 citizenship in the United States. In these petitions, 
 which were signed by various townships from the mouth 
 of the Missouri down to New Orleans — "St. Charles" 
 and "Cape Girardeau" among them — Congress was im- 
 plored "to permit them to make their own laws, to 
 govern themselves and not to put them under control of 
 the Governor of the Indiana Territory, where slavery 
 had been prohibited ; as they feared it might lead to the 
 abolition of slavery in their own territory. That such 
 a step would be ruinous to all their interests ; that the 
 levees on the banks of the Mississippi could not be 
 kept up without the labor of the African slaves, who 
 were capable, by nature and constitution, as well as 
 previous surroundings, of enduring the heat and moist- 
 ure of the climate and the malarial conditions of the 
 country, which were such that no white man could stand 
 doing any hard labor under them." The above is about 
 the gist of these petitions, as recorded in the annals of 
 Congress of that period. 
 
 It is a notable fact that in 1811, just when the en- 
 trance of Louisiana into the Union as a Slave State was 
 being most bitterly opposed by the North and East, 
 Indiana was petitioning Congress to permit her to have 
 slaves for some years, in order to open up the country 
 more rapidly than would be possible without slave 
 labor. The proposition was laid before Congress, and 
 was only defeated through the interposition of that great 
 Virginian, John Randolph, of Roanoke. 
 
 Some writers have expressed surprise at the apparent 
 incongruity between the act of Congress of 1787, pro- 
 hibiting slavery in the North-western Territory, and the 
 clause made by the Convention in forming the Constitu- 
 tion in 1787, which forbade Congress to prohibit the 
 slave-trade for a period of twenty years. But the 
 
36 The True History of 
 
 reader of these pages will have seen the explanation of 
 this apparently uuexplainable inconsistency. 
 
 The one measure being a sacrifice of one interest to 
 secure a greater interest, the permanent Union of the 
 States ; whilst the other was the result of a selfish 
 greed for power and wealth on the part of the majority 
 who carried their point against the opposition of the 
 minority. 
 
 The first Congress under the new Constitution, as- 
 sembled at New York in 1789, repassed the ordinance of 
 the Congress of 1787 for the government of the North- 
 western Territory — "In order that the ordinance may con- 
 tinue to have full effect." It was approved Aug. 7, 
 1789, and received its validity from Virginia's consent 
 to the act of Congress. 
 
 PURCHASE OF LOUISIANA. 
 
 Missouri was a part of the Louisiana Territory which 
 Mr. Jefferson, then President, had, in order to secure pos- 
 session of New Orleans and the mouth of the Mississippi, 
 purchased from Napoleon Bonaparte in 1803. 
 
 NajDoleon had bought it from Spain in 1800, but the 
 purchase had been kept a secret, and Spain was still in 
 possession. The Spanish Intendent at New Orleans is- 
 sued a proclamation in October, 1802, closing that port 
 to the Americans, who, having no other outlet, from 
 Pittsburg down, for their produce, which amounted to 
 at least three millions of dollars yearly, became very 
 much exasperated at the idea of the closure. 
 
 Mr. Jefferson at once sent commissioners to Spain, and 
 then to France, to secure the opening of the port, peace- 
 ably if possible. While Congress, upon the motion of 
 John Breckenridge, senator from Kentucky, passed a 
 bill authorizing the President to order out 80,000 militia 
 to be armed, equipped and organized, ready to march on 
 New Orleans at a moment's notice.^ 
 
 ' See Annals of Congress. 
 
The Missouri Compromise and its Repeal. 37 
 
 This firm and dignified attitude of our government, 
 together with the fear lest England, his hated enemy, 
 might swoop down from Canada upon his American pos- 
 sessions, decided Napoleon to sell the whole territory for 
 about fifteen millions of dollars. It extended from the 
 Lake of the Woods on the North to the Sabine (or the 
 Rio Bravo) on the South ; to the East it joined the 
 Floridas, which were still owned by Spain, and on the 
 West embraced the Missouri River with its tributaries, 
 and the high table-lands which extended to the divide of 
 the Rocky Mountains. The boundaries were not very 
 clearly defined, being only stated in the treaty to be the 
 same territory which had been transferred to France by 
 Spain two or three years previous in the treaty between 
 those two powers.^ 
 
 The cultivated parts of this territory, which lay mainly 
 on the banks of the Mississipi)i, were occupied chiefly 
 by French and Spaniards, who all owned slaves. 
 
 It was made a part of the treaty of purchase that 
 "the inhabitants of the ceded territory shall be incorpo- 
 rated into the Union of the United States, and admitted 
 as soon as possible, according to the principles of the 
 Federal Constitution, to the enjoyment of all the rights, 
 advantages and immunities of citizens of the United 
 States ; and in the mean time, they shall be maintained 
 and protected in the free enjoyment of their liberty, 
 property and the religion which they profess,"^ 
 
 Slaves were, at that time, recognized as property by 
 the Constitution. Not only were they bought and sold 
 under its provisions, but the States were required by it 
 to surrender up to their owners any slaves who might 
 escape from one State into another. In this there was 
 
 ^ The circumstances and details of this purchase are so interesting 
 and the purchase itself so important as to entitle them to an entire 
 chapter. But time forbids the rewriting of these matters, which were 
 fully set forth in my manuscript, lost when my house was burned, 
 March 8, 1893. 
 
 2 Date of treaty, April 30, 1803. See Annals of Congress of that year. 
 
38 The True History of 
 
 the fullest possible recognition of this species of property 
 as such, and it was made in the compact of the Consti- 
 tution between the sovereign States. 
 
 The Eastern (or Northern) States had shown a strong 
 feeling of jealousy of the South and West, due perhaps 
 to that "superior wealth" to which Mr. King above al- 
 luded ; and they were greatly opposed to the purchase of 
 Louisiana. 
 
 It had required all of Washington's address to keep 
 down the sectional jealousies between the Southern and 
 Eastern troops during the dark days of the Revolutionary 
 War ; and in 1786 the seven Northern (or Eastern) States 
 had attempted to give up the right to the navigation of 
 the Mississippi River for twenty-five years in considera- 
 tion of certain commercial advantages promised them 
 by Guardoquoi, the Spanish minister. The Southern 
 and Western States opposed this project vehemently, 
 and in consequence the Eastern States showed a dispo- 
 sition to secede from the Union, even at that early day. 
 In a letter to Gov. Henry, of Virginia, Mr. Monroe states 
 "the object in the occlusion of the Mississippi . 
 is to break up the settlements on the western waters, 
 . so as to throw the weight of the population 
 eastward and keep it there, to appreciate the vacant 
 lands of New York and Massachusetts."^ 
 
 In this connection the following extracts from letters 
 of Mr. Adams and Mr. Jefferson are of great interest. 
 The letters were preserved in a scrap-book, and extracts 
 are taken from the unpublished manuscript of an article 
 written by a resident of New York (an accomplished 
 writer) in 1867, which was intended to show Massachu- 
 sett's real position as to disunion in the past. "In 
 1828," says this writer, "John Quincy Adams, then 
 President, declared publicly that 'a disunion party ex- 
 isted in New England at the period of the embargo, and 
 
 1 Wm. Wirt Henry's Life of Patrick Henry, Vol. 2, pp. 296-7. 
 
The Missouri Compromise and its Repeal. 39 
 
 had existed there for several years ; that he knew this 
 from unequivocal evidence.' 
 
 "In answer to a public letter addressed to him calling 
 for 'a precise statement of the facts and evidence relating 
 to this accusation,' President Adams replied, December 
 30, 1828: 
 
 "The design had been formed in the winter of 1803 
 and 1804, immediately after and as a consequence of the 
 acquisition of Louisiana. 
 
 " . . . This plan was so far matured that the pro- 
 posal had been made to an individual to permit himself, 
 at the proper time, to be placed at the head of the mili- 
 tary movement which, it was foreseen, would be neces- 
 sary for carrying it into execution, 
 
 ". . . That project, I repeat, had gone to the 
 length of fixing upon a military leader for its execution, 
 and although the circumstances of the times never ad- 
 mitted of its execution, nor even of its full development, 
 I had yet no doubt in 1808 and 1809, and have no doubt 
 at this time, that it is the key of all the great move- 
 ments of these leaders of the Federal party in New 
 England from that time forward till its final catastrophe 
 in the Hartford Convention. . . , 
 
 "The annexation of Louisiana was believed to be un- 
 constitutional, but it produced no excitement to resist- 
 ance among the people. Its beneficial consequences to 
 the whole Union were soon felt, and took away all pos- 
 sibility of holding it up as the labarum of a political re- 
 ligion of disunion. The projected separation met with 
 other disasters, and slumbered till the attack of the 
 'Leopard' on the 'Chesapeake,' followed by orders in 
 Council of 11th of November, 1807, led to the embargo 
 of the 22d of December of that year. 
 
 "The question of the Constitutionality of the Embargo 
 was solemnly argued before the District Court of the 
 United States at Salem ; and although the decision of 
 the Judge was in its favor, it continued to be argued to 
 the juries, and even when silenced before them, was, in 
 
40 The True History of 
 
 the distemper of the times, so infectious that the juries 
 themselves habitually acquitted those charged with the 
 violation of that law. . . I forbear to pursue the nar- 
 rative. The two postulates for disunion were nearly 
 consummated. The interposition of a kind Providence, 
 restoring peace to our country and the world, averted 
 the most deplorable of catastrophes, and, turning over 
 to the receptacle of things lost upon earth, the adjourned 
 convention from Hartford to Boston extinguished (by 
 the mercy of God may it be forever !) the projected New 
 England Confederacy. ' ' 
 
 Further on in the manuscript is given a letter from 
 Mr. Jefferson, written to "Gen. Dearborn, March 17, 
 1815," in which he says: "Oh, Massachusetts, how 
 have I lamented the degradation of your apostasy ! 
 Massachusetts, with whom I went with pride, in 1776, 
 whose vote was my vote on every public question, and 
 whose principles were then the standard of whatever 
 was free or fearless. But then she was under the coun- 
 sels of the two Adamses, while Strong, her present 
 leader, was promoting petitions for submission to 
 British power and British usurpation." 
 
 When, in 1811, the Territory of Orleans (as it had 
 been named) , now the State of Louisiana, applied for 
 admission into the Union as a Slave State, the opposi- 
 tion of some of the Northern members was most vio- 
 lent, on the ground that "it would throw too much 
 weight at that end of the Union." 
 
 Mr. Quincy, of Massachusetts, declaring that her ad- 
 mission would be "virtually a dissolution of the Union," 
 . . . and he says: "We have been told that 'New 
 Orleans was the most important place in the Union.' 
 A place out of the Union the most important place in 
 it!'" 
 
 It seems a strange thing now that such a jealousy of 
 
 ^ See Annals of 11th Cong., Sess. 3, pp. 524-541. 
 
The Missouri Compromise and its Repeal. 41 
 
 the South and West should ever have existed in the 
 North and East, and especially so that the great and 
 beautiful City of New York should ever have been 
 jealous of the prosperity of New Orleans ; yet such was 
 the case. 
 
 New Orleans, however, appeared then to be the com- 
 ing city of the New "World. She was the great empo- 
 rium of all the commerce west of the Alleghany Moun- 
 tains, Down the broad waters of the Mississippi and 
 from all the country bordering the beautiful Ohio, 
 floated the produce of the West and South to find its 
 outlet at the Crescent City, In her harbor there floated 
 to the breeze the flags of all nations, and on her streets 
 were gathered, in search of fortune, men of every na- 
 tionality. Jews and Turks, Russians and Poles, Ger- 
 mans, French, Spaniards, English, Scotch, Irish, Ital- 
 ians, Moors — all congregated there, and jabbered to one 
 another in unknown tongues — but all with one purpose, 
 the eager pursuit of wealth — and all regarding New 
 Orleans as the El Dorado which held forth a brilliant 
 and successful future to their grasp. From the day that 
 the keys of New Orleans were, with great pomp and 
 ceremony,^ handed over by Monsieur Peter Clement 
 Laussat to Gov, Claiborne and Gen. Wilkinson, our 
 Commissioners, and the United States flag was hoisted 
 amid the joyous acclamations of her people, who were 
 now released from all allegiance to any other power, that 
 city had grown in importance and distinction ; and the 
 sectional jealousy already rife in the East was still fur- 
 ther increased by the growing prosperity of New Or- 
 leans. Doubtless this feeling was known in England 
 and suggested to her "a most remarkable project in which 
 she most signally failed. 
 
 One of the immediate and most moving causes of the 
 War of 1812 has, so far as the writer knows, been set 
 down in but few of the many histories written of that 
 
 ^ See American State Papers for account. 
 
42 The True History of 
 
 time ; and that was the attempt on the part of Great 
 Britain to procure the secession of a part, or the whole, 
 of the New England States. 
 
 On the 9th of March of that year, Mr. Madison, 
 President, laid before Congress, in a special message, 
 the official correspondence between the British Govern- 
 ment and their agent, one John Henry, which proved 
 that "in the midst of amicable professions and negotia- 
 tions on the part of the British Government through its 
 public ministers here, a secret agent of that government 
 was employed in certain States, more especially at the 
 seat of government in Massachusetts, in fomenting dis- 
 affection to the constituted authorities of the nation ; 
 . . . and eventually, in concert with a British force, 
 of destroying the Union, and forming the eastern part 
 thereof into a political connection with Great Britain."^ 
 
 This British agent stated that he had resided for three 
 years in Boston, and spent his whole fortune in -wining 
 and dining the high officials of the State, and in endeav- 
 oring to promote his project by seducing from their alle- 
 giance to the Republic the loyal citizens of the New 
 England States. But their devotion to the principles of 
 liberty defeated and nullified all his efforts. 
 
 When, at length, he had spent his entire estate and 
 asked of the British Government the reward that had 
 been promised him of a government position which 
 would secure him a good living, they turned a deaf ear 
 alike to his entreaties and remonstrances. The home 
 government referred him to the Governor of Canada ; 
 the Governor of Canada, in turn, referred him to the 
 home government. 
 
 Wearied at length, and worn out by the ineffectual 
 effort to obtain the promised reward, he determined to 
 take his revenge by laying the whole matter before the 
 Government of the United States. 
 
 ^ See President's Message, of 12th Cong., Part 1, p. 1162. 
 
The Missouri Compromise and its Repeal. 43 
 
 He further stated that he was "influenced by a just 
 resentment of the perfidy and dishonor of those who 
 first violated the conditions upon which I received their 
 confidence" — that is, when it was found the project 
 could not be counted on as likely to succeed, he was re- 
 fused the position promised him for his labor, and he 
 declares no choice is left him "but between a degraded 
 acquiescence in injustice, and a retaliation which is nec- 
 essary to secure to me my own self-respect" — which re- 
 taliation consisted in giving up the whole correspondence 
 to Mr. Monroe, then Secretary of State. The letters 
 bore date of 1809 — and some of the ideas expressed 
 therein as to the motives of the British Government are 
 so illustrative that they will bear transcribing, espe- 
 cially as they received the approval of the highest offi- 
 cials of that government.^ 
 
 EXTRACTS FROM CORRESPONDENCE. 
 
 "To bring about a separation of the States under dis- 
 tinct and independent governments . . . can not 
 be effected but by a series of acts and a long-continued 
 policy tending to irritate the Southern and conciliate 
 the Northern people. . . . The mode of cherishing 
 or depressing either is too obvious to require illustration. 
 This is an object of much interest to Great Britain, as it 
 would forever secure the integrity of His Majesty's pos- 
 sessions on this Continent, and make the two govern- 
 ments as useful and as much subject to the influence of 
 Great Britain as her Colonies can be rendered." ^ 
 
 "It should, therefore, be the peculiar care of 
 Great Britain to foster divisions between the North and 
 South, and, by succeeding in this, she may carry into 
 effect her own projects in Europe, with a total dis- 
 
 ' See Correspondence, given in full in Annals of Congress of that 
 year. 
 » 12th Cong., Part 1, pp. 1172, 1173. 
 
44 The True History of 
 
 regard of the resentments of the Democrats of this 
 country.'' ^ 
 
 The Secretary of State reported that "no person or 
 persons had been named as being concerned in the said 
 project referred to." ^ 
 
 The Committee on Foreign Relations, Mr. Calhoun, 
 Chairman, in making their report of the matter, stated 
 that it presented "conclusive evidence that the British 
 Government, at a period of peace, and during the most 
 friendly professions, have been deliberately and per- 
 fidiously pursuing measures to divide these States, and 
 to involve our citizens in all the guilt of treason and the 
 horrors of a Civil War." ^ 
 
 In another report, made on the 3d of June, they say, 
 after reciting various wrongs, "Your Committee would 
 be much gratified if they could close here the details of 
 British wrongs ; but it is their duty to recite another act 
 of still greater malignity than any of those which have 
 been already brought to your view. The attempt to 
 dismember our Union, and overthrow our excellent 
 Constitution, by a secret mission, the object of which 
 was to foment discontent and excite insurrection against 
 the constituted authorities and the laws of the nation, 
 as lately disclosed by the agent employed in it, affords 
 full proof that there is no bound to the hostility of the 
 British Government toward the United States ; no act, 
 however unjustifiable, which it would not commit to 
 accomplish their ruin." . . . And, "relying on the 
 patriotism of the nation, . . . your Committee re- 
 commend an immediate appeal to arms." 
 
 War was declared on the 18th of June. The West 
 and South sprang to arms at once with the greatest 
 alacrity, and carried the war to a successful conclusion ; 
 but some portions of the Eastern States, although they 
 had rejected the idea of separation, were evidently 
 
 1 12th Cong., Part 1, p. 1174. ' Idem, 1181. 
 
 ' Idem, Sess. 2, p. 1220. 
 
The Missouri Compromise and its Repeal. 45 
 
 greatly disaflfected toward the government ; and the 
 governors of two of the New England States, Massachu- 
 setts and Connecticut, refused point blank to furnish 
 their quota of militia, when called upon by the President 
 to do so — Gov, Strong, of Massachusetts, declaring, in 
 his letter of refusal, "The people of this State appear to 
 be under no apprehension of an invasion." * 
 
 And, further, that "the Governor of Nova Scotia had, 
 by proclamation, forbid any incursions or depredations 
 upon our Territories." ^ 
 
 Gov. Griswold, of Connecticut, thought that "the 
 declaration of the President, that there is imminent 
 danger of invasion, ... is not, in my opinion, 
 warranted by those facts" — and by, and with, the ad- 
 vice of his Council, he declines to do any thing except 
 to provide for the safety of Connecticut.^ 
 
 When the war was ended, in the negotiation of the 
 Treaty of Ghent, the representatives of Great Britain 
 proposed that we should surrender our right to the great 
 Mississippi River, sharing it with England, and, but for 
 Mr. Clay's determined opposition, the project would 
 have carried, as the Eastern Commissioners w^ere in 
 favor of it. 
 
 These circumstances are mentioned to show the early 
 sentiment of a portion of the Eastern States, not only 
 toward the South and West, but to the government it- 
 self ; a certain lack of loyalty on the part of some, 
 which found its expression in the Convention of Hart- 
 ford, which was held with closed doors, but was believed 
 to be in favor of the secession of the Eastern States to 
 England ; whilst the people of the Western and South- 
 ern States showed a devotion to the government which 
 they had helped to found that was equaled only by their 
 courage in maintaining it. 
 
 In 1818, however, when the Missouri difficulty first 
 
 1 12th Cong., Sess. 2, p. 1298. 
 
 * Idem, p. 1299. ^ Idem, pp. 1308-1310. 
 
46 The True History of 
 
 came up, the Republic had passed safely through all the 
 trials of her struggling infancy, and had grown to be 
 prosperous and united to a degree unknown at any pre- 
 vious time. 
 
 From thirteen disunited, independent States on the 
 Atlantic coast, she had grown to be a Federal united 
 power with her territory extending from the lakes to 
 the gulf, and from the Atlantic Ocean to the Rocky 
 Mountains. 
 
 As, to the far-seeing statesmanship of Patrick Henry 
 and the great military genius of General George Rogers 
 Clarke, we were indebted for possession of the beautiful 
 country between the Ohio River and the Great Lakes ; 
 to Messrs. Jefferson, Livingston, and Monroe for the ac- 
 quisition of the Louisiana Territory and the Mississippi 
 River ; and to Mr. Clay for the preservation, intact, of 
 our right to that great river ; so now, Mr. Adams was 
 bringing to a peaceful conclusion the long-disputed ques- 
 tion of boundary between the United States and Spain ; 
 by whose settlement we acquired the two Floridas, then 
 regarded as very important because of their strategic 
 position. 
 
 The successful issue of the war of 1812 had settled 
 forever the question of the secession of any part of our 
 territory to any alien power whatever. 
 
 Our army had covered itself with glory at the battle 
 of New Orleans, where our raw militia had vanquished 
 most signally those veteran troops of the Duke of Wel- 
 lington, who had shortly before conquered the armies of 
 the great Napoleon in the Peninsular war ; and our navy 
 had distinguished itself in many battles. "We had con- 
 quered peace with all the world, the Republic was every- 
 where recognized as a power on the earth, and our gov- 
 ernment commanded the respect and admiration of all 
 foreign powers. 
 
 The invention of the cotton gin in 1793 had enriched 
 the South wonderfully, raising the value of her slave 
 
The Missouri Compromise and its Repeal. 47 
 
 labor, and enabling lier to supply the markets of the 
 world with her cotton. 
 
 Their infant industries having been fully established, 
 the Eastern and Northern States saw plainly how excel- 
 lent a market was opened to their manufacturers in the 
 agricultural South and West. The South furnished the 
 North her cotton, the North returned it in manufactured 
 goods, while the Middle States supplied grain and meat 
 to both. 
 
 It was one grand system of free trade. 
 
 A new era of peace and prosperity seemed to dawn 
 upon the Republic. On all sides the pride and love of 
 country appeared to be at their height. It was upon this 
 clear sky that the Missouri storm broke and raged for 
 three long years. 
 
 In 1783, before the present Union was formed, the 
 States south of Mason and Dixon's line (which sepa- 
 rated Maryland and Virginia from Pennsylvania) owned 
 over 600,000 square miles of territory, whilst the 
 States north of that line had less than 200,000 square 
 miles. After Virginia had yielded up to the Confeder- 
 ated Government the great North-western Territory, as 
 it was then called, extending out to the Mississippi (em- 
 bracing about 250,000 square miles), and slavery was 
 prohibited in all that territory by the Ordinance of 1787, 
 an imaginary Mason and Dixon's line was drawn along 
 the Ohio River, all north of which was free territory. 
 
 The new States formed out of this territory were peo- 
 pled with unexampled rapidity, and at the time of the 
 Missouri difficulty the Northern States had such an in- 
 crease in population over the Southern States as to give 
 them a majority in the House of Representatives. 
 
 Hitherto there had been a tacit agreement that the 
 balance of power between the States should be preserved ; 
 and it had been the fear, lest this balance should be dis- 
 turbed, that had rendered some of the Eastern States so 
 opposed to the purchase of the Louisiana territory. 
 
 The new States had entered the Union with alternate 
 
48 The True History of 
 
 regularity as slave and free. Kentucky and Vermont 
 had come in at about the same time ; then Tennessee and 
 Ohio ; next Louisiana, and some years after Indiana : 
 then Mississippi and Illinois had wheeled into line, 
 Alabama as a slave territory, and Maine as free, were 
 ready to enter as States ; and Arkansas and Michigan 
 were in sight. But there was no other northern or free 
 territory ready to enter the Union as an offset to Mis- 
 souri, and her entrance as a slave State would not only 
 break the routine as it had been heretofore kept up, but 
 might at no distant time turn the scales in favor of the 
 slaveholding States, and give the South that majority in 
 the House which the North now enjoyed. 
 
 This fact decided the Northern majority in the House 
 not to admit her, except with a prohibition of slavery, 
 although her people were composed almost entirely of 
 slaveholders from the States of Virginia, Kentucky, 
 Tennessee, and North Carolina, who had emigrated to 
 Missouri and carried their slave property along with 
 them ; whilst her former inhabitants had owned their 
 slaves both under Spanish and French dominion, and it 
 was well understood that she desired to enter the Union 
 with her slave property untouched by Federal interfer- 
 ence. 
 
 But there was another point in the matter which 
 weighed perhaps equally with the political aspect of the 
 case, and which the South may not have fully appre- 
 ciated in its relation to the action of the North in op- 
 posing the entrance of Missouri. Slavery "precluded the 
 laboring white man of the North, quite as effectually from 
 emigrating to any State where it existed, as did any law 
 of Congress preclude the slaveholder from taking his 
 slave property to any territory in which slavery had been 
 prohibited. 
 
 And now this beautiful and fertile Territory of Mis- 
 souri was preparing to enter the Union with an institu- 
 tion that would shut out from her borders the freemen 
 of the North, who scorned to compete with slave labor. 
 
The Missouri Compromise and its Repeal. 49 
 
 To the two causes above recited, the desire for political 
 power and for the Territory, on the part of the North, 
 was due the intense opposition by the Northern majority 
 in Congress to the entrance of Missouri into the Union 
 as a Slave State, although every principle of the Con- 
 stitution demanded that the local and domestic affairs 
 of each State should be controlled by itself, whilst the 
 treaty of purchase, and every principle of honor and 
 good faith in regard to that treaty, as well as justice to 
 the inhabitants of Missouri, demanded that she should 
 be given admission as soon as she was entitled to it 
 under the established practice of the government and 
 "according to the principles of the Constitution." 
 
 Missouri, through her delegate, Mr. Scott, petitioned 
 Congress, in January, 1818, that she might be erected 
 into a State and admitted into the Union "on an equal 
 footing with the original States." The petition was re- 
 ferred as usual, but not until the 13th of February, 1819, 
 was the bill for her admission taken up for consideration 
 by the House. 
 
 Mr. Tallmadge (of New York) then at once moved 
 an amendment to limit the existence of slavery in the 
 new State and providing for gradual emancipation.^ 
 
 This motion gave rise to a wide debate in which Mr. 
 Clay and others opposed the proposition. 
 
 On the 15th, Mr. Clay, then Speaker of the House, 
 again spoke in opposition to Mr. Tallmadge 's amend- 
 ment. His speech is not reported, but he is quoted by 
 Mr. Taylor (of New York) quite extensively : "One of 
 the gentlemen from Kentucky (Mr. Clay) has pressed 
 into his service the cause of humanity. He has 
 pathetically urged us to withdraw our amendment and 
 suffer this unfortunate population to be dispersed over 
 the country. He says they will be better fed, clothed, 
 and sheltered, and their whole condition will be greatly 
 
 1 Aunals of 15th Congress, Sess. 2, Vol. 1, p. 1166. 
 4 
 
50 The True History of 
 
 improved." After referring to the character of the 
 people who, coming "from the Eastern hives with a 
 rapidity never before witnessed, have changed the 
 wilderness between the Ohio and Mississippi into fruit- 
 ful fields," ... Mr. Taylor says, "Will these 
 people settle in a country where they must rank with 
 negro slaves?" . . . "He (Mr. Clay) is governed by 
 no vulgar prejudices, yet with what abhorrence did he 
 speak of the performance, by your wives and daughters, 
 of those domestic duties which he was pleased to call 
 'servile?' What comparison did he make between the 
 'black slaves' of Kentucky and the 'white slaves' of the 
 North, and how instantly did he strike a balance in 
 favor of the condition of the former? If such opinions 
 and expressions, even in the ardor of debate, can fall 
 from that honorable gentlemen, what ideas do you sup- 
 pose are entertained of laboring men by the majority of 
 slaveholders?"^ 
 
 In another debate on the same question, Mr. Scott, 
 delegate from Missouri, quotes Mr. Taylor as saying, 
 "If ever he left his present residence, it would be for 
 Illinois or Missouri ; at all events he wished to send out 
 his brothers and his sons." And then Mr. Scott, after 
 commenting on this, "hoped the House would excuse 
 him while he stated that he did not desire that gentle- 
 man, his sons, or his brothers in that land of brave, 
 noble, and independent freemen. . . . What ! starve 
 the negroes, pen them up in the swamps and morasses, 
 confine them to Southern latitudes, until the race be- 
 comes extinct, that the fair land of Missouri may be 
 tenanted by that gentleman, his brothers, and his 
 sons?"=' 
 
 In the remarks of these two speakers, we discern the 
 key-note to the whole struggle. 
 
 The debate was continued with unremitting violence, 
 Mr. Cobb (of Georgia) declaring, "If you persist, the 
 
 ^ Annals of 15th Congress, Sess. 2, Vol. 1, pp. 1175-77. 
 ' Idem, p. 1202. 
 
The Missouri Compromise and its Repeal. 51 
 
 Union will be dissolved," and Mr. Tallmadge (of New 
 York) retorting, "Sir, if a dissolution of the Union 
 must take place, let it be so ! If Civil War, which gen- 
 tlemen so much threaten, must come, I can only say, let 
 it come."^ 
 
 Mr. Tallmadge 's amendment consisted of two propo- 
 sitions, one for "the prohibiting the further introduction 
 of slavery," and the other that "all children born 
 within said State after the admission thereof into the 
 Union shall be free at the age of twenty-five years." 
 Both passed, but by only small majorities, some of the 
 Northeners voting with the Southern minority .'^ 
 
 Mr. Storrs (of New York) "moved to strike out so 
 much of the bill as says that the new State shall be 
 admitted into the Union — 'on an equal footing with the 
 original States.' " 
 
 After the vote just taken, Mr. S. said: "there was a 
 manifest inconsistency in retaining this provision."^ 
 
 This motion was negatived. The Annals here say : 
 "Mr. Scott (Missouri delegate), and Mr. Anderson, of 
 Kentucky (Richard C), greatly as they had been op- 
 posed to the insertion of the provision which had been 
 so much debated, yet preferred taking the bill as it 
 stood, to rejecting it." 
 
 The bill was then passed by 97 to 56 and sent to the 
 
 Senate for its concurrence. The Senate struck out both 
 
 clauses restricting slavery and returned it to the House. 
 
 . The House refused to concur with the action 
 
 of the Senate, and the bill was of course lost. 
 
 The excitement on the subject was intense ; the North 
 being fully determined to appropriate for her own 
 people, and as free territory, this beautiful, fertile and 
 great State, already settled up, well opened to cultiva- 
 tion, and most tempting in its fairness of scenery, of 
 soil and of climate ; whilst the South resented deeply 
 
 ^ Annals of 15th Congress, Sess. 2, Vol. 1, p. 1204. 
 ' Idem, p. 1214. » Idem, p. 1215. 
 
 t> 
 
52 The True History of 
 
 and bitterly the open statements of the North that 
 slavery should never go beyond the Mississippi River — 
 that the South was to be deprived of the use of all that 
 territory purchased equally with her money as with 
 that of the North, and more than equally with her 
 blood ; that Missouri, a territory which had been settled 
 up by Kentuckians, Tennesseans, Virginians and North 
 Carolinians, should be deprived of her sovereign right 
 to hold her slaves if she chose, when that right belonged 
 to every other State in the Union; Mr. Cobb (of 
 Georgia) declaring that "they were kindling a fire which 
 all the waters of the ocean could not extinguish. . . . 
 It could be extinguished only in blood." 
 
 The Arkansas Territory had meantime been taken off 
 from the Territory of Missouri, and on Feb. 17th, the 
 day after the passage by the House of Mr. Tallmadge's 
 amendment, the bill to provide a territorial government 
 for Arkansas being before them, Mr. Taylor (of New 
 York) moved to amend it by inserting a paragraph pro- 
 hibiting the existence of slavery therein, similar to Mr. 
 Tallmadge's amendment. 
 
 This motion gave rise to another wide and long con- 
 tinued debate in which Mr. Clay must again have left 
 the Speaker's chair to take part, as Mr. Taylor quotes 
 from his speech : 
 
 "The gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Clay) has asked," 
 said Mr. T., "what the people of the South have done, 
 that they are to be proscribed, and had expressed his 
 deep regret at the introduction of this amendment." 
 . . . "The gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Clay) has 
 charged us," said Mr. T.,"with being under the influence 
 of negrophobia. " . . . "The honorable Speaker," 
 said Mr. Taylor, "has asked us if we wish to coop up 
 our brethren of the Slave-holding States, and prevent 
 the extension of their population and wealth."^ 
 
 On the next day the vote was taken on the amendment 
 
 1 Annals of 15th Congress, Sess. 2, Vol. 1, pp. 122-23-24. 
 
The Missouri Compromise and its Repeal. 53 
 
 of Mr. Taylor. The first clause of it, prohibiting the 
 further introduction of slaves into the territory was de- 
 feated by one vote — yeas 70, nays 71. The second 
 clause, which freed all the children of slaves, hereafter 
 born in the territory, at the age of twenty-five years, 
 passed by a vote of 75 to 73.^ 
 
 On the 19th, Mr. Robertson, of Kentucky, with a 
 view of obtaining an erasure of the amendment adopted 
 on the day previous, moved to recommit the bill to a 
 select committee with instructions to strike out the 
 second clause. On this the vote stood 88 to 88. The 
 Annals say: "There being an equal division, the 
 Speaker declared himself in the aflBrmative and so the 
 said motion was carried." 
 
 The House then concurred with the select committee by 
 89 to 87.^ This is the only recorded vote of Mr. Clay that 
 was given on this subject whilst he was Speaker of the 
 House — and this vote decided the question at issue so far 
 as Arkansas was concerned, as to the prohibition of 
 slavery there and the consequent exclusion of the;^South- 
 ern people from that territory. From Mr. Clay's steady 
 advocacy of non-interference with the rights of the 
 Southern people on this question, we see plainly what 
 his views and sentiments were in regard to those rights, 
 viz. : their right to self-government and to their equal 
 share in the territories. And this, notwithstanding 
 that his own personal preference and judgment were in 
 favor of emancipation all his life, as he evidenced when, 
 previous to the assemblage of the Kentucky Constitu- 
 tional Convention of 1799, he made speeches and wrote 
 essays, urging emancipation as the wisest thing for the 
 State, although he knew popular sentiment to be utterly 
 opposed to it, and that he risked his own popularity ; and 
 again in 1849, when he wrote his celebrated emancipa- 
 tion letter, previous to the Convention of that year. 
 
 1 Annals of 15th Congress, Sess. 2, Vol. 1, p. 1238. 
 * Idem, Vol. 2, pp. 1272-73. 
 
54 The True History of 
 
 CHAPTER III. 
 
 1819-20 — Act of 1820, commonly called "The Missouri Compromise"— 
 Prohibition of slavery north of 36° 30^ oflfered by Mr. Thomas, of 
 Illinois, as an offset to the admission of Missouri with her slave 
 property into the Union — Intense excitement over the whole coun- 
 try — Proposition accepted as the only way to prevent disruption of 
 the Union — Half of the Southern (and most distinguished) mem- 
 bers of the House vote against it as being unconstitutiont:! and 
 unjust. 
 
 It has been the popular belief for more than half a 
 century that Henry Clay was the author of the Act of 
 1820, generally known as the Missouri Compromise Act, 
 that it was a Southern measure, and in the nature of a 
 compact between North and South ; and this belief has 
 been made the basis of the statement that the repeal of 
 a portion of this act by that party (the Democratic) 
 which was in favor of doing justice to the South, at the 
 suggestion of a Southern man and a Whig, viz., Hon. 
 Archibald Dixon, of Kentucky, was a breach of good 
 faith toward the North, and in violation of a compact 
 between the North and South. 
 
 On the contrary, the facts all go to show that Mr. 
 Clay had nothing whatever to do with the authorship of 
 this measure ; that it was not, in any sense, a Southern 
 measure ; as the prohibition of slavery in the Territories 
 was proposed by Northern men exclusively, was opposed 
 continuously for two sessions of Congress by every 
 Southern man, and was finally forced upon the South 
 by a Northern majority ; not exactly at the point of the 
 bayonet, but through the love of the South for the 
 Union, which was so great as to impel her representa- 
 tives to surrender her just rights rather than sever that 
 Union to which her people were so devotedly attached. 
 
 The facts also show that this act was not only not a 
 
The Missouri Compromise and its Repeal. 55 
 
 compact between the North and South, but was not so 
 regarded nor so treated by the North at the time, as it 
 was repudiated by the Northern majority at the next 
 session of Congress, in less than a year after its passage ; 
 which, of course, would not have been done had it been 
 considered truly a compact ; as was afterward claimed, 
 purely for political purposes. 
 
 In truth, this act was not even a compromise ; it was, 
 instead, a surrender — a surrender of one right in order 
 to secure another right which was threatened. It was a 
 yielding up, by a weaker to a stronger power, of the 
 rights of a third party ^^ which did not belong to those 
 who yielded them. It was an unconstitutional as well 
 as an illegal surrender, for Congress never owned what 
 was taken away by the Northern and given up by the 
 Southern members. While Congress had the right "to 
 make all needful rules and regulations" for the govern- 
 ment of the Territories, no power was ever delegated to 
 Congress to parcel out the Territories of the United 
 States in such a way as might deprive any of her citi- 
 zens of their just rights and title therein. So that the 
 entire Congress could have had no right to prohibit the 
 citizens of any State from emigrating to the Territories 
 and carrying their property with them, as such prohibi- 
 tion wowW deprive a large portion of citizens of their just 
 and unquestionable title therein. 
 
 It was this prohibition which was repealed on the mo- 
 tion of Mr. Dixon in 1854 — a prohibition offered solely 
 by Northern men, opposed steadily by Southern men ; 
 and the bill for the admission of Missouri, with this 
 prohibition attached to it, being assented to by them 
 only when they believed the Union would be dissolved 
 unless they did so assent ; a prohibition which was at 
 most only an act of Congress, and which we will see 
 that it was proposed to repeal at the next session of 
 Congress, when Missouri was refused admission into the 
 
 ^ The citizens of the slave-holding States. 
 
56 The True History of 
 
 Union by the Northern majority notwithstanding the 
 compact so-called. 
 
 The attention of the reader is especially invited to the 
 statements in this chapter, even though they be a little 
 tedious ; as they bear directly on these points, and are 
 taken from the Annals of Congress itself. 
 
 As soon as Congress assembled in December of 1819, 
 Alabama, Maine, and Missouri appeared before it, ask- 
 ing for admission into the Union. Alabama was ad- 
 mitted at once, without question, although her Constitu- 
 tion made slavery perpetual. Georgia had, however, 
 made her stipulations in the matter before she ceded her 
 territory to the United States. 
 
 Missouri's memorials were referred to a select com- 
 mittee of the House, when Mr. Strong (of New York) 
 at once gave notice that he should ask leave to introduce 
 a bill to prohibit the further extension of slavery in the 
 Territories.' 
 
 On the 14th of December, Mr. Taylor (of New York 
 also) proposed that "a committee be appointed to in- 
 quire into the expediency of prohibiting by law the in- 
 troduction of slaves into the Territories of the United 
 States west of the Mississippi." He spoke of the "ex- 
 cited feelings" produced by the question of slavery, both 
 in Congress and out of it, during the last session. And 
 now, from a Northern man, Mr. Taylor, comes the first 
 suggestion of compromise. 
 
 "If," said he, "a compromise of opposite opinions 
 was to be eflfected, it appeared to him better that a Com- 
 mittee be appointed, etc., and the question be not taken 
 up until the Committee had expended its best efforts, 
 etc, "2 
 
 Mr. Scott, of Missouri (delegate), objected to "post- 
 poning the bill to February the 1st. If it were to be 
 ultimately lost, the people of Missouri should have time 
 to act for themselves and frame a form of government, 
 
 1 16th Cong., Sess. 1, Vol. 1, p. 764. ^ j^jem, pp. 732-734. 
 
The Missouri Compromise and its Repeal. 57 
 
 which he was convinced they would do, without wait- 
 ing again to apply to Congress for the mere means of 
 organization." ^ 
 
 These echoes of passion but faintly indicate the storm 
 of feeling which had raged over the whole country since 
 the discussion of the question by the Congress of the 
 year before. Town meetings had been held, city meet- 
 ings, county meetings, cross-roads meetings. Memorials 
 from nearly all the Legislatures of the States were sent 
 to Congress, beginning as soon as its session opened ; the 
 Northern States protesting "in the name of humanity 
 and freedom against the further extension of slavery in 
 the Territories, and against the admission of Missouri 
 without the prohibition of slavery within her borders ;" 
 the Southern States protesting "in the name of justice 
 and the Constitution against the exclusion of the South 
 from the Territories, to which she had an equal, if not 
 a superior, right with the North — by virtue of her treas- 
 ure expended in their purchase, and of her blood shed 
 in the maintenance of the Union — and against the de- 
 priving the citizens of Missouri of the property in their 
 slaves, to which they were entitled both by the treaty of 
 purchase and the Constitution of the United States;" 
 whilst petition after petition poured into Congress from 
 the people of the Northern States, asking for the prohi- 
 bition of slavery in Missouri, and insisting that no more 
 States be admitted without this prohibition. The most 
 intense excitement continued to prevail every- where, and 
 the dark and portentous shadow of the dissolution of 
 the Union hung like a pall over the hearts and lives of 
 men, paralyzing the industries of the country, as the 
 winter passed on without any prospect of the settlement 
 of the question, and seriously damaging its material 
 interests. 
 
 The Committee which had been appointed on Mr. 
 Taylor's motion could not come to any agreement, and, 
 
 1 16th Cong., Sess. 1, Vol. 1, p. 736. 
 
58 The True History of 
 
 at their own request, were discharged from further con- 
 sideration of the subject.' 
 
 Shortly after, December 30th, the bill for the admis- 
 sion of Maine was about to be reported to the House, 
 when "Mr. Clay (Speaker) said he was not yet prepared 
 for the question. He was not opposed to the admission 
 of the State of Maine into the Union. . . . But, 
 before it was finally acted on, he wished to know, he 
 said, whether certain doctrines of an alarming cha.rac- 
 ter — which, if persevered in, no man could tell where 
 they would end — with respect to a restriction on the ad- 
 mission of States west of the Mississippi, were to be 
 sustained on this floor. He wished to know what was 
 the character of the conditions which Congress had a 
 right to annex to the admission of new States ; whether, 
 in fact, in admitting a new State, there could be a par- 
 tition of its sovereignty. ... If beyond the mount- 
 ains Congress can exert the power of imposing restric- 
 tions on new States, can they not also on this side of 
 them? If there they can impose hard conditions — con- 
 ditions which strike vitally at the independence and the 
 power of the State — can they not also here? If, said he, 
 the States of the West are to be subject to restrictions by 
 Congress, whilst the Atlantic States are free from them, 
 proclaim the distinction at once ; announce your priv- 
 ileges and immunities ; let us have a clear and distinct 
 understanding of what we are to expect." ^ 
 
 Mr. Holmes (of Massachusetts) , who was the chief 
 advocate for Maine's admission, replied to Mr. Clay, and 
 asked : "Will any one say we ought not to be admitted 
 into the Union? We are answered, yes ; and that, unless 
 we agree to admit Missouri unconditionally, we ought 
 not to be admitted ! I hope the doctrine did not extend 
 quite as far as that." (Mr. Clay here said in an under- 
 tone, yes, it did.) " ' 
 
 1 16th Cong., Sees. 1, Vol. 1, p. 801. » Idem, pp. 831, 832. 
 
 ' Idem, p. 834. 
 
The Missouri Compromise and its Repeal. 69 
 
 Further on, Mr. Clay remarked that, "since the ques- 
 tion was put, he would say at once to the gentleman from 
 Massachusetts, with that frankness which perhaps too 
 much belonged to his character, that he did not mean to 
 give his consent to the admission of the State of Maine 
 into the Union as long as the doctrines were upheld of an- 
 nexing conditions to the admission of States in the Union 
 from beyond the mountains. Equality,^' said he, "is 
 equity.^ If we have no right to impose conditions on 
 this State, we have none to impose them on the State of 
 Missouri. . . . The gentleman from New Hamp- 
 shire would find himself totally to fail in the attempt to 
 establish the position that, because the Territory of Mis- 
 souri was acquired by purchase, she is our vassal, and 
 we have a right to affix to her admission conditions not 
 applicable to the States on this side of the Mississippi. 
 The doctrine," said Mr. C, "is an alarming one, and I 
 protest against it now, and whenever or wherever it may 
 be asserted . . . that any line of distinction is to 
 be drawn between the Eastern and Western States." ^ 
 
 Again, in the debate, "A State in the quarter of the 
 country from which I come, said Mr. C, "asks to be ad- 
 mitted into the Union. What say the gentlemen who 
 ask the admission of the State of Maine into the Union? 
 Why, they will not admit Missouri without a condition 
 that strips it of an essential attribute of sovereignty. 
 What, then, do I say to them? That justice is due to 
 all parts of the Union : your State shall be admitted 
 free of conditions ; but, if you refuse to admit Missouri 
 also free of conditions, we see no reason why you shall 
 take to yourself privileges which you deny to her, and 
 until you grant them also to her, we will not admit 
 you. . . ." Although he might be forced to withhold 
 his assent to the admission of Maine if a majority of 
 this House should (which he trusted they would not) 
 
 ^ Italics are the author's. * 16th Cong., Sess. 1, Vol. 1, p. 835. 
 
60 The True History of 
 
 impose unconstitutional restrictions on the admission 
 of Missouri, he should do it with great reluctance/ 
 
 January the 26th, the Missouri bill being before the 
 House, Mr. Storrs (of New York) offered an amendment 
 to prohibit slavery in the Territories west of Missouri 
 and north of the 38th degree of latitude.^ 
 
 After debate in which Mr. Clay again took part, this 
 motion was negatived. 
 
 Then Mr. Taylor (of New York) came squarely out 
 with an amendment to prohibit slavery in the State of 
 Missouri. 
 
 The restriction read as follows : 
 
 ". . . and shall ordain and establish that there 
 shall be neither slavery nor involuntary servitude in said 
 State otherwise than in the punishment of crimes 
 whereof the parties shall have been duly convicted ; 
 provided always, that any person escaping into the same, 
 from whom labor or service is lawfully claimed in any 
 other State, such fugitives may be lawfully reclaimed 
 and conveyed to the person claiming his or her labor or 
 service as aforesaid ; and provided also, that the said pro- 
 vision shall not be construed to alter the condition or 
 civil rights of any person now held to service or labor 
 in the said Territory." ^ 
 
 And now began in earnest the battle for possession of 
 this beautiful State. The combat raged day by day and 
 from point to point ; foot by foot the ground was hotly 
 contested. All the changes were rung on every side of the 
 question ; Scripture was invoked to sustain ; humanity 
 to condemn ; the Constitution was analyzed ; the Or- 
 dinance of 1787 dissected ; the arguments of the orators 
 on both sides were able, their eloquence was impassioned, 
 but altered no one's opinion ; rather serving to confirm 
 and intensify the opposition and hostility of the two 
 sections. 
 
 t 
 1 16th Cong., Sess. 1, Vol. 1, p. 842. » Idem, p. 940. 
 
 3 Idem, p. 947. 
 
The Missouri Compromise and its Repeal. 61 
 
 Mr. Taylor, one of the ablest men of the North, con- 
 tended that Congress had the right to prohibit slavery ; 
 that "Missouri was a foreign province alien to our laws, 
 customs, and institutions. ... It sustained none 
 of the conflicts of the Revolution. ... Its admis- 
 sion without a restriction was opposed by a majority of 
 the States. . . . The right to hold slaves is em- 
 phatically a right of the States, and not a right of 
 United States citizenship, . . . consequently it was 
 not guaranteed to the inhabitants of this Territory by 
 treaty."^ 
 
 The inconsistency of the above is so apparent as 
 scarcely to need comment. The fact, which he admits, 
 that the States had the right to hold slaves, would of 
 necessity preclude the right of Congress to prohibit the 
 holding of them in any of the States — and the guarantee, 
 given in the treaty of purchase, that the Territory 
 should be incorporated in the Union as soon as possible, 
 according to the principles of the Federal Constitution, 
 secured the equality of rights to the States formed from 
 the territory purchased — whilst the protection to prop- 
 erty, also guaranteed by the treaty, would forbid any 
 such prohibition during the territorial condition of the 
 country purchased. 
 
 But the gist of his argument comes out a little later 
 on. He says : 
 
 "The representation in Congress allowed for slaves, as 
 I have before said, was a matter of compromise. . . . 
 It did not apply to foreign territory. 
 
 ". . . No express power is granted to Congress to 
 acquire territory. If it exists at all, it is by implication. 
 Thus on the implied power to acquire territory by treaty 
 you raise an implied right to erect it into States, and 
 imply a compromise by which slavery is to be estab- 
 lished, and its slaves represented in Congress. Is this 
 just? Is it fair? . . . But your lust of acquiring is 
 
 1 16th Cong., Sess. 1, Vol. 1, p. 945. 
 
62 The True History of 
 
 not yet satiated. You must have the Floridas. Your 
 ambition rises ; you covet Cuba and obtain it. You 
 stretch your arms to the other islands in the Gulf of 
 Mexico, and they become yours. Are the millions of 
 slaves inhabiting these countries too to be incorporated 
 into the Union and represented in Congress? 
 
 "Are the freemen of the old States to become the 
 slaves of the representatives of foreign slaves?"^ 
 
 Mr. Holmes (of Massachusetts) replied to Mr. Taylor. 
 Mr. Clay's eloquence had evidently touched him, for he 
 made a most powerful argument against the prohibition 
 of slavery in Missouri, where it had already existed for 
 years. He said : "I again appeal to the candor of that 
 gentleman (Mr. T.), and ask him whether he should 
 feel entirely easy if the slaves of Virginia were shut up 
 in New York, under this power which he advocates, and 
 it had come to their ears from any respectable source 
 that they were all free? . . . And yet, we can look 
 on and see this storm gathering ; hear its thunders and 
 witness its lightnings with great composure, with won- 
 derful philosophy! We are aware, gentlemen, that we 
 are diffusing sentiments which endanger your safety, 
 happiness and lives ; nay, more, the safety, happiness 
 and lives of those whom you value more than your own. 
 But it is a constitutional question. Keep cool. We are 
 conscious that we are inculcating doctrines that will re- 
 sult in spilling the best of your blood ; but, as this blood 
 will be spilt in the cause of humanity, keep cool. We 
 have no doubt that the promulgation of these principles 
 will be the means of cutting your throats ; but, as it will 
 be done in the most unexcei^tional manner possible, by 
 your slaves, who will no doubt perform the task in great 
 style and dexterity, and with much delicacy and human- 
 ity, too, therefore keep cool. 
 
 "Sir, speak to the wind, command the waves, ex- 
 postulate with the tempest, rebuke the thunder ; but 
 
 ' 16th Cong., Sess. 1, Vol. 1, p. 965. 
 
The Missouri Compromise and its Repeal. 63 
 
 never ask an honorable man, thus circumstanced, to 
 suppress his feelings." ' 
 
 Mr. Holmes further said : "The power to impose in- 
 cludes a power to enforce. How is this condition to be 
 enforced? . . . And, sir, if you can diminish, why 
 not increase, the political power of a new State? . . . 
 Diminish the political power of a new State, and you 
 accumulate a Federal control over it dangerous to the 
 other States. Increase it, and you put in jeopardy the 
 Union, . . . Where would be your State rights, if, 
 in addition to that yielded up by the Constitution, Con- 
 gress had a vast population subject to their control? 
 
 ". . . But we are told, in a memorial on your ta- 
 ble, from Boston, that Congress has on this subject un- 
 limited control ; that they can imj)ose any condition 
 which their 'justice, wisdom or policy may dictate.' 
 Indeed ! Has it come to this? Absolute power of Con- 
 gress, and from Boston, too ! Most of these gentlemen 
 have changed their tone since 1812, 1813 and 1814. 
 TTieji, their jealousy of Congress was such that they 
 would not allow them to determine when the country 
 was in danger of an invasion, but confined this power to 
 the exclusive discretion of their Governor. Now, abso- 
 lute power is conceded over the lives, liberties and prop- 
 erty of your Territories. Then, from a jealousy of your 
 powers, or an attachment to the then President,^ they 
 insisted, seriously insisted, that you should not have 
 their militia, unless the President should command 
 them in person, and obtained a judicial decision to 
 fortify them in this sage and prudent constitutional 
 stand. 
 
 "Sir, the hopes of the North and East are interwoven 
 with the prosperity of the South and West ; and yet we 
 have armed ourselves against them all. It is not with 
 
 1 16th Cong., Sess. 1, Vol. 1, p. 974. 
 
 ' Mr. Madison, whom the New England Federalists despised. 
 
64 The True History of 
 
 them a question of policy, of political power, but of 
 safety, peace, existence."^ 
 
 Mr. Smyth, of Virginia, asks : 
 
 "Can the old States, the first parties to this Union, 
 bind other States farther than they themselves are 
 bound? Can they bind the new States not to admit 
 slavery, and preserve to themselves the right to admit 
 slavery? ... It has been said (by Mr. King in his 
 pamphlet) that in Virginia, 25,659 free persons elect a 
 member of the House of Representatives, and that, in a 
 Northern State, 35,000 free persons elect a member. 
 Let us state the fact. A member from Vermont repre- 
 sents 35,000 persons only ; a member from Virginia rep- 
 resents more than 42,000 persons. 
 
 "A concession was indeed made in the Convention in 
 proportioning the Representatives among the States ; 
 but it seems to me that the Southern States made it in 
 agreeing to count only three-fifths of the slaves.^ 
 
 "But the gentleman said that 'the American nation 
 never sanctioned the right of slavery.' Sir, the old 
 Congress exjDressly sanctioned the right of slavery, in 
 September, 1782, when they passed this resolution : 
 'Resolved, that the Secretary of Foreign Affairs be, and 
 he is hereby, directed to obtain as speedily as possible, 
 authentic returns of the slaves and other property which 
 have been carried off or destroyed, in the course of the 
 war, by the enemy, and to transmit the same to the 
 Minister Plenipotentiary for negotiating peace.' They 
 sanctioned the right of slavery, when they commissioned 
 agents to obtain the delivery of all negroes and other 
 property of the inhabitants of the United States, in the 
 possession of the British forces, or any subjects of or 
 adherents to 'His Britannic Majesty.' They sanctioned 
 the right of slavery when they ratified the provisional 
 and definitive treaties of peace with Great Britain, con- 
 taining this clause : 'His Britannic Majesty shall, with 
 
 1 16th Cong., Sess. 1, Vol. 1, pp. 984-986, 988, 989. ^ Idem, pp. 992-995. 
 
The Missouri Compromise and its Repeal. 65 
 
 all convenient speed, without causing any destruction, 
 or carrying away any negroes or other property of the 
 American inhabitants, withdraw all his armies.' They 
 recognized the right of slavery in April, 1793, by pro- 
 viding for an enumeration of the free persons in the 
 States, and three-fifths of the slaves. The whole nation 
 sanctioned the right of slavery by adopting the Consti- 
 tution, which provides for an enumeration of the slaves, 
 a representation founded thereon, and for the restoration 
 of fugitive slaves to their masters, acknowledging the 
 obligation of State laws, which hold men to labor or 
 service. 
 
 "It has been urged as a reason for violating the treaty 
 with France, that the present government of that nation 
 will not insist on the strict performance of its stipula- 
 tions. . . , Will you be unjust, false, perfidious, 
 because you are powerful? ... I trust that the 
 only inquiry that this government will make in relation 
 to the treaty with France, is, what have we engaged to 
 perform? It will never condescend to inquire, what is 
 the penalty if we violate our faith, and who will enforce 
 it? Shall we, at the moment when our envoy at the 
 court of Spain proclaims aloud that this government 
 will punish perfidy, violate our faith pledged to France, 
 because, as the great Napoleon no longer reigns, we ex- 
 pect the violation might pass unpunished? . 
 
 "You received a deed of trust of this Territory ; and if 
 you do not perform the trust, you have no title. It was 
 said at the last session : 'We purchased the Territory 
 and had a right to sell it ; therefore we may annex such 
 conditions to its admission to the Union as we please.' 
 It is true that you paid money for the Territory, but 
 you took a conditional deed, and are bound by the con- 
 ditions in the deed. You have no right to sell it to a 
 foreign power, for you have bound yourselves to incorpo- 
 rate the inhabitants in the Union of the United States 
 according to the principles of the Federal Constitution. 
 . . . Can these inhabitants be incorporated in the 
 
66 The True History of 
 
 Union of the United States, and their enjoyment of their 
 religion, liberty and property, be afterward rendered in- 
 secure by Congress? The great advocate,^ for depriving 
 them of their property says expressly : 'Congress has no 
 power to prevent the free enjoyment of the Catholic re- 
 ligion.' Then it is equally certain that Congress has no 
 power to prevent the free enjoyment of property ; for 
 religion and property are alike secured to them by the 
 same clause of the treaty, and by those provisions of the 
 Constitution which declare that Congress shall make no 
 law respecting an establishment of religion ; that prop- 
 erty shall not be taken for public use without just com- 
 pensation, etc. . . . The proposed measure, recom- 
 mended under the mask of humanity, would be extreme 
 cruelty to the blacks. . . . The Southern people, 
 seeing that they must rely on themselves for safety, will, 
 if they have common prudence, take precaution for their 
 security. Already the slaves experience the effects of 
 your intermeddling with their situation. Since the in- 
 cendiary speeches of the last session, Georgia has put a 
 stop to manumission, and North Carolina has essayed to 
 put a stop to instruction." . . . ,, 
 
 Mr. Smyth then calls attention to the fact that "the 
 manumitted negroes in our country object with disdain 
 to the plan of the colonization society for settling the 
 free blacks in Africa. They claim that the slaves shall 
 be emancipated, and remain in the country ; that they 
 and their posterity shall constitute a portion of the 
 sovereign American people. 
 
 "The philosophers, the Abolition societies and socie- 
 ties of friends to the negroes, in Europe, who were not 
 at all interested in negro slavery themselves, produced 
 the catastrophe of St. Domingo. The philanthropists, 
 societies, and popular meetings of the North are pursu- 
 ing a similar course. Like causes produce like effects. 
 Our philanthropists may acquire as good a title to the 
 
 1 Mr, King, in his pamphlet. 
 
The Missouri Compromise and its Repeal. 67 
 
 execration of the Southern people as Robespierre and 
 Gregoire acquired to the execration of the French people 
 of St. Domingo. ... I will not apologize for hav- 
 ing taken up some of your time. I have raised my 
 feeble voice for the preservation of the Union, and all 
 its happy and glorious results ; for justice, humanity, 
 and domestic tranquillity ; to preserve our citizens from 
 massacre, our wives and daughters from violation, and 
 our children from being impaled ' by the most inhuman 
 of savages. Whatever may be the result, I have done 
 my duty."^ 
 
 Neither will the author apologize for introducing to 
 the reader, even at some length, these men of a past age 
 as they reveal themselves in their true characters, and 
 embodying and reflecting, as they did, the opinions and 
 temper of their times. In no other way could those 
 opinions and differences of feeling be so strikingly por- 
 trayed. In no other way could there so pass before you, 
 as in a panorama, the living, breathing images of those 
 men, with their passions, their prejudices, their affec- 
 tions, their interests, their principles, their hopes and 
 their fears. In Mr. Taylor we have the embodiment of 
 that aggressive Northern radicalism which afterward 
 became Abolitionism ; in Mr. Holmes, that admirable 
 Northern conservatism of which Mr. Webster became 
 the chief exemplar ; in Mr. Smyth, the South claiming 
 justice as her due and the Constitution as her shield ; 
 whilst Mr. Clay stood the impersonation of States' rights 
 under the Constitution, speaking out boldly, as he always 
 did, for the rights of the States to self-government and 
 to full equality in the Union. There was then no se- 
 cession feeling in the South, and no representative of 
 such a policy there — the danger of disunion all coming 
 from the extreme Northern radicals. 
 
 * Edwards' West Indies, page 75. " Their standard was the body of a 
 ■white infant, which they had recently impaled on a stake." Id., 
 p. 1021. 
 
 » 16th Cong., Sess. 1, Vol. 1, pp. 992-1021. 
 
68 The True History of 
 
 The next proposition as to "compromise" comes from 
 Mr. Hardin, of Kentucky, who suggests "that this mat- 
 ter can be settled with great facility" if both parties 
 will agree by drawing a line due West to the Pacific from 
 Missouri — admitting Missouri without restriction. North 
 of the line prohibiting slavery, South of the line admit- 
 ting it. As, however, the parties had no idea of agree- 
 ing, this proposition did not materialize ; and Mr. Hemp- 
 hill, of Pennsylvania, a very superior man, said regarding 
 it: "It will be impossible to compromise a question of 
 this character. A compromise usually has for its basis 
 mutual concessions which are equally obligatory ; but, if we 
 should pass a law excluding slavery from the remaining 
 territory, where would be the security that another Con- 
 gress would not repeal it f It will be but an ordinary act 
 of legislation, and whenever there shall be an application 
 for a new State, we shall be met with the same consti- 
 tutional objections that now exist. It is, in fact, yield- 
 ing all for which we have been contending, and if we 
 once give up the ship slavery will be tolerated in the 
 State of Missouri, and we can never after remove it." * 
 
 On February the 8th, "Mr. Clay (Speaker) rose and 
 addressed the committee four hours against the right 
 and expediency of the proposed restriction." ' 
 
 This speech was not reported, but we gather the drift 
 of it from Mr. Plumer, of New Hampshire, who says : 
 "I should enlarge, sir, upon this topic, but I perceive 
 that it is one which excites no very pleasant feelings in 
 our Southern brethren ; and I am driven from it by the 
 stern tones and repulsive gestures with which the honor- 
 able Speaker (Mr. Clay) has warned us not to obtrude 
 upon him with our New England notions. Sir, what 
 are these notions? Liberty, equality, the rights of man. 
 These are the notions which, if we cherish, we must 
 cherish in secret — which, if we entertain, we must en- 
 tertain by ourselves. These are the notions which we 
 
 ^ 16th Cong., Sess. 1, Vol. 1, p. 1134. Italics are the author's. 
 2 Idem, p. 1170. 
 
The Missouri Compromise and its Repeal. 69 
 
 must cast aside when we leave our owu happy homes, 
 and which, if by chance they find their way into this 
 hall, are to be repelled with the charges of folly, of fa- 
 naticism, of a negrophobia." ' 
 
 The speaking went on, for and against, until nearly 
 the close of the -winter — Mr. Randolph's speeches being 
 rarely reported, as many of Mr. Clay's were not — but 
 both of them, as well as every other Southern man, being 
 most pronounced in their denunciation of the restriction 
 proposed, as may be gathered from the many references 
 to their speeches and opinions by opposing speakers. 
 
 Meantime the Senate, having on the 3d day of Jan- 
 uary taken up the House bill, which had just passed, for 
 the admission of Maine, Mr. Barbour, of Virginia, pro- 
 posed that it be "committed to the Committee on Judi- 
 ciary, with instructions so to amend it as to authorize 
 the people of Missouri to establish a State government 
 and to admit such State into the Union upon an equal 
 footing with the original States in all respects what- 
 ever." == 
 
 The bill was so committed, and so amended as to au- 
 thorize "the people of the Territory of Missouri to form 
 a Constitution, etc., preparatory to their admission into 
 the Union." 
 
 The Senate having taken up the bill, Mr. Roberts (of 
 Pennsylvania) moved that it be "recommitted to the 
 Judiciary Committee, with instructions so to modify 
 its provisions as to admit the State of Maine into the 
 Union (divested of the amendment embracing Mis- 
 souri.) " ^ 
 
 The discussion on this subject was of the same char- 
 acter as those in the House ; it being contended on the 
 one side that Congress was bound to admit Missouri 
 whenever she presented herself with the requisite popu- 
 lation ; that her claim was, by virtue of the treaty, 
 
 ' 16th Cong., Sess. 1, Vol. 2, p. 1426. » Idem, Vol. 1, p. 54. 
 
 ' Idem, p. 85. 
 
- The True History of 
 
 stronger even than that of Maine ; that if the right ex- 
 isted to impose a restriction on Missouri to prohibit 
 slavery, the equal right existed to impose a restriction 
 upon Maine, to compel her to admit slavery. The other 
 side claiming that Maine was a part of the old Terri- 
 tory — her Constitution was already formed, with the 
 consent of the State from which she was to be sepa- 
 rated ; there was no dispute about her limits, or about 
 the justice of her admission. And there was no pro- 
 priety in joining the two bills, so as to keep Maine out, 
 because of any difficulty in the way of Missouri's com- 
 ing in. 
 
 The vote on recommitment was taken on January 14th, 
 and it was negatived by 25 to 18.^ 
 
 The Senate thus refused to separate the conjunction 
 of the two States of Maine and Missouri. 
 
 Of the above votes, twenty of the twenty-five were 
 Southern ; the other five. Northern. Placing New Jersey 
 as a Northern State and Delaware as a Southern, the vote 
 of the Senate stood 22 to 22. So, to carry any measure, the 
 North must receive some Southern votes, and, vice versa, 
 the South must receive some Northern votes. In this 
 instance, those who voted with the South were Messrs. 
 Thomas and Edwards, of Illinois ; Taylor, of Indiana ; 
 and Palmer and Parrott, of New Hampshire and Ver- 
 mont. The two senators from Delaware voted on the 
 Northern side — Mr. King, of New York, not there. 
 
 Mr. Roberts (of Pennsylvania) next moved "that the 
 further introduction into said State (of Missouri) of 
 persons to be held to slavery or involuntary servitude 
 within same, shall be absolutely and irrevocably prohib- 
 ited." ^ 
 
 On January 18, Mr. Thomas {of Illinois) asked leave 
 to bring in "a bill to prohibit the introduction of slavery 
 into the Territories of the United States north and west of the 
 contemplated State of Missouri.^ ^ ^ 
 
 1 16th Cong., Sess. 1, Vol. 1, p. 118. ' Idem, p. 119. 
 
 ^ Idem, p. 158. Italics are the author's. 
 
The Missouri Compromise and its Repeal. 71 
 
 The speaking still went on day by day ; no other sub- 
 ject seems to have engaged the attention of the Senate. 
 The Ordinance of 1787 is again dissected and analyzed — 
 the one party claiming it as authority for the prohibition 
 of slavery in the Territories, the other declaring it un- 
 authorized by the Articles of the Confederation, and 
 therefore not constitutional in principle ; the one side 
 claiming it as a compact, the other insisting it was no 
 compact at all. 
 
 Both sides approach the Constitution "with a kind of 
 reverential awe," as a "hallowed instrument," but mu- 
 tually seek to extract from it argument and justification 
 for their differing views. The Northern men declared 
 that they were far more devoted to the principles of lib- 
 erty than the men of the South. The South retorts by 
 asking: "Who first fanned the sacred flame of freedom 
 on this Continent? A Virginian — a native of a slave- 
 holding State.* Who penned the immortal Declaration 
 of Independence? A native of a slaveholding State. ^ 
 Who led your Revolutionary armies to battle and to vic- 
 tory? A native of a slaveholding State.' . . . Who 
 was first called by the unanimous voice of his country- 
 men to preside over the destinies of the new govern- 
 ment? A native of a slaveholding State. ^ . . ."^ 
 
 And Mr, Burke is quoted as saying of the Southern 
 Colonies in 1775: "There is, however, a circumstance 
 attending these Colonies which . . . makes the 
 spirit of liberty still more high and haughty than those 
 of the Northward. It is that, in Virginia and the Car- 
 olinas, they have a vast multitude of slaves. Where 
 this is the case in any part of the world, those who are 
 free are by far the most proud and jealous of their 
 freedom." * 
 
 It was also shown that the South contributed indi- 
 rectly far more to the support of the government than 
 
 ^ Patrick Henry. "^ Jefferson. ' "Washington. 
 
 * 16th Cong., Sess. 1, Vol. 1, p. 162. * Idem, p. 228. 
 
72 The True History of 
 
 the North did — that tlie exports of the North for the last 
 year amounted to only eighteen millions of dollars, 
 while those from the slaveholding States amounted to 
 about thirty-two millions ; and that those States fur- 
 nished the Treasury with nearly double the amount the 
 Northern and Eastern States did, if the dutiable imports 
 were regulated by the exports, which is generally true.^ 
 And Mr. Macon (of North Carolina) , one of the ablest 
 and purest men of his day, concludes : 
 
 "The treaty is as plain as the Constitution. The 
 people are to be protected in their property, and slaves 
 were property both before and since its ratification. If 
 the property in slaves be destroyed by indirect means, it 
 is as much a violation of the treaty as if it were done 
 directly. Pass the amendment and the property in them 
 is indirectly destroyed ; and yet it is the only property 
 secured to the owner by the Constitution." ^ 
 
 One more quotation : "Old Tecumseh" ^ (Richard M. 
 Johnson, of Kentucky) expresses himself so naively, 
 and so in accordance with the sentiment then prevailing 
 at the South in regard to the "white slaves of the 
 North," as to make his remarks very striking. "When 
 I first came to Congress," said he, "it was with mingled 
 emotions of horror and surprise that I saw citizens 
 from the non-slaveholding States, as they are called — 
 yes, and both branches of our National Legislature — 
 riding in a coach and four, with a white servant seated 
 before, managing the reins, another standing behind the 
 coach, and both of these white servants in livery. Is 
 this, said I to myself, the degraded condition of the citi- 
 
 ^As the years rolled on, the marked superiority of the contribution 
 from the South to the revenue of the country became more and more 
 apparent, as was evidenced in Mr. Lincoln's reply in 1861 to some dia- 
 unionists of the North, who said, " Let the South go." " If," said Mr. 
 Lincoln, "we let the South go, where will we get our revenue f " — Author. 
 
 = 16th Cong., Sess. 1, Vol. 1, p. 231. 
 
 ^ Mr. Johnson was called "Old Tecumseh" because he was said to 
 have killed the noted Indian chief of that name at the Battle of the 
 Thames. 
 
The Missouri Compromise and its Repeal. 73 
 
 zen on whose voice the liberties of a nation may de- 
 pend? . . . Yet, sir, none are more lavish of their 
 censures against slaveholders than those lordlings with 
 livery servants of their own complexion." ^ 
 
 When Mr. Johnson had concluded, "no other gentle- 
 man rising to speak" — says the chronicler with uncon- 
 scious irony — the vote was taken on Mr. Roberts' re- 
 strictive amendment, and it was defeated by 27 to 16, 
 6 Northern votes being joined to 21 Southern. This was 
 on February Ist.^ 
 
 On the 3d, Mr. Thomas, Senator from Illinois, and 
 one of the Northerners who had helped to vote down 
 Mr. Roberts' amendment, "submitted the following ad- 
 ditional section as an amendment to the Missouri Bill 
 (which it was proposed by a report of the Judiciary 
 Committee to incorporate with the Maine Bill) , viz : 
 'And be it further enacted, that in all that tract of 
 country ceded by France to the United States, under the 
 name of Louisiana, which lies north of thirty-six degrees 
 and thirty minutes north latitude, excepting only such 
 part thereof as is included within the limits of the State 
 contemplated by this act, there shall be neither slavery 
 nor involuntary servitude otherwise than in the punish- 
 ment of crimes whereof the party shall have been duly 
 convicted. Provided always, that any person escaping 
 into the same, from whom labor or service is lawfully 
 claimed in any State or Territory of the United States, 
 such fugitive may be lawfully reclaimed and conveyed 
 to the person claiming his or her labor or service as 
 aforesaid.' "' 
 
 On the 7th, Mr. Thomas withdrew this amendment 
 for the purpose of modifying it or introducing it in some 
 other shape. 
 
 On the 16th, the vote was taken (the speaking mean- 
 time having gone on uninterruptedly) on the question 
 
 1 16th Cong., Sess. 1, Vol. 1, pp. 348, 349. ' Idem, p. 359. 
 
 » Idem, p. 363. 
 
74 The True History of 
 
 of uniting the Maine and Missouri Bills in one, and 
 was carried by 23 to 21, the 2 Illinois Senators and 1 
 Indiana voting for the conjunction, the 2 Delaware 
 Senators against it.' 
 
 Then Mr. Thomas offered another amendment in place 
 of the one above, which he had withdrawn, as follows : 
 
 "And be it further enacted, that the 6th Article of the 
 compact of the Ordinance of Congress, passed on the 
 13th day of July, one thousand seven hundred and 
 eighty-seven, for the government of the Territory of the 
 United States north-west of the river Ohio, shall to all 
 intents and purposes be, and hereby is, deemed and 
 held applicable to, and shall have full force and effect 
 in and over, all that tract of country ceded by France 
 to the United States, under the name of Louisiana, 
 which lies north of thirty-six degrees and thirty min- 
 utes north latitude, excepting only such part thereof as 
 is included within the limits of the State contemplated 
 by this act." 2 
 
 Various amendments were offered after this, but none 
 agreed upon, and finally, on the next day, Mr. Thomas 
 withdrew his last amendment making the 6th Article of 
 the Ordinance of 1787 applicable to the Territory of 
 Louisiana, and offered instead the first amendment as 
 given above, which embraced the celebrated Compromise 
 line of 36° 30', which was repealed in 1854. It carried 
 by 34 to 10, the negatives being 8 Southern votes and 2 
 Northern ; the affirmatives 20 Northern votes and 14 
 Southern.' 
 
 Then the vote was taken on the entire bill, and it 
 passed by 24 to 20. Of the majority, 20 were Southern, 
 4 Northern votes — of the minority, 18 were Northern, 2 
 Southern.* 
 
 1 16th Cong., Sess. 1, Vol. 1, p. 424. » Idem, p. 426. 
 
 3 Idem, p. 428. 
 
 * Thomas' Amendment, voted on Feb. 17, 1820 : 
 
 For Amendment — Messrs. Brown, Burrill, Dana, Dickerson, Eaton, Ed- 
 wards, Horsey, Hunter, Johnson of Kentucky, Johnson of Louisiana, 
 
The Missouri Compromise and its Repeal . 75 
 
 The votes, as given above, are fully indicative of the 
 status of feeling in the Senate. The South was for not 
 admitting Maine at all, unless Missouri should be ad- 
 mitted along with her ; whilst the North was, with a 
 few exceptions, bitterly opposed to the admission of 
 Missouri unless with the restriction as to slavery. 
 
 On the amendment embracing the prohibition of 
 slavery in the Territories, the Northern vote was solid, 
 excepting the 2 Senators from Indiana, Taylor and 
 Noble — also 14 Southern men in the Senate voted 
 for it ; and without these Southern votes the measure could 
 not have been carried. But 8 Southern men, the 
 most able and distinguished among them, refused their 
 assent, and voted against it. The entire bill, as amended, 
 was carried by Southern votes mainly, only 2 South- 
 erners, Mr. Macon and Mr. Smyth voting against it, 
 whilst 18 Northerners voted against it, and only 4 for 
 it. So that it went out to the world as a Southern 
 measure, because it was carried by Southern votes 
 through the Senate, as against the votes of the majority 
 of the Northern members. 
 
 That Southern men should have voted for a bill con- 
 taining a measure to which they were so violently op- 
 posed, against the motive principle of which they had 
 been speaking almost daily, for two sessions, and had 
 
 King of Alabama, King of New York, Lanman, Leake, Lloyd, Logan, 
 Lowrie, Mellen, Morril, Otis, Palmer, Parrott, Pinkney, Roberts, Rug- 
 gles, Sandford, Stokes, Thomas, Tichenor, Trimble, Van Dyke, Walker 
 of Alabama, "Williams of Tennessee, and Wilson — 34. 
 
 Against Amendment — Messrs. Barbour, Elliot, Gaillard, Macon, Noble, 
 Pleasants, Smith, Taylor, Walker of Georgia, and Williams of Missis- 
 sippi — 10. 
 
 For Entire Bill — Messrs. Barbour, Brown, Eaton, Edwards, Elliot, 
 Gaillard, Horsey, Hunter, Johnson of Kentucky, Johnson of Louisiana, 
 King of Alabama, Leake, Lloyd, Logan, Parrott, Pinkney, Pleasants, 
 Stokes, Thomas, Van Dyke, Walker of Alabama, Walker of Georgia, 
 Williams of Mississippi, Williams of Tennessee — 24. 
 
 Against Entire Bill — Messrs. Burrill, Dana, Dickerson, King of New 
 York, Lanman, Lowrie, Macon, IMellen, Noble, Otis, Palmer, Roberts, 
 Euggles, Sandford, Smith, Taylor, Tichenor, Trimble and Wilson— 20. 
 
76 The True History of 
 
 denounced as fiercely as it could be done in the English 
 language — which they had declared to be in violation of 
 their rights of property, of citizenship and of equality 
 in the Union — would be unnacountable without some 
 knowledge of the pressure brought to bear upon them. 
 
 Although the Senate was so equally divided, the North 
 had a majority in the House, 23 or 24, and this majority 
 was unalterably opposed to Missouri's admission unless 
 her negroes were first set free, and set free in her midst. 
 For there was not a single proposition to remove the 
 freed negroes from the States ; and when Mr. Meigs (of 
 New York) had proposed during the session to devote a 
 portion of the public lands to raising a fund for coloniz- 
 ing freed negroes of the States in Africa, his proposal 
 was laid on the table without discussion even.^ 
 
 The entire winter had passed. The House w^as still 
 wrangling, and arguing, and debating, and working 
 itself more and more into a passion. The Southern 
 men were fully determined never to consent to the set- 
 ting free of the slaves in Missouri ; for it was settled up 
 by their kinsmen, their neighbors and their friends, and 
 they felt an inconceivable horror of the turning loose, 
 in this prosperous and lovely State, of a set of beings, 
 who, from being docile, useful, cheerful and industrious, 
 as laborers, would become, with perhaps but few excep- 
 tions, as the first fruits of their freedom, both paupers 
 and criminals of the worst sort. They realized too, that 
 this might be but the beginning of the end. If Con- 
 gress could by a mere act deprive the citizens of Missouri 
 of their property without any compensation, notwith- 
 standing this property was guaranteed to them by both 
 Constitution and treaty, what could hinder this or 
 another Congress from applying the same power to the 
 other States? If this Congress could by a mere decla- 
 ration turn the slaves of Missouri loose among the 
 citizens of that State, why could not this or another 
 
 > 16th Cong., Sess. 1, Vol. 1, pp. 1113, 1114. 
 
The Missouri Compromise and its Repeal. 77 
 
 Congress apply the like power to every State that owned 
 slaves, and so involve the whole South in one common 
 ruin? 
 
 But the Northern majority were equally resolved that 
 slavery should never be extended across the Mississippi 
 River, and in the equality of votes in the Senate lay the 
 only hope of the South for any sort of justice or safety. 
 "When, then, in this difficult position of affairs, Mr. 
 Thomas, of Illinois, made the proposition to admit Mis- 
 souri with her slaves, but to prohibit slavery in all the 
 rest of the Territories north of 36° 30', the majority of 
 the Southern Senators accepted it as the only solution of 
 the difficulty which seemed possible or attainable. By 
 its adoption Missouri could gain her admission without 
 setting her slaves free (making of her a second St. 
 Domingo) , the Union be preserved intact, and the treaty 
 with Napoleon fulfilled ; which last was a point of honor 
 with them. The Territory to which the prohibition ap- 
 plied was unsettled, had been but little explored, was 
 possessed by hostile tribes of Indians ; its value but 
 little known or appreciated ; its future shadowy and un- 
 real ; whereas Missouri was a beautiful and present real- 
 ity in imminent danger of destruction and anarchy. It 
 doubtless seemed to them the only thing that they could 
 do ; and it is not for us to judge them, in that they sac- 
 rificed constitutional right on the altar of expediency, 
 when they voted, under this tremendous double pressure 
 of love for the Union, and self-preservation, for a measure 
 which they believed to be radically wrong, and incon- 
 sistent with the Constitution which they had hitherto 
 held so sacred. 
 
 The majority of the Northern Senators voted against 
 the bill for the admission of Missouri, even with the 
 prohibition in the Territories as the condition, but had 
 voted straight out for that prohibition, unconstitutional 
 as it was, with two honored exceptions, Mr. Taylor and 
 Mr. Noble, of Indiana. 
 
 And now the question arises : Could the votes of a 
 
78 The True History of 
 
 mere majority lend any color of constitutionality to this 
 measure, when it was per se not in accordance with the 
 Constitution? And was there a single line in the Con- 
 stitution to authorize any majority in the Senate or the 
 House to vote away the rights of a vast number of citi- 
 zens in the Territories, which certainly belonged to the 
 whole people equally and alike? On the contrary, in 
 the clause giving Congress the power "to dispose of and 
 make all needful rules and regulations respecting the 
 Territory or other property belonging to the United 
 States," it was expressly declared that "nothing in this 
 Constitution shall be so construed as to prejudice any 
 claims of the United States, or of any particular State." 
 And yet this prohibiting act did prejudice the claims of 
 an entire group of States, inasmuch as it practically 
 precluded their citizens from entering the Territory-, in 
 that it forbade their taking the labor to which they were 
 accustomed with them ; and to which labor they were 
 entitled by virtue of the right of property, both under 
 the Constitution and previous to its formation. 
 
 The bill, as amended by the Senate, was sent to the 
 House, and, on the 25th of February, was defeated in 
 that body by a vote of 159 to 18 — the House thus reject- 
 ing all the amendments of the Senate to the Maine Bill, 
 and showing, as plainly as it could be shown, the oppo- 
 sition of both the Northern and Southern sections to the 
 bill which united the two measures relatively opposed 
 by each of them in toto. 
 
 For the North was quite as much opposed to the ad- 
 mission of Missouri with slavery, as the South was op- 
 posed to its prohibition in the Territories. 
 
 On the 25th, the Missouri Bill being under considera- 
 tion by the House, Mr. Taylor's proposed restriction was 
 agreed to by about 12 or 18 votes. ^ 
 
 The next day, Mr. Storrs (of New York) offered the 
 Thomas amendment in place of this restriction. Mr. 
 
 ^ 16th Cong., Sess. 1, Vol. 2, p. 1540. 
 
The Missouri Compromise and its Repeal. 79 
 
 Randolph rose and spoke more than four hours against 
 both amendment and restriction.^ 
 
 On Monday, the 28th, a message was received from 
 the Senate that "they insist on their amendments to the 
 bill for the admission of Maine into the Union, which 
 had been disagreed to by this House. ^ 
 
 The vote was taken whether the House should insist 
 on its disagreement to the said amendment ; and decided 
 in the affirmative, by 97 to 76, as to those sections which 
 joined the Missouri on to the Maine Bill ; and by 160 to 
 14, as to the ninth section, which embraced the Com- 
 promise principles.^ 
 
 Again showing by this vote the intense opposition of 
 the North to the entrance of Missouri as a slave State, 
 and the equally intense opposition on the part of the 
 South to the prohibition of slavery in the Territories. 
 "The House then again went into Committee of the 
 Whole on the Missouri Bill (Mr. Cobb in the Chair)." * 
 
 Mr. Storrs' proposition to insert the Thomas amend- 
 ment was then taken up, spoken on, voted on, and de- 
 feated.* 
 
 Other amendments were ofifered by Mr. Taylor, and 
 opposed by Mr. Clay, Mr. Randolph, and others ; when 
 Mr. Taylor moved : "And if the same (the Constitution) 
 shall be approved by Congress at their next session after 
 the receipt thereof, the said Territory shall be admitted 
 into the Union as a State, upon the same footing as the 
 original States. . . . The motion was advocated by 
 the mover, and earnestly opposed by Messrs. Scott, Clay, 
 and Mercer — the vote taken, and the motion negatived 
 by 84 to 75.^ 
 
 "Mr. Storrs then offered an amendment, in effect, to 
 transfer the restrictive amendment already adopted, to the 
 sixth section of the bill (which embraces the provisions 
 in the nature of compact) , and so modify it as to make 
 
 1 16th Cong., Sess. 1, Vol. 2, p. 1541. ' Idem, p. 1552. 
 
 » Idem, p. 1554. * Idem, p. 1555. Mdem, p. 1556. 
 
80 The True History of 
 
 it a recommendation for the Jree acceptance or rejection of 
 the Convention of Missouri, as an article of compact^ to 
 exclude slavery, instead of enjoining it, as an absolute 
 condition of admission. 
 
 "Mr, Clay seconded the motion, and, with the mover, 
 zealously urged the adoption of the amendment. It was 
 opposed as zealously by Messrs. Taylor, Sergeant, and 
 Gross, of New York.* 
 
 "Mr. Storrs finally withdrew it, as doubts were ex- 
 pressed as to its being in order in its present shape. 
 Then Mr. Clay renewed the amendment in substance, 
 but so changing the manner of inserting it in the bill as 
 to avoid the objection as to the point of order. 
 
 "The debate was renewed on the proposition and 
 continued with undiminished zeal by Mr. Clay, in its 
 support, and by Messrs. Taylor, Sergeant, Randolph, 
 and Cook against it." ^ 
 
 Now, this is the only motion made by Mr. Clay (and 
 this was negatived) in all this long contest ; and this 
 was a motion to make the restriction upon Missouri as 
 to slavery, which had already passed the House, a matter 
 of ^Recommendation for Missouri's free acceptance or re- 
 jection,^' "instead of enjoining it as an absolute con- 
 dition of her admission." In this Mr. Clay again ap- 
 pears as the advocate and champion of the full sov- 
 ereignty of the States — and how this motion could ever 
 have been twisted, or metamorphosed, or transformed, 
 so as to have represented the "Missouri Compromise," 
 with Mr. Clay as its author, is one of those historical 
 enigmas of which Mr. Clay himself said, in his great 
 speech of February 6, 1850: "I beg to be allowed to 
 correct a great error, not merely in the Senate, but 
 throughout the whole country, in respect to my agency 
 in regard to the Missouri Compromise, or, rather, the 
 line of 36° 30', which was established upon the occasion 
 of the admission of Missouri into the Union." 
 
 1 16th Cong., Sess. 1, Vol. 2, p. 1556. ^ Idem, p. 1557. 
 
The Missouri Compromise and its Repeal. 81 
 
 He goes on to say that the majority of the Southern 
 members voted for the line — "but, as I was Speaker of 
 the House, and as the journal does not show which way 
 the Speaker votes, except in the case of a tie, I am not 
 able to tell with certainty how I actually did vote ; but 
 I have no earthly doubt that I voted in common with 
 my other Southern friends for the adoption of the line 
 of 36° 30'." . . .* 
 
 This statement by Mr. Clay, though strictly true, yet 
 given without the accompanying circumstances, was 
 well calculated to still mislead the people as to his real 
 position, as well as to the real position of his Southern 
 friends. So, we find Mr. Blaine, in his history, saying : 
 "Thirty years after, Mr. Clay called attention to the 
 fact that he had received undeserved credit for the Mis- 
 souri Compromise of 1820, which he had supported, "^ hut 
 not originated. " We have seen, however, that Mr. Clay 
 did not support this measure, though he may have voted 
 for it, at the last moment, as the only alternative to dis- 
 union — which was certainly the only motive which could 
 have induced the Southern men to consent to what they 
 believed to be not only a violation of the Constitution, 
 but the greatest wrong to themselves and their posterity, 
 not only as regarded territory, but also as regarded their 
 rightful equality in the Union of the States. 
 
 It is not shown that Mr. Clay offered any opposition 
 to this special measure ; but he had no opportunity to do 
 so, for it was not brought up in the House until after 
 the restriction on Missouri had been passed by the 
 House, and then was offered as a substitute for that re- 
 striction at a time when the crisis appeared to be a 
 desperate one, and it had become simply a choice 
 between two evils to accept the least. But Mr. Clay's 
 views and principles in regard to restriction as to 
 slavery in the Territories were abundantly shown in the 
 
 ^ Appendix to Cong. Globe, Vol. 22, p. 124. ^ Italics by author. 
 
 6 
 
82 The True History of 
 
 Arkansas contest the session previous, when he not only 
 opj)Osed any restriction whatever there, but, hy his vote, 
 when there was a tie, decided the question against re- 
 striction. So that Mr. Clay could not, without the 
 greatest inconsistency (a fault of which no man ever 
 convicted him) , have either supported the Compromise 
 of 1820 or have afterward claimed credit for having sup- 
 ported it, as virtually stated by Mr. Blaine. 
 
 The ground has been taken by some writers that the 
 true Compromise was made a year later, when Missouri 
 was finally admitted into the Union under an act which 
 Mr. Clay did propose. If that were so, then the so- 
 called Compromise was not a compact at all, nor could 
 it be justly claimed as such ; and there was no ground 
 whatever for accusing the South of a breach of faith 
 toward the North in the repeal, in 1854, of the pro- 
 hibitory section of the Act of 1820. If it were not so, 
 then the refusal to admit Missouri under that so-called 
 Compromise Act, in 1821, utterly deprived it of the es- 
 sential feature of a compact, for when broken by one 
 party to it, it could not as a compact be binding on the 
 other side. 
 
 There is one very striking view of the above and only 
 motion recorded as having been made by Mr. Clay. It 
 contains the first germ of that doctrine of non-intervention 
 by Congress on the subject of slavery, so signally ad- 
 vanced and maintained by the great Commoner in the 
 struggle of 1850 (as by Mr. Calhoun in 1838) , and of 
 which the repeal, in 1854, of the Compromise of 1820 
 was but the logical outcome. 
 
 Meantime, the House having insisted on its disagree- 
 ment to the bill from the Senate, that body asked for a 
 committee of conference, to which the House agreed, 
 and on February 29th, appointed Mr. Holmes (of Massa- 
 chusetts) , Mr, Taylor (of New York) , Mr. Lowndes (of 
 South Carolina) , Mr. Parker (of Massachusetts) , and 
 Mr. Kinsey (of New Jersey), "to be the managers of 
 the said conference on the part of this House." 
 
The Missouri Compromise and its Repeal. 83 
 
 Then after many amendments and much speaking, 
 the House, on the 2d of March, passed the bill for the 
 admission of Missouri with the restrictive amendment 
 offered by Mr. Taylor, and adopted in the Committee of 
 the Whole, and sent it to the Senate for concurrence. 
 
 The Senate at once returned the bill to the House with 
 an amendment, which was to strike out the slavery re- 
 striction and insert instead Mr. Thomas' amendment. 
 Mr. Holmes requested the message from the Senate to 
 be laid on the table long enough for him to make the 
 report from the Conference Committee, which was in 
 substance, that the Senate withdraw all their amend- 
 ments to the bill for the admission of Maine, and that 
 the House substitute the Thomas amendment for the 
 Taylor restriction in the bill for the admission of 
 Missouri. 
 
 There was more speaking on all sides of the question. 
 The last speaker but one, before the vote was taken, was 
 Mr. Stephens (of Connecticut) . 
 
 He said : "But, sir, we have now arrived at a point 
 at which every gentleman agrees something must be 
 done. A precipice lies before us, at which perdition is 
 inevitable. Gentlemen on both sides of this question, 
 and in both Houses, indoors and out of doors, have 
 evinced a determination that augurs ill of the high 
 destinies of this country. And who does not tremble 
 for the consequences?" ^ 
 
 The question was first put on concurring with the 
 Senate in striking out the slavery restriction on the State 
 of Missouri, and passed by 90 to 87. 
 
 Then the question was taken on concurring with the 
 Senate as to inserting in the bill, in lieu of the slavery 
 restriction, the clause inhibiting slavery in the territory 
 north of 36° 30' north latitude, and was decided in the 
 affirmative — yeas, 137 ; nays, 42.^ 
 
 Of these nays, five were Northern men, Mr. Adams 
 
 ^ 16th Cong., Sess. 1, Vol. 2, p. 1585. » Idem, pp. 1587, 1588. 
 
84 The True History of 
 
 and Mr. Gross (of New York) being the most distin- 
 guished. 
 
 The remaining thirty-seven embraced about one-half of 
 the Southern members of the House, and the brightest 
 names in the galaxy of Southern talent and distinction. 
 Messrs. Butler, of Louisiana ; and Cobb, of Georgia ; 
 Johnson and Metcalfe, of Kentucky ; Archer, Barbour, 
 Pindall, Randolph, Smyth, Swearingen, Tucker, Tyler, 
 Gamett, Williams, of Virginia ; Walker, of North Caro- 
 lina ; and Pinckney, of South Carolina, are a portion of 
 that band of thirty-seven who refused to sacrifice prin- 
 ciple to expediency, or to gain a present advantage by 
 yielding to superior power what it had no earthly right 
 to claim. 
 
 This refusal of one-half of the Southern members of 
 Congress to accede to this measure is another circum- 
 stance which would deprive it of that character of com- 
 pact which was afterward claimed for it. It would have 
 required the assent of the whole of them, or nearly so, 
 to give it even the semblance of a compact between 
 North and South — provided, always, that Congress were 
 invested with the right to make a compact between the 
 two sections ; which, however, was clearly not the case. 
 
 The above is a true and faithful recital of the facts of 
 the passage of the Missouri Compromise Act, so called — 
 as the author has been able to gather them — and there 
 has failed to appear so far one scintilla of evidence to show 
 either that Mr. Clay was the author of the Compromise 
 of 1820, or that he advocated it, or that it was a South- 
 ern measure, or that it was a compact between North 
 and South. That it was forced on the South as the only 
 alternative to disunion is an indisputable fact ; and that 
 the measure was entirely the result of the determination 
 on the part of the Northern majority to exclude slavery 
 from the whole of the territory west of the Mississippi, 
 regardless of its influence in depriving the South of her 
 just rights in it, regardless of the provision of the Con- 
 stitution that nothing in it "shall be so construed as to 
 
The Missouri Compromise and its Repeal. 85 
 
 prejudice any claims of the United States, or of any par- 
 ticular State," regardless of the treaty of purchase un- 
 der which Missouri was entitled to admission without 
 conditions save of a republican form of government, and 
 her citizens entitled to protection of their property, whilst 
 in their territorial condition, as well as their liberty and 
 religion, is a fact equally indisputable ; whilst Mr. Clay's 
 position is unmistakable in his opposition to this, as to 
 every other measure looking to an inequality of rights, 
 or sovereignty, between the States. That he should have 
 been credited with the authorship of this Compromise is 
 explainable only on one theory — his great popularity 
 both North and South, and the great unpopularity of the 
 Compromise in both sections ; to which nothing would 
 tend so to reconcile the people as to be assured that Mr. 
 Clay was the author of the measure, and therefore it 
 must be right. But this course was probably not taken 
 until after the next session, when Mr, Clay did propose 
 the act under which Missouri was at last admitted into 
 the Union. 
 
 In 1887, Gov, Chas, Anderson informed the writer 
 that he heard Mr. Silsbee state to Mr, Clay in 1842, at 
 Ashland, that "the Compromise of 1820 was so odious 
 at the North that only two members who voted for it 
 were ever returned to Congress — Mr, Silsbee, of Massa- 
 chusetts, and John G, Storrs, of New York ; while in 
 the South it was so popular that not one member of 
 Congress ever lost his election by it," An examination 
 of the records shows that Mr, Silsbee was mistaken in 
 supposing that only two members from the North were 
 returned who had voted for the Compromise : but, whilst 
 many of them were re-elected, more were not, showing 
 that he was not mistaken in the sentiment of the North- 
 ern people. They were, in truth, enraged with their 
 representatives for having voted Missouri away from 
 them and into the hands of the South, and did not re- 
 gard the treeless and unexplored prairie and mountain 
 lands of the Territories as any equivalent at all for 
 
86 The True History of 
 
 giving up Missouri. To conciliate tliem, their politicians 
 would naturally claim that it was a Southern measure, 
 and forced upon the North against their will, and would, 
 of course, quote the Southern votes in the Senate as 
 proof of this. It was this apologetic motive, as well as 
 the desire to keep Missouri with her slave Constitution 
 out, which actuated the Northern majority when they 
 refused her admission at the next session on a mere 
 pretext ; and which they thought they could safely do, 
 having gained the point of prohibition in the Territory. 
 It is so plain that "he who runs may read." 
 
 In regard to the sentiment of the South, it is probably 
 best expressed by a Kentucky backwoodsman, who said 
 to his member of Congress : "You suffered yourselves to 
 be Yankied, by giving up the restriction on the Territory 
 for a right to which Missouri was entitled without it."^ 
 And those of her Congressmen who were returned, were 
 elected by her people because of confidence in their pur- 
 poses, their motives and their ability. Her people 
 realized that they had barely escaped the dissolution of 
 the Union, and, however much they might disapprove 
 of the means of its preservation, yet, appreciating the 
 difficulty of the position, they did their representatives 
 the Justice to believe that they had acted according to 
 their best judgment. There was too, one great differ- 
 ence between the North and the South at this period. 
 The South was enthusiastically devoted to the Union, 
 and regarded it as of the very first value and import- 
 ance. So fearful was she lest it might be destroyed, 
 that she yielded peaceably to what she knew was a 
 great wrong, and did not claim her just rights until she 
 thought she had reason to believe, as she did in 1854, 
 that she could win them back peaceably. 
 
 The North, on the contrary, did not then really love the 
 Union with enthusiasm. She looked upon it as second- 
 ary in importance ; the power and strength of the North 
 
 1 16th Cong., Sess. 2, Vol. 2., p. 1207. 
 
The Missouri Compromise and its Repeal. 87 
 
 as a section was first. When the Act of 1820 was 
 passed, she regarded it, not as a compact, but simply as a 
 step in one direction towards the gain of power and ter- 
 ritory, and in the other, the loss of it. Her representa- 
 tives did not hesitate in 1821, in order to repair this loss, 
 and appease their constituencies, to refuse admission to 
 Missouri under that Act — which is proof of itself that 
 they either never looked upon it as a "sacred compact," 
 or else they broke it without compunction. The truth 
 is that the odiousness of the "Compromise" attached to 
 the giving up of Missouri — and the holding on to the Ter- 
 ritories constituted the sacredness of the compact, so- 
 called. 
 
 President Monroe approved and signed this bill, which 
 was entitled "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," on the 
 6th day of March, 1820. 
 
 The President at first believed the bill to be unconsti- 
 tutional, and in the draft of a Veto message which he did 
 not send in to Congress, as it would appear, lest it might 
 cause a Civil "War, he used this language — "That the 
 proposed restriction to territories which are to be ad- 
 mitted into the Union, if not in direct violation of the 
 Constitution, is repugnant to its principles — "' What 
 other motive may have influenced him, if any, is not 
 now easy to determine ; but as the Presidential election 
 was approaching, and Mr. Monroe was human, it may 
 be supposed to have, possibly, had some influence 
 toward weighting the scale on the other side. He ad- 
 vised with his friends on the matter — Judge Roane, Mr, 
 Madison and others — and from each of the members of 
 his Cabinet he required a written opinion. Mr. Madison 
 leaned to the belief that the restriction "was not within 
 
 1 App. Cong Globe, 30th Cong., Sess. 1, Vol. 20, p. 67. 
 
88 The True History of 
 
 the true scope of the Constitution." But, he says, 
 "there can be no room for blame in those acquisescing 
 in a conciliatory course, the demand for which was 
 deemed urgent, and the course itself deemed not irrecon- 
 cilable with the Constitution." 
 
 The opinions of the Cabinet were not preserved, but on 
 July 25, 1848, Mr. Calhoun, who was the only living 
 member at that time, upon being called on, stated: "I 
 have no recollection of any written opinions being asked 
 for or given, but I have a distinct remembrance of the 
 apprehension existing in all quarters of the consequences 
 that might ensue from the difficulty not being adjusted, 
 and which constrained the South, after resisting the re- 
 striction attempted to be imposed for two sessions, to 
 acquiesce finally in the bill proposed as a compromise."^ 
 
 In a letter to President Monroe from his son-in-law, 
 George Hay, dated Richmond, Feb. 17, 1820, there 
 occur the following passages : 
 
 "I have this moment received your note of yesterday. 
 . I have never said how you would act, but 
 simply that you would do your duty. The members 
 have gone up to the caucus under a conviction that you 
 will put your veto on this infamous cabal and intrigue, 
 in all its forms and shapes ; this I would certainly and 
 promptly do. You may be injured in the Northern and 
 Eastern States, but you will be amply repaid by the 
 gratitude and affection of the South. 
 
 "The whole affair is regarded as a base and hypocrit- 
 ical scheme to get power under the mask of humanity ; 
 and it excites the most unqualified indignation and re- 
 sentment. 
 
 "I believe that in cases of this kind there is no mid- 
 dle course to be observed. The subject with all its con- 
 sequences must be met, and the decision must be firmly 
 pronounced. Such is my conviction. 
 
 "If the Constitution were not believed to be in the 
 
 1 App. Cong. Globe, 16th Cong., Sess. 1, Vol. 20, p. 58. 
 
The Missouri Compromise and its Repeal. 89 
 
 way, the men of understanding, perhaps all, would 
 be disposed to compromise on something like equal 
 terms." ' 
 
 The President would appear to have had great doubts as 
 to whether Congress had the right to put any restriction 
 on the Territories or not. It seems from a letter to his 
 friend, Judge Roane, that, anxious as he might be to do 
 only his duty, it was hard for him to decide what that 
 duty was. 
 
 On the 20th of December, 1820, when it was apparent 
 that Missouri would be refused admission under the 
 Compromise Act of March 6th, Mr. Jefferson wrote 
 Mr. Monroe, who, of course, was then re-elected to the 
 Presidency : "Nothing has ever presented so threatening 
 an aspect as the Missouri question. The Federalists,^ 
 completely put down, and despairing of ever rising 
 again under the old division of Whig and Tory, devised 
 a new one, of slaveholding and non-slaveholding States, 
 which, whilst it had a semblance of being moral, was, 
 at the same time, geographical, and calculated to give 
 them ascendancy by debauching their old opponents to 
 a coalition with them. . . . However, it seemed to 
 throw dust into the eyes of the people and fanaticise 
 them, while to the knowing ones it gave a geographical 
 and preponderating line of the Potomac and Ohio, throw- 
 ing fourteen States to the North and East, and ten to 
 the South and West. With those, therefore, it is merely 
 a question of power. But with this geographical mi- 
 
 1 See App. to Cong, Globe, 30th Cong., Sees. 2, Vol, 20, p. 67. 
 
 * The Federalists were the old Hamilton anti-States-right party, who 
 favored a strong central government, in opposition to the Jeflerson 
 States-rights party, who believed in a strict construction of the Constitu- 
 tion and preserving all the rights of the States and the people from in- 
 terference by the government except as provided in the Constitution. 
 The Jeflfersonian party was then called " Republican," and, afterward, 
 " The Democracy." The Federalists became the Whig party afterward, 
 and, when that party broke up, the Northern Whigs became " Repub- 
 licans," or Abolitionists, while the Southern Whigs joined the Demo- 
 crats. 
 
90 The True History of 
 
 nority it is a question of existence." ... To Gen. 
 La Fayette lie wrote, on the same day: "It is not a 
 moral question, but one merely of power. . . . Its 
 object is to raise a geographical principle for the choice 
 of a President, and the noise will be kept up till this is 
 effected."' 
 
 If this were the object, it eucceeded, as John Quincy 
 Adams (of Massachusetts) was elected for the noxt 
 term— 1825-1829. 
 
 ^ Jefferson's Complete Works, Vol. 7, p. 194. 
 
 I 
 
The Missouri Compromise and its Repeal. 91 
 
 CHAPTER IV. 
 
 1821 — Missouri not permitted to enter the Union under the Act of 1820 — 
 Eejected by the Northern majority on a mere pretext — Disunion 
 again strongly threatened — Business interests completely pros- 
 trated — Conditions most alarming — Missouri at last admitted under 
 a new act proposed by Mr. Clay. 
 
 _ne intended rejection of Missouri, by the majority 
 of the Congress of 1820-21, would seem to have been a 
 foregone conclusion in the public mind ; it being appar- 
 ently well understood that her entrance into the Union 
 would be opposed upon the pretext of that clause in her 
 Constitution which required her Legislature to pass laws 
 for the kee^Ding out of free negroes from her borders ; 
 and "the question was looked at by the nation with much 
 anxiety and some degree of alarm," says Mr. Barbour, 
 of Virginia.^ 
 
 That the purpose to reject Missouri because of some 
 anticipated defect, real or imaginary, which was to be 
 found in her Constitution, had been formed during the 
 previous session, is well shown by the motion which 
 Mr. Taylor, of New York, had made, proposing the ap- 
 proval by Congress of her Constitution as a condition of 
 her admission. It will be remembered that this motion, 
 opposed by Mr. Clay and others, was defeated. 
 
 Early in the session of 1820-21, the Legislature of 
 New York sent instructions to her Senators and Repre- 
 sentatives that, "if the provisions contained in any pro- 
 posed Constitution of a new State deny to any citizens 
 of the existing States the privileges and immunities of 
 citizens of such new State, that such proposed Constitu- 
 tion shall not be accepted or confirmed ; the same, in the 
 opinion of this legislature, being void by the Constitu- 
 
 1 16th Cong., Sess, 2, p. 34. 
 
92 The True Historij of 
 
 tion of the United States" — declaring also that they 
 were "invincibly opposed to the admission of any new- 
 State into the Union without making the prohibition of 
 slavery therein an indispensable condition of admis- 
 sion. ' 
 
 The Legislature of Vermont instructed her Senators 
 and Representatives "to use all legal means to prevent 
 the admission of Missciuri as a State." — Because its Con- 
 stitution "legalizes and secures the introduction and 
 continuance of slavery, and also contains provisions to 
 prevent freemen of the United States from emigrating 
 to and settling in Missouri, on account of their origin, 
 color and features." ^ 
 
 These instructions show conclusively that New York 
 and Vermont did not look upon the Act of 1820 as a 
 compact, for they propose directly to refuse the fulfill- 
 ment of that portion of the act which was to admit Mis- 
 souri as a slave State ; which, if it were a compact, was 
 the consideration given for the prohibition of slavery in 
 the remaining territory. 
 
 The Senate proceeded very early in the session to the 
 consideration of the resolution "declaring the admission 
 of the State of Missouri into the Union on an equal foot- 
 ing with the original States" — it being regarded as a 
 question of such importance that, as "Old Tecumseh" 
 said, "it swallowed up every other, and until it was set- 
 tled they could not go on with the ordinary business of 
 the session." ' 
 
 Mr. Eaton (of Tennessee) offered the following pro- 
 viso to the resolution : 
 
 ^^ Provided, that nothing herein contained shall be so 
 construed as to give the assent of Congress to any pro- 
 vision in the Constitution of Missouri, if any such there 
 be, which contravenes that clause in the Constitution 
 of the United States which declares that 'the citizens 
 
 ^ 16th Cong., Sese. 2, p. 23. » Idem, p. 78. ' Idem, p. 34. 
 
The Missouri Compromise and its Repeal. 93 
 
 of each State shall be entitled to all the privileges and 
 immunities of the citizens in the several States.' " ' 
 
 This proviso gave rise to an extensive discussion in 
 which it was conclusively shown that free negroes and 
 mulattoes were not citizens, and were not so regarded. 
 In the older States, North as well as South, they were 
 not allowed the rights pertaining to citizens, and consti- 
 tuting citizenship. In some of the States they could 
 not vote ; in others, Indiana for one, they could not ap- 
 pear as witnesses except in cases to which negroes were 
 parties. In some other States, as Vermont^ and New 
 Hampshire, they could not bear arms. In others, as 
 Rhode Island, if caught out at night after nine o'clock, 
 they were to be publicly whipped by the constable — ten 
 stripes. In Massachusetts, "no negro, except a subject 
 of the Emperor of Morocco, or a citizen of the United 
 States, to be evidenced by a certificate," could remain 
 longer than two months ; after which time he should 
 be ordered to leave, and if he did not depart in ten days 
 thereafter, he should be whipped ; and again ordered to 
 leave, and again whipped, and so toties quoties} 
 
 In Connecticut, "free negroes could not travel with- 
 out a pass from the selectmen or justices." In New 
 York, Connecticut,* and also Vermont, the exclusion 
 from the State was extended not only to free negroes 
 and mulattoes, but to white people who were undoubt- 
 edly citizens. The laws of New York read thus : 
 
 "If a stranger is entertained in the dwelling-house 
 or outhouse of any citizen for fifteen days, without 
 giving notice to the overseers of the poor, he should 
 pay a fine of five dollars." ^ 
 
 If the stranger remained "forty days, he should be 
 put in jail, and the justices might hand him from con- 
 stable to constable until transported into any other 
 
 1 16th Cong., Sess. 2, p. 41 ' Laws of Vermont, Vol. 2, p. 122. 
 
 ^ Laws of Massachusetts, Vol. 1. 
 * Laws of Connecticut, pp. 240, 241. 
 5 Laws of New York, Vol. 1, p. 568. 
 
94 The True History of 
 
 State, if from thence he came. ... If such person 
 returns, the justices may direct him to be whipped by 
 every constable into whose hands he shall come ; if a 
 man, not exceeding thirty-nine lashes ; and if a woman, 
 not exceeding twenty-five lashes."^ 
 
 This law was enacted twelve years after the adoption 
 of the Constitution of the United States, and was in full 
 force in 1821 — and yet New York could instruct her 
 Representatives on the rights and privileges of citizens 
 of the United States in Missouri ! 
 
 The Connecticut law was in about the same terms. 
 Whilst in the Legislature of Pennsylvania, on the 20th 
 of January, 1820, a resolution was offered of inquiry 
 "into the expediency of prohibiting the emigration of 
 free negroes or mulattoes into this Commonwealth,"^ 
 showing the opinion held as to their citizenship there. 
 
 And the Act of Congress, passed on the 15th of May, 
 1820, for incorporating the inhabitants of the City of 
 "Washington, by which they were to be continued a body 
 politic and corporate, gives that corporation full power 
 and authority "to prescribe the terms and conditions 
 upon which free negroes and mulattoes may reside in 
 the city. "2 
 
 Yet, in the face of all this evidence that free negroes 
 were not citizens in a single State in the Union, that 
 they were not treated as such by law in a single State, 
 nor regarded as such anywhere ; in the face of all these 
 facts, the Northern opponents of Missouri persistently 
 declared that free negroes were citizens, and claimed 
 that Missouri had no right to exclude them — New York, 
 Connecticut, and Vermont even arrogating to themselves 
 the right to exclude from their borders any stranger, 
 though he be a white man and an undoubted citizen — 
 yet denying to Missouri the right to protect herself from 
 that most worthless class of population, the vagabond 
 
 ^ Laws of New York, Vol. 1, pp. 568, 569. 
 2 Journal, p. 341. ^ i^^^ Cong., Sess. 1, Acts, p. 14. 
 
The Missouri Compromise and its Repeal. 95 
 
 free negroes from other States ; denying to Missouri in 
 the smallest degree the power exercised by themselves 
 in its fullest extent. 
 
 It was suggested during the debate that, "if the clause 
 in the Missouri Constitution were repugnant to the Con- 
 stitution of the United States, it was a nullity, because 
 the Constitution of the United States was paramount." 
 But this produced no effect whatever on Missouri's op- 
 ponents because it did not reach the true cause of their 
 opposition to Missouri's entrance into the Union ; which 
 was simply and purely that she was a slave State, and, 
 as such, her admission would affect the balance of power 
 in Congress ; and, furthermore, her slave labor would 
 exclude freemen of the North, who longed to possess 
 for themselves and their posterity her fertile lands and 
 magnificent resources ; and who deeply resented the 
 measure which, in 1820, had left her in the hands of 
 her own citizens as to the regulation of her domestic 
 concerns. 
 
 Mr. Eaton's proviso was passed in the Senate by one 
 majority ; then the bill as amended was passed by 26 to 
 18, and sent to the House for concurrence. 
 
 There is one noticeable feature in this debate in the 
 Senate. Not once is the Act of 1820 spoken of, by 
 either side, as a compact between North and South. Mr. 
 Burrill (of Rhode Island) says : "It was in the nature 
 of a contract between the United States and the people 
 of Missouri, and it was competent for Congress, and 
 was its duty, to see if that contract had been faithfully 
 observed." ^ 
 
 Mr. Holmes (of Massachusetts) says : "Who are the 
 parties to the compact in the act of last session? The 
 United States and Missouri. Missouri contends that 
 she has complied with her terms, and demands a fulfill- 
 ment on our part. "We refuse, and charge her with a 
 failure to fulfill her stipulations. "Who is to decide? 
 
 116th Cong., Sess. 2, p. 46. 
 
96 The True History of 
 
 . . . There is no risk on our part in submitting the 
 question to the Supreme Court." ' 
 
 Mr. Otis (of Massachusetts) : "In truth, the people 
 of the United States, bj their Congress, are parties to 
 an executory contract. The people of Missouri are the 
 other parties."^ 
 
 It is plain that all idea of compact as between North 
 and South, was now repudiated by the Senate, especially 
 the Northern members, if indeed it had ever been enter- 
 tained at all. 
 
 But the question here arises : Could Missouri, by 
 virtue of any contract whatever, surrender what did not 
 belong to her, viz., the equal right of the Southern people 
 to enter the Territories of the United States and to carry 
 their slaves with them? Or could the congressional 
 representatives of the people of the United States enter 
 into any contract with any one Territory, by which she 
 should be admitted on equal terms, but with the condi- 
 tion that one-half of the people of the States should be 
 deprived of their equal rights in all the balance of the 
 Territory beyond a certain line which embraced nearly 
 the whole of the country? 
 
 Whence did either Congress or Missouri derive the 
 authority to make any such agreement? And what was 
 the agreement worth? 
 
 IN THE HOUSE. 
 
 Mr. Clay had sent in his resignation of the office of 
 Speaker in a letter of October 28, 1820, and on Novem- 
 ber 15th, John W. Taylor (of New York), author of the 
 slavery restriction in Missouri the session previous, was 
 elected to the Speakership. 
 
 The Committee, to whom had been "referred the Con- 
 stitution formed for their government by the people of 
 Missouri, delivered their report recommending the pas- 
 sage of this resolution : 
 
 1 16th Cong., Sess. 2, p. 88. * Idem, p. 20. 
 
The Missouri Compromise and its Repeal. 97 
 
 Whereas, etc. 
 
 "jBe it resolved, That the State of Missouri shall be, 
 and is hereby declared to be, one of the United States 
 of America, and is admitted into the Union on an equal 
 footing with the original States, in all respects what- 
 ever." 
 
 The Committee say that they "are not unaware that a 
 part of the 26th section of the 3d Article of the Consti- 
 tution of Missouri, by which the Legislature of the 
 State has been directed to pass laws 'to prevent free 
 negroes and mulattoes from coming to and settling in 
 the State,' has been construed to apply to such of that 
 class as are citizens of the United States, and that their 
 exclusion has been deemed repugnant to the Federal 
 Constitution. . . When a people are authorized to 
 form a State, and have done so, the trammels of their 
 territorial conditions fall off. They have performed the 
 act which makes them sovereign and independent. If 
 they pass an unconstitutional law, and we leave it, as 
 we should that of another State, to the decision of a 
 judicial tribunal, the illegal act is divested of its force 
 by the operation of a system with which we are familiar. 
 But the decision of Congress against the consti- 
 tutionality of a law by a State of which it had author- 
 ized the establishment, could not operate directly by 
 vacating the law ; nor is it believed that it could reduce 
 the State to the dependence of a Territory. In these 
 circumstances, to refuse admission into the Union, of 
 such a State, is to refuse to extend over it that judicial 
 authority which might vacate the obnoxious law, and to 
 expose all the interests of the Government within the 
 territory of that State to a Legislature and Judiciary, 
 the only checks on which have been abandoned. On 
 the other hand, if Congress shall determine neither to 
 expound clauses which are obscure, nor to decide consti- 
 tutional questions which must be difficult and perplex- 
 ing, equally interesting to old States whom our con- 
 7 
 
98 The True History of 
 
 struction could not, as to the new whom it ought not to, 
 coerce, the rights and duties of Missouri will be left to 
 the determination of the same temperate and impartial 
 tribunal which has decided the conflicting claims, and 
 received the confidence, of the other States."^ 
 
 On the 6th of December, the House in Committee of 
 the Whole had under consideration the resolution de- 
 claring Missouri's admission into the Union. 
 
 Her admission was opposed on the ground that if 
 Congress had the right to accept her Constitution, it 
 had also the right to reject it ; that the trust of guard- 
 ing the Constitution from violation belonged peculiarly 
 to Congress ; that it should never be left to the Judiciary 
 to do what Congress should have done ; that Missouri 
 was not entitled to the rights of a State until she was 
 admitted into the Union by Congress ; that the con- 
 formity of her Constitution to that of the United States 
 was obligatory on the Convention ; that though clauses 
 might be found in some of the Constitutions of the old 
 States equally repugnant to the Constitution of the 
 United States as the objectionable clause in the Consti- 
 tution of Missouri, yet most of these Constitutions were 
 framed previous to the adoption of the present Consti- 
 tution of the Union in such States, and all such clauses 
 were virtually abrogated by the adoption of that Con- 
 stitution. 
 
 The above is a condensation of the arguments of Mr. 
 Sergeant (of Pennsylvania) and of our friend, John G. 
 Storrs (of New York), who, in a previous session, had 
 moved to strike out of the resolution, admitting Mis- 
 souri, the phrase, "on an equal footing with the original 
 States," because "there was a manifest inconsistency 
 in retaining this provision after the vote just taken," 
 by which the slavery restriction had been placed upon 
 her. But the weight of public opinion was evidently 
 too much for him, and he was forced by its pressure to 
 
 1 IGth Cong., Sess. 2, pp. 453, 454. 
 
The Missouri Compromise and its Repeal. 99 
 
 ignore the facts and to yield up his real convictions as 
 to the rights of all the States to self-government and 
 equality in the Union. In the same speech, he says, 
 however, of the necessity for the coercion of Missouri 
 as alluded to by Mr. Sergeant, who had preceded him : 
 
 "Whenever the period arrives that shall render it 
 necessary to unite the States by the arm of force, the 
 Confederacy dissolves with the moral principle which 
 is the foundation of our Union. It is this which pre- 
 eminently distinguishes us from the Governments of the 
 Old World. . . . Coercion may be the foundation of 
 good government in a penitentiary or mad-house, but, 
 in our Republic, ivhcre military force begins, there Union 
 ends.''^^ Mr. Storrs evidently wanted to do right, and 
 would doubtless have done so, had his constituents and 
 political opponents allowed him. 
 
 The friends of Missouri contended "that Congress 
 could not now reject Missouri, for she was already a 
 State in the Union;" that the act of the last session 
 had authorized her inhabitants to form for themselves a 
 Constitution and State government, and had said "The 
 said State, when formed, shall be admitted into the 
 Union. . . . The people of Missouri had formed 
 for themselves a State government by electing a Gov- 
 ernor and members of the Legislature. . . . The 
 compact is complete. . . . The State is formed, 
 . The right of self-government once possessed 
 can never be surrendered. . . . The proviso that 
 the Constitution of Missouri should not be repugnant to 
 that of the United States is inoperative, useless, sur- 
 plusage. We might as well have enacted that the stars 
 shall not obscure the sun to-morrow. . . . The 
 Constitution does not say that Congress shall guarantee 
 to every State in the Union a Constitution not regugnant 
 to that of the United States. It says that the Constitu- 
 tion shall be the supreme law of the land, and the 
 
 ^ 16th Cong., Sees. 2, p. 542. 
 
 LofC. 
 
100 The True History of 
 
 judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any thing 
 in the Constitution of any State to the contrary, not- 
 withstanding, . . . All the Constitutions of the 
 States contained clauses repugnant to the Constitution 
 of the United States, but the adoption thereof expunged 
 them. Admission will have the same effect on the Con- 
 stitution of a new State that adoption had on those of 
 the old." The question is then very pertinently asked, 
 "May Virginia send forty thousand free negroes to settle 
 in the State of Ohio, and has the latter State no power 
 to exclude them?" ^ 
 
 But in spite of all proof, all facts, all evidence that 
 the thing they professed to be fighting for was a mere 
 pretense, the opponents of Missouri's admission kept 
 up the fight. Although it was shown, past contra- 
 diction, that the States had, none of them, ever granted 
 to free negroes and mulattoes the privileges of full citi- 
 zenship ; that in every State there were restrictions on 
 this class of people which could not be placed on citi- 
 zens, yet the Northern majority persisted in their ficti- 
 tious declarations that these people were citizens, and as 
 such should not be excluded from Missouri, and as she 
 did propose to exclude them from her borders, therefore 
 she could not be permitted to enter the Union. These 
 declarations were based on the ground that free negroes 
 were permitted to vote in some of the States, as North 
 Carolina for one. Of course they were a mere pretext, 
 so flimsy as not to veil the real objection from sight of 
 any one. 
 
 On the 13th of December the resolution to admit 
 Missouri was rejected by 93 to 79. 
 
 January 4, 1821, Mr, Archer of Virginia offered a 
 resolution to instruct the Committee on Judiciary to in- 
 quire whether there were any legal tribunals in Missouri 
 derived from the authority of the United States, compe- 
 tent to the protection of the property and citizens of the 
 
 1 16th Cong., Sess. 2. 
 
The Missouri Compromise and its Repeal. 101 
 
 United States in Missouri — and, if not, what measures 
 might be necessary for this purpose. This proposition 
 was defeated, although Mr. Archer offered it several 
 times, and spoke very earnestly in its support. Three 
 times the vote was taken on it, and three times it was 
 voted down in one week. 
 
 And now occurred a very peculiar episode in this con- 
 test for supremacy of power. 
 
 On January 12th, the first entry in the Journal read : 
 "Mr. Lowndes presented three memorials of the Senate 
 and House of Representatives of the State of Missouri,'''' 
 though not so stated in the Journal. Mr. Cobb (of 
 Georgia) moved to amend the Journal by inserting the 
 words, "the State of" before the word Missouri. After 
 a discussion, in which Mr, Randolph insisted that the 
 Journal should contain the truth, the vote was taken 
 and stood 76 to 76. Whereon the Speaker (Mr. Taylor) 
 declared his vote with the nays, so Mr. Cobb's amend- 
 ment was rejected. Now comes the curious part of the 
 business. Upon examination it was found that the origi- 
 nal entry in the Journal corresponded with the caption 
 of the memorial, but the words had been altered, and 
 the words, "within the said State" had been erased in 
 two places, so as to make the memorial apply not to the 
 purchasers of land "within the said State" but through- 
 out the United States. 
 
 It was asked if the Clerk had undertaken to make 
 these alterations. 
 
 The Speaker then stated that "it was the duty of the 
 Speaker to examine and correct the Journal before it 
 was read. ... If, then, it should not be regarded 
 as correct, it is competent for any member to move to 
 amend it, and for the House, should such be its pleasure, 
 to direct it to be amended. In this instance he had 
 thought proper so to correct the Journal as that it should 
 not be taken either to affirm or deny that Missouri was 
 
102 The True History of 
 
 a State, the House being greatly divided in opinion on 
 that question.' 
 
 Mr. Rhea then required that the Clerk read the Journal 
 as it was before it was altered by the Speaker this morn- 
 ing. 
 
 "The Speaker pronounced that it was not in order to 
 read any Journal, as the Journal of the House, but that 
 which had been corrected by its presiding officer."^ 
 A decision which has surely never been surpassed by 
 any congressional Czar whatever ! 
 
 In course of the debate, John Randolph denounced 
 "the record of our proceedings" as "a paper which con- 
 tains, on the face of it, a palpable and atrocious false- 
 hood." And "Old Tecumseh" asked, "What is Mis- 
 souri? Is it a river? Is it a tribe of Indians?" Richard 
 C. Anderson (of Kentucky) thought: "It is always 
 wrong to fight where you can not but sustain defeat. It 
 is always wrong for a minority to irritate a majority." 
 But the contention went on, despite this lamb-like advice ; 
 vote after vote was taken, the Southern minority being 
 voted down every time, and the question was only closed 
 by the adjournment of the House, and its subsequent 
 refusal to reconsider the subject. 
 
 "January 16, 1821, Henry Clay of Kentucky appeared 
 and took his seat."^ 
 
 By this time the excitement on the subject of the re- 
 fusal to admit Missouri had arisen to fever heat. In its 
 intense anxiety the country hailed Mr. Clay's arrival in 
 Washington, whence he had been detained by ill health 
 and business of a private nature, with the utmost enthu- 
 siasm. The people thought if any man could meet and 
 avert the crisis, which seemed so imminent and so threat- 
 ening, that Mr. Clay was that man. And he at once 
 bent his energies to this purpose. 
 
 Previous to his arrival, Mr. Eustis (of Massachusetts) 
 had offered a resolution to admit Missouri, on the day 
 
 ^ 16th Cong., Sess. 2, p. 846. " Idem, p. 849. ' Idem, p. 871. 
 
The Missouri Compromise and its Repeal. 103 
 
 of — , to the Union "upon an equal footing with the 
 original States" in all respects whatever : Provided^ "that 
 the 26th section of the 3d Article," w^hich was the objec- 
 tionable one, "shall, on or before that day, have been 
 expunged therefrom." This resolution was, on the 24th 
 of January, defeated by 146 nays to 6 yeas/ It did not 
 suit either side. The Northern majority were not will- 
 ing to admit Missouri with her slaves on any terms, and 
 the Southern minority did not choose to yield the point 
 of her equal right to make her own domestic regu- 
 lations. 
 
 "So the resolution was rejected. 
 
 "After a pause — 
 
 "Mr. Clay rose and gave notice, that, if no other gen- 
 tleman made a motion on the subject, he should, on the 
 day after to-morrow, move to go into Committee of the 
 Whole on the State of the Union, to take into consider- 
 ation the resolution from the Senate on the subject of 
 Missouri."^ 
 
 Which, it will be remembered, had been passed with 
 Mr. Eaton's proviso, on the 12th of December. 
 
 This was the first move made by Mr. Clay toward the 
 Act under which Missouri was afterward admitted. 
 The House had now voted just seventeen times against 
 any thing looking to her admission ; just seventeen 
 times against its own "sacred compact," so-called; just 
 seventeen times against its own act of the previous 
 session, which it now sought to evade by an unworthy 
 quibble, a fallacious pretense — and in utter disregard of 
 that spirit of honor and good faith which should pervade 
 public councils as well as private life, and which most 
 emphatically demanded the keeping in full of the treaty 
 by which Missouri was ceded to the United States — the 
 keeping of it toward the inhabitants of Missouri who 
 had gone there w^ith their property under the protection 
 of that treaty, as well as toward tlie French Govern- 
 
 1 16th Cong., Sess. 2, p. 944. ^ Idem, p. 944. 
 
104 The True History of 
 
 ment to which was pledged our national honor for its 
 observance. 
 
 On the 29th of January, on motion of Mr. Clay, the 
 House took up the Senate's resolution to admit Missouri. 
 
 "Mr. Clay delivered his sentiments at large on the 
 present state of this question. He was in favor of the 
 resolution from the Senate, and should vote for the reso- 
 lution, even though more emphatically restricted against 
 any supposed repugnance of one of its provisions to a 
 provision of the Constitution of the United States, the 
 existence of which, however, he did not by any means 
 admit. . . Mr. Randolph renewed his motion to 
 
 strike out the proviso, and spoke in support of it. 
 . Mr. Sergeant (of Penntylvania) said he should 
 vote for any amendment which should bring the resolu- 
 tion nearer to what he wished, but with a clear determi- 
 nation, for which he would hereafter assign his reasons, 
 to vote against the resolution, however amended." 
 
 And this was the spirit which animated the greater 
 part of the Northern majority during the entire struggle. 
 
 Tuesday, Jan. 30th, Mr. Foot (of Connecticut) offered 
 to strike out Mr. Eaton's proviso and insert the fol- 
 lowing : 
 
 ^^ Provided, That it shall be taken as a fundamental 
 condition, upon which the said State is incorporated in 
 the Union, that so much of the 26th section of the 3d 
 Article of the Constitution which has been submitted to 
 Congress, as declares it shall be the duty of the General 
 Assembly 'to prevent free negroes and mulattoes from 
 coming to, or settling in, this State, under any pretext 
 whatever,' shall be expunged, within two years from 
 the passage of this resolution, by the General Assembly 
 of Missouri, in the manner prescribed for amending said 
 Constitution."^ 
 
 After some debate, Mr. Storrs (of New York) moved 
 to strike out all of Mr. Foot's amendment after the word 
 
 1 16th Cong., Sess. 2, p. 986. 
 
The Missouri Compromise and its Repeal. 105 
 
 "Union" in the third line, and insert, "And to be of 
 perpetual obligation on the said State (in faith whereof 
 this resolution is passed by Congress) that no law shall 
 ever be enacted by the said State, impairing or contra- 
 vening the rights, privileges, or immunities secured to 
 citizens of other States, by the Constitution of the 
 United States : And provided farther, That the Legis- 
 lature acting under the Constitution already adopted in 
 Missouri as a State, shall, as a convention (for which 
 purpose the consent of Congress is hereby granted) , de- 
 clare their assent by a public act to the said condition 
 before the next session of Congress, and transmit to 
 Congress an attested copy of such act, by the first day 
 of the said session."^ 
 
 Mr. Floyd (of Virginia) rose to protest against these 
 proceedings. He knew there was "a North and South 
 side to this question ; but gentlemen are mistaken if 
 they imagine our anxiety to admit Missouri so great, 
 that we are willing to trample all the rights of the 
 States under foot to effectuate that object. . . . lam 
 at a great loss to know what has become of the States. 
 They once existed. They once had rights. 
 By what rule is it a free negro of New York has more 
 rights in Missouri than the native free negro of Mis- 
 souri has, or than the same negro has, even in New 
 York? . . .2 
 
 ". ' . Mr. Clay then, after an earnest appeal to all 
 parts of the House to harmonize, and forever settle this 
 distracting question to mutual satisfaction," proposed 
 to have the several amendments printed. Which was 
 agreed to. "Mr. Clay then gave notice he should again 
 call up the subject to-morrow." 
 
 "Mr. Lowndes wished it deferred until Friday next, 
 to give more time. 
 
 "Mr. Clay said he would compromise with his friend 
 
 1 16th Cong., Sess. 2, p. 990. ' Idem, 994. 
 
V 
 
 106 The True History of 
 
 for Thursday. He did not like the idea of taking up 
 this question on Friday."" 
 
 "Mr. Cobb (of Georgia) proposed the following amend- 
 ment, which was also ordered to be printed : 
 
 "That the Legislature of the State of Missouri shall 
 pass no law impairing the privileges and immunities se- 
 cured to citizens of each State, under the 1st clause of 
 the 2d section of the 4th Article of the Constitution of 
 the United States."^ 
 
 Thursday, February 1st, on motion of Mr. Clay, the 
 House took up the Missouri resolution and the amend- 
 ments proposed thereto. Each and every amendment 
 was voted down by the majority, notwithstanding Mr. 
 Clay's earnest and animated support of them. 
 
 Friday, the 20th, Mr. McLane (of Delaware) offered 
 in lieu of Mr. Eaton's proviso : 
 
 ^'■Provided, That nothing in the Constitution of said 
 State of Missouri shall be so construed as to authorize 
 or make it obligatory on the Legislature to pass any law 
 denying to the citizens of each State any of the privi- 
 leiies and immunities of the citizens of the several 
 States : And 'provided further, That no law of the said 
 State shall be construed to deny to the citizens of each 
 State any of the privileges and immunities of citizens of 
 the several States." 
 
 After a long debate, which embraced the evils of 
 slavery, the rights of the South, the balance of power, 
 and the nature of the obligations and benefits of the 
 Union, this amendment was defeated by 88 to 79 — Mr. 
 Randolph voting with the Northern majority. 
 
 Mr. Storrs then renewed, in substance, his amend- 
 ment — it was defeated by 92 to 75, 
 
 Mr. S. Moore then moved an amendment very much 
 like the others — it only received 56 yeas. 
 
 "Mr. Clay, then seeing that all effort at amendment 
 had failed, and anxious to make a last effort to settle 
 
 1 16th Cong., Sees. 2, p. 995. 
 
The Missouri Compromise and its Repeal. 107 
 
 this distracting question, moved to refer the Senate's 
 resolution to a committee of thirteen members." 
 
 This was agreed to, and the committee appointed were 
 five Southern gentlemen and eight Northern ones, Mr. 
 Clay, Chairman. 
 
 On February 10th, the Committee reported that there 
 existed the same diversity of opinions in the Committee 
 as in the House, but, ardently wishing an amicable 
 termination of the question, they submitted the follow- 
 ing proposed amendment — hoping it might be received 
 in the same spirit in which it had been devised : 
 
 "Strike out all after the word 'be' in the third line of 
 the Senate's resolution and insert : 'Admitted into the 
 Union on an equal footing with the original States, in 
 all respects whatever, upon the fundamental condition 
 that the said State shall never pass any laws preventing 
 any description of persons from coming to and settling 
 in the said State, who are now, or hereafter may become, 
 citizens of any of the States of this Union : And pro- 
 vided also, That the Legislature of the said State, by a 
 solemn public act, shall declare the assent of the said 
 State to the said fundamental condition, and shall trans- 
 mit to the President of the United States, on or before 
 the 4th day of November next, an authentic copy of the 
 said act, upon the receipt whereof, the President, by 
 proclamation, shall announce the fact ; whereupon, and 
 without any further proceeding on the part of Congress, 
 the admission of the said State into the Union shall be 
 considered complete : And provided farther, That nothing 
 herein contained shall be construed to take from the said 
 State of Missouri, when admitted into this Union, the 
 exercise of any right or power which can now be con- 
 stitutionally exercised by any of the original States.'"^ 
 
 Mr. Tomlison (of Connecticut) dissented to the report 
 of the Committee on the ground that — "The Legislature 
 of Missouri will be required by the authority of Congress 
 
 1 16th Cong., Sess. 2, p. 1080. 
 
108 The True History of 
 
 to stipulate by a solemn public act, that the Legislature 
 of said State shall never pass a law which their Consti- 
 tution makes it their duty to pass. . . . It is noth- 
 ing less than admitting the existence of a power to 
 abrogate, by a legislative act, the Constitution of a 
 State. 
 
 "The same Legislature may annul any other part of 
 the Constitution. ... If Congress possess the 
 power to authorize the Legislature of Missouri to alter 
 or amend the Constitution, they can authorize any 
 other body of men to do it." He objected on another 
 score that this act made the President admit Missouri, 
 whereas it was the duty of Congress to do so. He was 
 as anxious to see this distracting question settled as Mr. 
 Clay, but it must be on constitutional principles; "on 
 a fair, just, and constitutional basis." He contended 
 that the requirement of this act "is humbling to Mis- 
 souri. It substantially requires the members of her 
 Legislature perpetually to disregard their oaths." . . . 
 He asks : "But should the Legislature of Missouri al- 
 ready elected . . . submit to this 'fundamental 
 condition,' and 'by a solemn act declare the assent of 
 the said State' thereto, . . . would a subsequent 
 Legislature, acting under the same Constitution, and 
 feeling the obligation of an oath to support that Consti- 
 tution, . . . would they be bound in good faith to 
 fulfill a pledge which their predecessors had no right to 
 make? As honest men, which would control their acts, 
 the unautliorized pledge of their predecessors or the 
 Constitution of the State? . . . I will say that, by 
 violating an unconstitutional stipulation of their prede- 
 cessors, they would not forfeit this character. Sir, the 
 act required of Missouri is a mere legislative act, and a 
 subsequent Legislature may at all times repeal it. It 
 may be called 'a solemn public act,' but words will not 
 change its character ; disguise it as you will, it is noth- 
 
The Missouri Compromise and its Repeal. 109 
 
 ing more than an act of the Legislature of Missouri, re- 
 pealable at their pleasure."^ 
 
 So true is the above argument, so apt, and so forcible, 
 it is wonderful that its lesson should not have been con- 
 veyed to the mind of every one who heard it. 
 
 After an eloquent speech from Mr. Wm. Brown (of 
 Kentucky) , who gave a history of the Missouri difficulty 
 from the beginning, showing very clearly that it was 
 not a matter of humanity or principle, but solely a 
 struggle for power — that it was the same spirit which 
 had animated the Hartford Convention which he de- 
 nounced in forcible terms, but from whose proceedings 
 he exempted "the good people of the New England 
 States" — and closed with a powerful appeal for the ad- 
 mission of Missouri. 
 
 The vote being taken, the House voted to sustain the 
 amendment of the Committee by 86 to 83. But, upon 
 ordering the resolution to be read the third time, it was 
 voted down by 83 to 80. So the whole resolution for 
 admission, amendment and all, was rejected. 
 
 The vote was very much mixed up ; some of the 
 Southern men voted against the amendment, but, after 
 that was carried, they voted for the resolution as 
 amended, while some of the Northern men who voted 
 for the amendment voted against the resolution after it 
 was amended. As Mr. Sergeant had declared he should 
 do. John Randolph voted with the Northern men every 
 time — against every amendment and every resolution — 
 on the principle that they were all wrong in principle, 
 and he voted against them, because, like Mr. Tomlin- 
 son, he was not willing to agree to any thing he be- 
 lieved unconstitutional even if forced to vote along 
 with his square out opponents in order to defeat such 
 measures. 
 
 This amendment of the Select Committee made the 
 seventh which had been rejected in connection with the 
 
 * 16th Cong., Sess. 2, pp. 1097-1100. 
 
110 The True History of 
 
 resolution from the Senate, and just twenty-four times 
 that the House had virtually refused Missouri that ad- 
 mission to which she was entitled without condition un- 
 der the Constitution and by every obligation of good 
 faith and national honor. 
 
 On the 13th, it was decided to reconsider the vote of 
 rejection ; and Mr. Clark (of New York) lets in so much 
 light on the singular state of affairs that we give his re- 
 marks without comment. After referring to the fact 
 that he had, the previous session, supported the re- 
 striction of slavery in Missouri in every instance by his 
 vote, and stating that he would not now consent to ob- 
 serve a Punic faith, even with Missouri, he speaks of 
 the "unparalleled suffering and distress" prevalent in 
 the country, and reproaches Congress for so neglecting 
 all the vital interests of the country in the discussion of 
 the merits or demerits of the Constitution of Missouri. 
 Then he asks: "Sir, upon the supposition that this 
 proposition is rejected, I would solemnly ask gentlemen 
 what will suit them? Will you admit Missouri uncon- 
 ditionally? No. Will you admit her with the con- 
 dition annexed by the Senate? No. Will you admit 
 her by that resolution as amended by your Committee ? 
 No. . . . Sir, the course pursued by this House on 
 this subject is (to say the least of it) most extraordinary. 
 You will neither dismiss it nor decide on it, but you 
 cling to this firebrand of discord with the utmost per- 
 tinacity without intimating what your ultimate object is. 
 Is it with a hope that others will do for you what you 
 wish done, but dare not do? Is it with a hope that you 
 will tire out some of the Northern members so that they 
 will unite with the South upon some plan of admission 
 which will pass, and to which, at the same time, you 
 will have the pleasure to give your negative, and by this 
 means evade the odium which you think will attach to 
 an act which you wish accomplished? . 
 
 "Sir, this course of policy may serve for a time, but 
 it will not always last. I will never advise a man to be 
 
The Missouri Compromise and its Repeal. Ill 
 
 engaged in an act in which I could not consider myself 
 justified in co-operating. I can not consent, as a mem- 
 ber of this House, to act the part of a waterman, look- 
 ing one way and rowing another." ' 
 
 Other earnest and impassioned appeals followed. 
 "Mr. Clay concluded the main debate by a speech of 
 about an hour's length, in which he alternately rea- 
 soned, remonstrated, and entreated with the House to 
 settle forever this agitating question, by passing the 
 resolution before it." 
 
 The House declined by a vote of 88 to 82. So all of 
 Mr. Clay's eloquence, his superior diplomatic talent, 
 his wonderful magnetic personality, failed to effect this 
 measure. 
 
 Of the 88 nays, one was that uncompromising spirit, 
 John Randolph, who so often voted against his friends, 
 on pure principle. Of the 82 yeas, 14 were Northern 
 conservatives who, like Mr. Clark, were willing to see 
 justice done as far as possible, and were anxious to pre- 
 serve peace. 
 
 Meantime, the votes for President and Vice-President 
 were to be counted. The Senators and Representatives 
 elect from Missouri had not been permitted to take their 
 seats ; and, some difficulty being apprehended as to the 
 votes of Missouri's Electors, a Special Committee was 
 appointed on the subject, from which Mr. Clay reported 
 that they recommend Missouri's votes to be counted hy- 
 pothetically — that is, if Missouri's votes were counted, 
 the result would be : for A. B., President of the United 
 States, — —votes; if not counted, for A. B., as Presi- 
 dent of the United States, votes ; but, in either 
 
 event, A. B. is elected President of the United States; 
 and so for Vice-President. 
 
 After a deal of wrangling and arguing, this method 
 was adopted ; and the President of the Senate an- 
 nounced the vote : 
 
 1 16th Cong., Sees. 2, p. 1127. 
 
112 The True History of 
 
 "Were the votes of Missouri to be counted, the results 
 would be, for James Monroe, of Virginia, for President 
 of the United States, 231 votes ; if not counted, for 
 James Monroe, 228 votes." And so of Daniel Tomp- 
 kins, of New York, for Vice-President. "In either 
 event," James Monroe and Daniel Tompkins had "a 
 majority of the votes of the whole number of electors." 
 So they were declared duly elected- —though under pro- 
 test of members, and in the midst of g^reat confusion. 
 Mr. Randolph declared the whole procseding irregular 
 and illegal, and offered resolutions to that effect — but it 
 was moved to adjourn and the motion carried. 
 
 This was on the 14th of February. 
 
 A week after, the 21st, was driven home the wedge 
 which opened the way for the easy passage of Mr. Clay's 
 "solemn public act," and "fundamental condition," 
 which was to be the door by which Missouri should at 
 T^ist enter the Union. 
 
 This entering wedge was the direct proposal by Mr. 
 Brown (of Kentucky) : "That the Committee on the 
 Judiciary be directed to inquire into the expediency of 
 repealing the eighth section of the Act of Congress, ap- 
 proved March 6, 1820," entitled, "An act to authorize 
 he people of Missouri Territory to form a Constitution 
 and State government, and for the admission of such 
 Jtate into the Union on an equal footing with the orig- 
 inal States, and to prohibit slavery in certain Terri- 
 tories :" "said eighth section imposing a prohibition and 
 restriction upon the introduction of slaves in all that 
 territory ceded by France to the United States, under 
 the name of Louisiana, which lies north of 36° 30' 
 north latitude, not included in the State, contemplated 
 by that act." 
 
 Mr. Brown supported this resolution in a speech that, 
 for candor, fairness, straightforward honesty, good 
 ocnse, and patriotism, is unsurpassable. No apology is 
 necessary for quoting from it at length. 
 
 After some preliminary remarks, he speaks of his 
 
T/te Missouri Compromise and its Repeal. 113 
 
 constituents, and says : "I made them no vain promises 
 of doing, or attempting to do, much ; but I did promise 
 to be faithful and zealous in watching over and preserv- 
 ing their best interests, as far as my liumble qualifica- 
 tions should enable me to do. Owing, sir, to that 
 credulity incident to sincerity and inexperience, I feel 
 myself constrained to acknowledge my co-operation in 
 so managing the subject of Missouri and restriction as 
 to have inflicted upon their interests an extensive injury. 
 My object is to regain for them, by following up the 
 purpose of this resolution, a part of what has been lost 
 by mismanagement. . . . The object of this resolu- 
 tion I never should have favored ; so far from it, that I 
 would have felt myself dishonored by giving it support 
 or encouragement, had not faith been broken by the 
 other party to the compact,' and Missouri been rejected. 
 This having been done, I feel myself at liberty — nay, 
 more, I feel it my imperative duty — to offer this resolu- 
 tion." He states that he had, at the solicitation of Mr. 
 Baldwin (of Pennsylvania) , delayed offering the resolu- 
 tion, hoping that some measure might be originated by 
 which Missouri migh«t be admitted. But he goes on : 
 "I acknowledge that I can see no good ground for an 
 expectation that any thing further can be done. 
 The minority, sir, have urged peace and good will, and 
 have acknowledged and cringed, until I feel myself 
 driven to the wall, and my feelings outraged. There is 
 a point beyond which importunity deserves reproach ;" 
 After stating that he had upon every occasion 
 "consulted the good of the whole," whether North, 
 South, East, or West: "Becoming thus satisfied that 
 kind offices, persuasive arguments, and solid reasoning 
 were appealed to in vain, I frankly acknowledge that I 
 know of no course left more likely to avoid greater evils 
 
 ^ Mr. Brown recognizes the compromise as a compact, but a broken 
 compact, no longer of any force. Mr. Clark had also seemed to think of 
 it in that light, when he spoke of a " Punic faith." 
 
 8 
 
114 The True History of 
 
 than a mild but unvarying system of retaliation ; under 
 the operation of which different classes and sections of 
 the United States might become convinced, from appeals 
 to their interest, that mutual kindness and a reciprocal 
 spirit of concession ought to influence our councils." 
 He then states why he had not advised with Mr. Clay, 
 his friend and messmate, than whom he had no friend 
 living whose approbation he would more highly prize. 
 Mr. Clay had not yet despaired of something being done, 
 and might have advised the withholding of his resolu- 
 tion — and he preferred to act without his possible appro- 
 bation than against his probable advice. He then de- 
 mands of Congress, "upon the principles of eternal 
 justice," "not for myself, but for one-half of the United 
 States, the repeal of this restriction upon the territory 
 west and north of Missouri. The consideration prom- 
 ised for this restriction has not been paid ; the plighted 
 faith of Congress for the admission of Missouri has been 
 violated ; then take off, at least, the restriction. Give 
 us Missouri without restriction ; or place us in the same 
 situation, by taking it off of the territory in which we 
 were when you entered into the covenant, and gave us 
 the solemn pledge of a law to do so." He refers to the 
 fact that the prohibition of slavery in this territory will 
 amount to the practical exclusion from it of those "who 
 have contributed so largely and most largely to its ac- 
 quisition." He speaks of the theory that in the slave- 
 holding States "manual labor dishonored the hands of 
 freemen." He shows the falsity of this idea — and says 
 that, in the South, "if a poor man goes to the house of 
 his wealthier neighbor, he is met cordially, taken by the 
 hand, and is a welcome guest at the hospitable board. 
 Whereas, in the North, the poor and miserable whites 
 are employed in all the servile round of duties from the 
 stable to the kitchen ; and often stand trembling in the 
 presence of their august employers, in practice and truth 
 their masters." "Thus the poor laboring white man is 
 degraded and dishonored in the non-slaveholding States ; 
 
The Missouri Compromise and its Repeal. 115 
 
 whilst in those of the opposite character he is saved 
 and redeemed by the intervention of the blacks." 
 Speaking of the non-slaveholding States, he says : "We 
 never have, and never will, submit to have our natural 
 and Constitutional rights revised and qualified by them ; 
 we deny their authority to catechise us, and to fulminate 
 their denunciations against our principles of morality, 
 religion, or honor. . . . Sir, I wish it understood that 
 I am no friend of African slavery, . . . and I will 
 pledge myself to go as far as most men for its amelioration 
 or abolition. But I owe higher obligations to the white 
 population of the United States, particularly to those 
 who have sent me here ; to my friends and family, than 
 those which I feel, or ought to feel, for the black. Mr. 
 Speaker, it should never be forgotten that, according to 
 the laws of the slaveholding States, slaves are property, 
 and protected by the Constitution of the United States." 
 He then relates his interview with the post-rider, who 
 had told him the year before that he had been " Yankied " 
 "by giving up the restriction on the Territory for a 
 right to which Missouri was entitled without it." He 
 imagines the question this honest fellow will ask him — 
 on his return home — and how he will have to answer 
 that it "had been the opinion of a majority that they 
 could not trust to the Constitution of the United States 
 to weigh against the Constitution of Missouri." The 
 inquiry will then be made, "Whether, as the first sec- 
 tion of the law which provides for the admission of 
 Missouri had been violated, the last section of the same 
 law, which imposed the restriction as the consideration 
 of the admission of Missouri, had not been repealed? " 
 
 The point could hardly have been presented more 
 forcibly than in this imaginary question. Mr. Brown's 
 proposal to repeal the 8th section did not pass, but it 
 produced an effect that nothing else had done. 
 
 On the next day, after this stirring appeal backed by 
 the resolution to restore their right in the territories to 
 the Southern people, Mr. Clay proposed that a Commit- 
 
116 The True History of 
 
 tee on the part of the House be appointed to meet with 
 a like Committee from the Senate, and to report 
 "whether it be expedient or not to make provision for 
 the admission of Missouri into the Union on the same 
 footing as the original States, and for the due execution 
 of the laws of the United States, within Missouri ; and, 
 if not, whether any other, and what provision, adapted 
 to her actual condition, ought to be made by law." 
 
 The resolution offered by Mr. Clay passed in the af- 
 firmative after about an hour's debate — yeas, 101, nays, 
 65, About 10 or 12 of the 55 nays were Southern votes 
 —Mr. Randolph of course making one — Butler, Ed- 
 wards, Floyd, Garnett, Johnson, Jones, Nelson, Parker, 
 Randolph and Williams were all Southern men, and all 
 voted nay. 
 
 It will be remembered that Mr. Archer's proposition 
 to the very same effect as Mr. Clay's, had been voted 
 down three times in one w^eek — but Mr. Brown had not 
 then proposed to repeal the Missouri Compromise, so- 
 called. 
 
 Mr. Clay then moved that the Committee consist of 
 twenty-three members, to be elected by ballot, pursuant 
 to the rules of the House, which was done. Seven 
 gentlemen from the Senate met with the House Commit- 
 tee, and on the 26th of February, Mr. Clay reported 
 from the joint Committee, the follow^ing resolution -} 
 
 ^^ Resolved, by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
 the United States of America in Congress assembled, That 
 Missouri shall be admitted into the Union on an equal 
 footing with the original States in all respects whatever, 
 upon the fundamental condition that the 4th clause of 
 the 26th section of the 3d Article of the Constitution 
 submitted on tlie part of said State to Congress shall 
 
 ' Which, it will be observed, omits that clause which retains for Mis- 
 souri "the exercise of any right or power which can now be constitu- 
 tionally exercised by any of the original States." Otherwise, it was the 
 same in substance as the resolution reported by Mr. Clay from the Com- 
 mittee of Thirteen. 
 
The Missouri Compromise arid its Repeal. 117 
 
 never be construed to authorize the passage of any law, 
 and that no law shall be passed in conformity thereto, 
 by which any citizen of either of the States in this 
 Union shall be excluded from the enjoyment of any of 
 the privileges and immunities to which such citizen is 
 entitled under the Constitution of the United States : 
 Provided, That the Legislature of said State, by a 
 solemn public act, shall declare the assent of the said 
 State to the said fundamental condition, and shall 
 transmit to the President of the United States, on or be- 
 fore the fourth Monday in November next, an authentic 
 copy of said act ; upon the receipt whereof the Presi- 
 dent, by proclamation, shall announce the fact ; where- 
 upon, and without further proceedings on the part of 
 Con<xress, the admission of the said State into the 
 Union shall be considered as complete."^ 
 
 On the same day, the House took up the resolution — 
 Mr. Clay briefly explained the views of the Committee 
 — there was some little talk by other members, the vote 
 was taken, and the resolution passed by 86 to 82. 
 
 In the Senate, Wednesday, February 28, 1821, "The 
 resolution from the House of Representatives for the ad- 
 mission of the State of Missouri into the Union on a cer- 
 tain condition, was read the third time. 
 
 "On the question, 'Shall this resolution pass?' " it 
 was determined in the affirmative, yeas, 28, nays, 14, as 
 follows : 
 
 "Yeas — Messrs. Barbour, Chandler, Eaton, Edwards, 
 Gaillard, Holmes of Maine, Holmes of Mississippi, 
 Horsey, Hunter, Johnson of Kentucky, Johnson of 
 Louisiana, King of Alabama, Lowrie, Morrill, Parrott, 
 Pinckney, Pleasants, Roberts, Southard, Stokes, Tal- 
 bot, Taylor, Thomas, Van Dyke, Walker of Alabama, 
 Walker of Georgia, Williams of Mississippi and Will- 
 iams of Tennessee. 
 
 "Nays — Messrs. Dana, Dickerson. King of New York, 
 
 ^ 16th Cong., Sees. 2, p. 1228. 
 
118 The True History of 
 
 Knight, Lanman, Macon, Mills, Noble, Otis, Ruggles, 
 Sanford, Smith, Tichnor and Trimble."^ 
 
 So at last this question was decided — for good or ill, 
 it was done with for the time. 
 
 It is to be noted that Mr. Smith and Mr. Macon in 
 the Senate, and Mr. Randolph in the House, voted time 
 after time -with the Northern side. They had wished to 
 defeat the compromise of 1820, of which they did not 
 approve — nor did they now any more believe in, or ap- 
 prove of, "the solemn public act" to be performed by 
 the Legislature of Missouri in 1821. They evidently 
 voted uncompromisingly upon principle alone. Had the 
 whole South acted on the same basis, what might have 
 been the result? Had they, with certainly all the con- 
 stitutional right on their side, maintained it with as 
 much persistence as the North showed in maintaining 
 her own unconstitutional and unjust assumptions, what 
 might not have been the result? It is a subject for 
 speculation, of deep interest to those to whom history 
 is valuable, as "philosophy teaching by example." 
 
 Which was in the right, stern, uncompromising John 
 Randolph, always voting with the other side, or gentle 
 Richard Anderson, who thought it useless to fight in 
 the face of defeat, and that "a minority ought not to 
 irritate the majority." We all know the fate of the 
 Lamb who endeavored to conciliate the Wolf. 
 
 Whatever may be the judgment as to this, no one 
 who has read this account of the Missouri Compromise 
 of 1820, and of the second Missouri Compromise (second 
 surrender rather) in 1821, but must see that the 
 majority of the Northern men did not then claim the 
 act of 1820 as a compact between North and South ; 
 they claimed it, on the contrary, as a contract between 
 the United States and Missouri, They knew that the 
 prohibitory restriction on the territories was the very 
 essence of usurpatory power ; they knew it was unjust 
 
 ^ See Annals of Congress. 
 
Tfie Missouri Compromise and its Repeal. 119 
 
 to the last degree, and that they had forced it on a peo- 
 ple who loved their country more than power, and who 
 suffered themselves to be rifled of one right in their fear 
 of losing another possession, the Union of their fathers, 
 still more dear to them. But success had made the 
 North drunk with power on the one hand, and on the 
 other the further greed of it had tempted them, as the 
 disappointment of their constituents had goaded them, 
 to demand still more of the South ; the South which had 
 already given them the North-western Territory con- 
 taining 250,000 square miles, out of which were created 
 the great States of Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Michigan, 
 and Wisconsin, had already yielded up to their insatiate 
 demands all of that territory North of 36° 30' amounting 
 to over 700,000 square miles, and containing the now 
 States of Kansas, Nebraska, Iowa, Minnesota, North and 
 South Dakota, the greater part of Montana and Wyoming, 
 and the northern half of Colorado. And it was only the 
 dread of losing all of this great territory, as suggested by 
 Mr. Brown's resolution and speech, that induced them 
 now to resign Missouri and to vote to admit her on that 
 "fundamental condition" and by that "solemn public 
 act," of which Mr. Clay said in the same great speech 
 of 1850, already quoted from : 
 
 "After all this excitement throughout the country 
 had reached to such an alarming point that the Union 
 itself was supposed to be in the most imminent peril 
 and danger, all parties were satisfied with a declaration 
 of an incontestable principle of constitutional law, that 
 when the Constitution of a State is violative, in its pro- 
 visions, of the Constitution of the United States, the 
 Constitution of the United States is to be paramount, 
 and the Constitution of the State in that particular is a 
 nullity and void. That was all. They wanted some- 
 thing for a justification of the course they took. There 
 is a great deal of language there of a high sounding 
 character; it shall be a "fundamental act ;" it shall be 
 a "solemn and authentic" act; but at last, when you 
 
120 The True History of 
 
 come to strip it of all its verbiage, it is nothing more 
 than the principle I have announced of the paramount 
 character of the Constitution of the United States over 
 any local Constitution of any one of the States of this 
 Union." 
 
 It is thus that Mr. Clay spoke in 1850 of the Legisla- 
 tion through which Missouri was permitted to enter the 
 Union, and which Judge Douglas afterward termed 
 "the richest specimen of irony and sarcasm that has 
 ever been incorporated into a solemn public act." * 
 
 And it is easy to believe the statement made in the 
 Senate, that Mr. Clay had on the floor of the Senate said, 
 in substance, that he ''laughed in his sleeve at the idea 
 that people were so easily satisfied."^ 
 
 The Act of 1821, by which Congress agreed to admit 
 Missouri, was either a nullity or a second Constitutional 
 crime, as the Act of 1820 was the first in relation to this 
 question ; a Constitutional crime, for it required the 
 Legislature of a State to annul and abrogate the Consti- 
 tution which it had sworn to obey. Mr. Clay, however, 
 evidently regarded it as a mere farce — an absurdity, a 
 nullity — which had "satisfied" the people and so ful- 
 filled its purpose But people were not so much satisfied 
 as they were scared ; the Northern men feared the Ter- 
 ritories might be taken from them, and as they had kept 
 Missouri out on a quibble, so now they were glad to ad- 
 mit her on a nullity, for they would not have dared face 
 their constituencies with the loss of both Missouri and 
 the Territories out of their own sole possession. 
 
 It was under this solemn legislative farce that Mis- 
 souri was admitted to the Union. She was never ad- 
 mitted at all under the Act of 1820. If that act were 
 ever a compact between North and South, its conditions 
 were that if the South would agree to prohibit slavery 
 north of 36° 30', the North would agree to admit Mis- 
 souri. In less than a year, Missouri was refused admis- 
 
 • App. Cong. Globe, Vol. 29, p. 331 » Idem, p. 147. 
 
The Missouri Compromise and its Repeal. 121 
 
 sion by Northern votes, the compact was broken by the 
 Northern majority in the House, and its violation -was 
 continued through weeks and months of deliberation and 
 reflection ; and when Missouri was admitted, it was un- 
 der an entirely new condition and an entirely different 
 act from that which embraced the compact (so-called) 
 of 1820. 
 
 Now, is a compact between two parties binding on the 
 one party, after the other has broken and repudiated it? 
 
 The whole voting, through three sessions of Congress, 
 showed clearly that there was no idea of any "sacred 
 compact." It was purely n contest for power and terri- 
 tory, in which the North was the stronger and won. 
 The South regarded the restriction as an imposition 
 which she could not successfully resist without a fight, 
 and she preferred to yield up a right rather than destroy 
 the Union. The North regarded the restriction, cer- 
 tainly, not as a sacred compact, but as an advantage 
 gained, which of course she would never willingly re- 
 sign. 
 
 If the Act of 1820 were ever a compact between North 
 and South, it was the North who broke it in 1821 ; if 
 "plighted faith" were ever violated in regard to that 
 act, as has been so loudly proclaimed, it was the North 
 who violated it in 1821. But the historian, who has 
 traced these events to their source and true beginning, 
 will never adjudge this legislation to have been a sacred 
 compact between North and South, for not more than 
 one-half of the Southern men in the House voted aye on 
 the passage of that famous act — whilst in 1821, out of 
 92 Northern votes, only 13 of them could be gotten for 
 Mr. Clay's resolution admitting Missouri — thus showing 
 that "all parties were not satisfied with the declaration 
 of an incontestable principle," but rather that, as Mr. 
 Clark stated, "they were willing to have done for them 
 that which they had not the courage to do themselves." 
 Whilst neither had Congress any right whatever to make 
 any sectional compact by which to deprive one section 
 
122 The True History of 
 
 of the Union of any right appertaining to her citizens — 
 or divesting any portion of them of that right to pro- 
 tection of their property to which they were entitled 
 under the Constitution, and which property was secured 
 to them during their territorial condition by the terms 
 of the treaty of purchase from Napoleon. 
 
 Had the provisions of the Constitution been strictly 
 adhered to in 1820, the war between the States might 
 never have been fought. But from the day that only 
 37 Southern votes and 5 Northern ones were cast in the 
 House against the Missouri Compromise Act of 1820, 
 whilst 134 votes were cast for it, that war was almost a 
 certainty in the future. It might be near or it might be 
 far, but it was sure as death itself, unless it could be 
 prevented by the interposition of patriotism. The Con- 
 stitution was on that day violated by every Northern 
 inan who voted for that bill, and by every Southern man 
 as well. The only excuse for the Southerners, in their 
 violation of the Constitution, was that they acted from 
 a good motive, though a mistaken policy, as it appears 
 to the writer. 
 
 But what was the motive, and what was the excuse 
 for the Northerners, who were in no danger whatever, 
 from any source, to their homes, their families, or their 
 equal rights in the government? 
 
 Southern brains had aided in creating the government. 
 Southern arms in maintaining, and Southern money in 
 supporting it. But now, in 1820, in this crucial test, it 
 was Southern love for the Union, the child it had helped 
 to create, that alone withheld the cruel sword which 
 would have divided it into two parts. Like the mother, 
 whose heart the wise king truly divined, the South pre- 
 ferred yielding up her own rights in the child to seeing 
 it destroyed. Hers was the true love. 
 
 But it was not rewarded as King Solomon rewarded 
 the love of the mother. On the contrary, the case has 
 all along rather resembled that of the Lamb and the 
 Wolf — the more the South yielded, the more she was 
 
The Missouri Compromise and its Repeal. 123 
 
 required, to yield, and the more she was upbraided as 
 the aggressor. 
 
 The Southerners were always an open-hearted, out 
 spoken, fearless, generous race of men ; a trifle haughty, 
 it may be, but never jealous ; impetuous in temper, but 
 cool in judgment ; exacting as to personal courtesies, 
 but magnanimous in granting great advantages ; devoted 
 to their homes, their families and their country. Such 
 were the men who, in 1820, had to confront a question 
 involving the peace of their country, the safety of their 
 homes and families, and their own political rights 
 of equality in the Union, and self-government in the 
 State. 
 
 Did they decide it aright? 
 
 From the day that 14 Southern Senators and at least 
 half of the Southern Representatives cast their votes for 
 the Act of 1820, the principle of the equal rights of the 
 States was yielded up ; also, the principle that Congress 
 had no powers to take away any right from the people, 
 save as those powers had been delegated to it by the 
 Constitution which the people of the States had accepted 
 as the bond of their Union. 
 
 The Ordinance of 1787 was quoted as furnishing an 
 example of the powers of Congress in this respect. The 
 cases were not parallel at all. In the one instance, Vir- 
 ginia, as a sovereign State, chose to acquiesce in an act 
 which no one but herself had any right to dispute. 
 She had the supreme right over her own territory ; if 
 she chose to ignore the fact that the Congress of the 
 Confederacy had passed an ordinance in contravention 
 of her deed of cession, if she still chose to continue to 
 ignore this fact, and furthermore chose to ratify the 
 articles of that ordinance, thus rendering them in part 
 her own act, as she did previous to the passage of the 
 same ordinance by the new Congress of 1789 under the 
 new Constitution, she had the perfect right to do so, and 
 it was nobody's business even to ask her motives. 
 
 But had Virginia chosen to object, there is no ques- 
 
124 The True History of 
 
 tion that she would have had the right to object to her 
 territory being used in a way totally at variance with 
 the conditions under which she had made her cession 
 of it. 
 
 In the other case, the people of one-half of the States 
 were virtually excluded by a mere Congressional Act 
 from occupation of territory to which they had the same 
 right as those of the other half who were thus given 
 sole possession of it. Congress, a party who did not 
 own the land, took from a portion of those who did own 
 it their rightful share, to bestow upon others, without 
 any manner of right to do so. Congress deprived the 
 whole Southern people of the right to which they were 
 undoubtedly entitled under the bond of the Union of the 
 States, to enter and settle the Territories, and to be pro- 
 tected therein in their lives, liberty, and property. 
 Their slaves were their property. Had Congress the 
 right, even by the largest majority, to thus deprive the 
 Southern people of land and of political equality? 
 
 Whence did they derive such right which they claimed 
 and exercised in the passage of the Missouri Compromise 
 Act of 1820? 
 
The Missouri Compromise and its Repeal. 125 
 
 CHAPTER V. 
 
 1836 — Abolition Agitation of 1836 — John Quincy Adams, 
 
 The hydra-headed, many-sided question of slavery had 
 been pretty well kept in abeyance, after the Missouri 
 difficulty was settled, until 1832, when it was again 
 brought before the American people by the formation 
 of the first Abolition Society, called the "New England 
 Anti-Slavery Society. " Others of the same sort followed 
 in rapid succession. They at once put forth a full 
 "declaration of their sentiments," which were, that "all 
 slaves should be instantly set free without compensation 
 to their owners,^ and that they should be "ultimately 
 elevated to an equality with the whites in civil and re- 
 ligious privileges."^ It was declared in one of their 
 earliest manifestoes that "the sword now drawn will 
 not be sheathed until victory is ours, . . . until the 
 slave, fearless and free, shall till the land of his thraldom 
 enriched with the blood of his master.''''^ 
 
 In December, 1835, these societies numbered three 
 hundred and fifty, and had a membership of one hundred 
 thousand. They sent out their agents, employing both 
 pulpit and press to stir up insurrections among the 
 slaves of the South. The mails were flooded with the 
 most incendiary publications and the grossest pictorial 
 misrepresentations of the Southern people, of which one 
 will suffice as an illustration. A planter carried out in 
 a palanquin, being fanned by several slaves, and look- 
 ing on at a number of half-naked negroes being lashed 
 as they worked, by overseers. 
 
 These societies were composed mainly of women, 
 
 * App. to Cong. Globe, 24th Cong., Sees. 1, p. 565. 
 
 ^ Idem, p. 566. * Idem, p. 568. Italics the author's. 
 
126 The True History of 
 
 children, visionary enthusiasts, needy individuals, and 
 the men who received pay from some quarter for getting 
 up the agitation. There were impecunious editors who 
 were glad to turn a few pennies by libelous prints and 
 slanders on the South ; there were long-haired preach- 
 ers with small congregations, glad to add to their own 
 importance and to eke out their slender salaries by an 
 addition thereto for preaching against a people whom 
 they had never known, and against a sin which had 
 never once been denounced by their Savior ; though the 
 slavery of His day was far more reprehensible than the 
 African slavery of the Southern States — as the one civi- 
 lized barbarians, whilst the other enslaved men of the 
 highest civilization and culture known in the world. 
 
 How many foreign emissaries in the pay of English 
 Abolitionists were on the roll is not known, but the 
 Abolitionists were entitled the "English Abolition" 
 party. The Americans had, however, made a great 
 advance over their English predecessors. Great Britain 
 had paid her citizens in Jamaica a large sum for their 
 slaves when she emancipated them ; whereas our Ameri- 
 can brothers proposed that our slaves should slaughter 
 their masters and then take possession of their lands. 
 Doubtless, it seemed to the Abolition leaders that it 
 would be an easier thing to take away the lands of the 
 South from the negroes if they could only get rid of 
 their masters, than it would be to take them from that 
 grand Anglo-Saxon race who owned both land and ne- 
 groes. And that to take these lands was the declared 
 purpose of at least one of the most prominent Abolition 
 leaders, will be presently shown. 
 
 How far England may have interested herself at this 
 time to "irritate the South and conciliate the North," 
 in order to bring about that separation between the sec- 
 tions which she so ardently desired, and which was a 
 part of her program in 1809-1812, has never been fully 
 revealed, so far as the author can learn, but the suspicion 
 and evidence of it were so strong as to add to the intense 
 
The Missouri Compromise and its Repeal. 127 
 
 dislike of the Abolition party, and their avowed senti- 
 ments, by the Northern people ; which dislike was preva- 
 lent among the better part of them for years. 
 
 In law, motive is regarded as strong presumptive evi- 
 dence, and England's motive at this time is plain and 
 clear. She was very desirous to acquire for herself the 
 fine Texas sea-ports, the possession of which would give 
 her control of the Gulf of Mexico. To do this she must 
 of course prevent the acquisition of Texas by the United 
 States, and she could further this purpose in no way so 
 likely to reach the end desired as by fomenting discord 
 between the sections on the question of the abolition of 
 slavery, and thus induce the North to oppose the annex- 
 ation of that country. Any one who will read the 
 speeches of that day in the British Parliament, or those 
 of the President of her great Abolition society, will find 
 abundant evidence as to her motive in this matter.^ 
 
 The American nation at large resented this proposed 
 interference in their affairs as presumptuous in the ex- 
 treme, even though only in speech, and one of the terms 
 of reproach hurled against Mr. Adams in 1836, was, 
 that he was in league with the English Abolition party. 
 
 George Thomson, the English Abolition lecturer, ex- 
 pelled from England for his crimes, was repeatedly 
 mobbed by the people of the Northern States, was 
 burned in effigy, and escaped narrowly with his life on 
 several occasions.^ 
 
 ' See Annals of Congress for extracts from said speeches. 
 
 * When in Washington, in 1854, Hon. Gerrit Smith, Whig member 
 from New York, called to see me. A large, fine-looking man, with 
 black, piercing, restless eyes, vivacious expression and genial manners, 
 he seemed withal a visionary and an enthusiast. We had a very 
 pleasant talk, and then I said: "How in the world did such a clever 
 man as you (clever in the Southern sense) ever come to be an Abolition- 
 ist?" He laughed, and said : " I M'ill tell you. In 1825 I was a young 
 man practicing law in Utica (I think he said Utica). My office door 
 was open, and a man walked in and said to me : ' You talk about the 
 effete monarchies of Europe, but this, your boasted land of freedom, 
 is the first place I ever was in where a man could not speak his senti- 
 ments freely in favor of liberty. I have been to New York, and they 
 
128 The True History of 
 
 In the town of Canaan, New Hampshire, an attempt 
 was made by the Abolition Society to establish a school 
 for the instruction of colored persons that might be sent 
 there from abroad. The inhabitants expostulated, en- 
 treated those who would force the scheme to desist — 
 "finding they could rid themselves of the nuisance in no 
 other way, they collected en masse, brought with them 
 some two hundred yoke of oxen, and proceeded quietly 
 to remove the edifice in which the colored youth were to 
 be instructed.'" 
 
 All over the North immense meetings were held con- 
 demnatory of the Abolition societies and their avowed 
 purposes, one of them declaring that "the land of the 
 Pinckneys, Marions, and a host of other Southern men 
 who periled with our fathers 'their lives, their fortunes, 
 and their sacred honor,' in a common cause, deserve as 
 a right, not as a favor, the protecting influence and sup- 
 port of every Northern patriot."^ 
 
 And Governor Marcy, of New York, proposed in his 
 message to the Legislature to suppress Abolition by leg- 
 islative enactment.^ 
 
 Such was the sentiment of the people of the North at 
 large, as distinguished from the Abolitionists, for many 
 years.* 
 
 mobbed me — to Boston, and tbey rotten-egged me — and now your Mayor 
 here refuses to let me speak in your town-hall ! ' He said he was George 
 Thomson, and had been sent over to this country from England by the 
 Abolition society there, to lecture on Abolitionism. I was greatly op- 
 posed to it myself, but all my pride of country was roused by the allu- 
 sion to 'effete monarchies' and I told Mr. Thomson that he should 
 speak as much and as long as he pleased. I went out and secured him 
 a room, and he delivered his address to an audience of three, of whom I 
 was one. He converted me, and 1 have been an Abolitionist ever since." 
 
 Hon. Gerrit Smith was one of the earliest, most noted, and doubtless, 
 most sincere of Abolitionists. — Author. 
 
 ^ App. to Cong. Globe, 2-4th Cong., Sess. 1, 1835-1836, p. 90. 
 
 2 24th Cong., Sess. 1, p. 120. ^ idem, App., p. 140 (1836). 
 
 * This is from Thorndyke Rice's book of Reminiscences of Lincoln. 
 It was written by Don Piatt, a Northern man, and is given to show a 
 Northern man's views of the ante-bellum situation. 
 
 Speaking of Lincoln, he said : " He knew and saw clearly that the 
 
The Missouri Compromise and its Repeal. 129 
 
 But the Abolition agitation of 1836 marked an era in 
 the history of our country. 
 
 It changed the entire feelings and policy of the greater 
 part of the Southern people. For whereas so large a 
 proportion of them had been heretofore most ardent 
 members of the Liberian Colonization societies, now^ in 
 face of the threats of force, and of the bitter denuncia- 
 tions hurled against them by the Abolitionists, whose 
 rapid increase greatly alarmed them for the safety of 
 their property, their homes, their families, and their 
 country, they determined to hold their slaves to the end, 
 searched their bibles for scriptural justification, and de- 
 clared slavery to be a blessing instead of the curse they 
 had hitherto deemed it. And in all this they were per- 
 fectly sincere. They would, like Harry Percy, yield 
 nothing to force — "Not a Scot" — "by this hand," 
 
 It also inaugurated the commencement of the reign of 
 that fanatic madness of the North which at last culmi- 
 nated in the bloodshed of our best and bravest, both 
 North and South, and the desolation of the fairest por- 
 tion of our land. 
 
 The principal and most distinguished agitator was 
 
 people of the free States had, not only no sympathy with the abolition 
 of slavery, but held fanatics, as Abolitionists were called, in utter ab- 
 horrence. 
 
 While it seemed a cheap philanthropy, and therefore popular, to free 
 another man's slave, the fact was that it was not another man's slave. 
 
 The unrequited toil of the slave was more valuable to the North than 
 to the South. 
 
 "With our keen business instincts, we of the free States utilized the 
 brutal work of the masters. 
 
 They made, without saving, all that we accumulated. 
 
 The Abolitionist was hunted and imprisoned under the shadow of 
 the Bunker Hill monument as keenly as he was tracked by blood- 
 hounds at the South. Wendell Phillips, the silver-tongued advocate of 
 human rights, was, while Mr. Lincoln talked to us, being ostracised at 
 Boston and rotten-egged at Cincinnati." — [Reminiscences of Abraham 
 Lincoln, by Distinguished Men of His Time, edited by Allen Thorndyke 
 Rice, p. 482.] 
 
 9 
 
 N^ 
 
130 The True History of 
 
 John Quincy Adams, of Massachusetts, quondam Presi- 
 dent, and at that time member of Congress. 
 
 President Jackson, in his message of December 7, 
 1835, called attention to the "painful excitement" pro- 
 duced in the South by the attempts of the Abolitionists 
 to produce insurrection among the slaves, but declares 
 his perfect confidence in "the good sense, the generous 
 feeling, and the deep rooted attachment" to the Union 
 of the people of the non-slaveholding States, to discour- 
 age, and if necessary promptly to "exercise their au- 
 thority in suppressing, so far as in them lies, whatever 
 is calculated to produce this evil." ^ 
 
 Mr. Adams evidently hated General Jackson with a 
 mortal hatred, as a political rival and a successful one. 
 It would seem to be a settled feature of political policy 
 that a successful candidate is to have his administration 
 embarrassed as much as possible by those over whom he 
 has been victorious. Certainly Mr. Adams must have 
 been animated by some ulterior or hidden motive, in the 
 singular persistence of his course in the matter of pre- 
 senting Abolition petitions at this time, other than either 
 patriotism or fanaticism. 
 
 It was stated on the floor of the House by Mr. Pres- 
 ton, of South Carolina, that there had been presented 
 during this session " no less than twenty-eight thousand 
 of these petitions."^ Some of them were couched in 
 language at once offensive and unparliamentary. They 
 related chiefly to the abolition of slavery in the District 
 of Columbia, praying Congress to abolish slavery and 
 the slave trade there, and many of them were signed 
 exclusively by women, or women and children. The 
 greater part of them were presented by Mr. Adams, 
 whilst Mr. Giddiugs, of Ohio, and some other Abolition- 
 ists, were responsible for the balance. 
 
 In respect to the slave trade in the District, it has al- 
 ways appeared to the writer that the Southern members 
 of Congress committed an error of judgment in that 
 
 1 App. to Com-. Globe, 24th Cong., Sess. 1, p. 10. ' Idem, p. 336. 
 
The Missouri Compromise and its Repeal. 131 
 
 they did not themselves insist on putting a stop to the 
 use of our Capitol city as a slave mart for the adjacent 
 States. The undoubted and pressing necessity for the 
 transference of the surplus negro population from those 
 States (where under the humane system of slavery then 
 existing they multiplied so rapidly that the old labor-worn 
 lands could no longer afford a maintenance for all) to 
 the cotton fields of the South as the only way by which 
 this Malthusian problem could be solved, was probably 
 not understood by either the Northern men or the for- 
 eigners who looked on at the sale of these slaves with a 
 horror that was natural to men who knew nothing of the 
 situation or its rationale. 
 
 The Malthusian problem had not then become in the 
 North, as now, the living, vital problem of the hour. 
 You did not then see in the great cities, as now, the 
 thousands of grimy, despairing, desperate faces, the 
 faces of the starving.^ The question of political economy 
 involved in the sale of the slaves to the far South, with 
 her wide fields and generous lands, was incapable of 
 comprehension to the majority of those persons, women 
 and children, who protested against the internal trade 
 as carried on at the Capitol. They saw only the 
 shackles, the auction block, the separation of families, 
 the weeping of those sent away from their happy homes, 
 and, knowing nothing of the real causes of these things, 
 saw only the apparent cruelty. The word apparent is 
 used advisedly. 
 
 The Southern members of Congress should have un- 
 derstood human nature well enough to know that by per- 
 sistence in such a method, they were furnishing a most 
 effective handle to their opponents by rousing against 
 the Southern section all the better feelings of humanity, 
 and they should, in wisdom, have avoided this. 
 
 Those opponents did not choose to state the facts of 
 the case which every informed man among them knew 
 to be true — that the slaves were, really, an inheritance 
 
 ^ This was written in New York, in 1894-5. — Author. 
 
132 The True History of 
 
 from the past, that their section of country was equally 
 guilty with the South (or more so) in the matter of their 
 importation, that the financial prosperity of the North 
 was based largely on the moneys received from the 
 South for slaves, not only those imported from Africa 
 (which were the sources of many great fortunes) , but 
 also those sold from the Northern States when it was 
 found their labor did not pay, and which moneys were, 
 very wisely, invested in banks and factories. They did 
 not choose to state what was undoubtedly true, and 
 what they should have felt, that it was quite as much 
 the duty of the Northern man to put his hand in his 
 pocket and help to pay for the freedom and deportation 
 of tliose slaves as it was of the Southern man to give 
 them up. But no Abolitionist ever suffered such a bug- 
 a-boo of memory or of duty to cross his mind. He felt 
 none of the guilt of blood on his own garments ; he only 
 saw its stain on those of his Southern brethren. And 
 they, the Southern men, scorned to defend themselves 
 against what they regarded as unjust and unfair im- 
 putations ; they scorned to attempt any concealment of 
 facts ; they knew the necessity for the migration of the 
 slaves : they realized fully the necessity their owners 
 w^ere under to get the best prices possible for those sold 
 in order to the maintenance of the aged and helpless left 
 behind — for there were no poor-houses for them to be 
 sent to, no "over the hill to the poor-house" shadow on 
 those humble lives — conscious of the rectitude of their 
 motives in dealing with this difficult problem which had 
 descended to them as a legacy without their own voli- 
 tion, and had been thrust upon them in great measure 
 by the action of the very section, of whose people a por- 
 tion were now denouncing them in most unmeasured 
 terms ; knowing that they had furnished their slaves 
 kind treatment and good homes as was evidenced in the 
 grief of the poor creatures on leaving them, knowing all 
 the difficulties of their own position, they held them- 
 selves loftily above accounting to any mortal for their 
 
The Missouri Compromise and its Repeal. 133 
 
 action, and would submit to no dictation or reproof, 
 especially from an unfriendly source. They would not 
 change their course one iota, nor yield up a single right 
 which they possessed and were legally entitled to. 
 
 Now, this was human nature, but it was not wisdom. 
 An opponent so wily and determined as the early 
 Abolition party, with so powerful an ally as England to 
 secretly back and urge it on, should have been met with 
 reason and caution as well as resolve ; and it would have 
 been far better to have given up the mere convenience, 
 to buyer and seller, of Washington as a central point, 
 than to have incurred, as was surely done in this re- 
 spect, the antagonism of the rest of the civilized world 
 in consequence of the manifestations there as connected 
 with slavery. Which were, of course, regarded as the 
 common practice of the South, whereas "shackles" were 
 very rarely seen there, being used only for criminals. 
 
 Of course, with their ideas on the subject, Southern 
 men objected to the reception of these Abolition peti- 
 tions by Congress, and desired them to be laid on the 
 table without discussion, as hjfd been the course pursued 
 since 1790. Mr, Adams insisted that they be received — 
 insisted that not to receive them was to deprive the 
 people of their constitutional right to petition Congress 
 for redress of grievances. He declared that he was not 
 an Abolitionist, that he would not abolish slavery in the 
 District of Columbia if he could, but he would insist on 
 the right of petition, and on these petitions being treated 
 with the respect and consideration due to constitutional 
 rights. He ignored the fact, however, that these peti- 
 tions did not seek to redress any real grievances on the 
 part of the petitioners (their grievancss being purely 
 sentimental) , but on the contrary sought to inflict a very 
 practical grievance on a large proportion of citizens by 
 depriving them of their property, to which they had a 
 constitutional right. 
 
 Moderate men, both North and South, opposed Mr. 
 Adams' course ; and Mr. Pinckney (of South Carolina), 
 
134 The True History of 
 
 in order to remove the question from debate by the 
 House, proposed to refer all such petitions, with all reso- 
 lutions and amendments thereto, relating to the abolition 
 of slavery, already offered or that may hereafter be pre- 
 sented, to a select Committee with instructions to report 
 that Congress had no authority to interfere with slavery 
 in the States, and that it ought not to do so in the 
 District of Columbia, because it would be in viola- 
 tion of the public faith and dangerous to the Union ; 
 and assigning such reasons for these conclusions as 
 would best establish harmony between the two sections 
 of the Union. 
 
 Mr. Wise (of Virginia) opposed this resolution, in- 
 sisting that it should express that Congress had no right 
 to abolish slavery in the District of Columbia, 
 
 Mr. Pinckney's resolution, however, passed by a large 
 majority,^ and was sustained by the House, over the de- 
 cision of the Speaker, which was adverse to its purpose 
 of preventing discussion on each separate petition. 
 
 In the Senate the same drama was enacted, saving in 
 degree, and the personality of the arch-agitator, Mr. 
 Adams. The same question was raised as to the right 
 of petition in the abstract. The Southern men opposed 
 the reception and discussion of petitions which de- 
 nounced their constituents as "man-pirates, dealers in 
 human flesh," etc., and which proposed as their ulti- 
 mate end the destruction of their property and lives. The 
 conservative Northern men said : "Reject the prayer of 
 these petitions ; but if you refuse to receive the petitions 
 themselves, you raise a new issue, infinitely more favor- 
 able to these mad incendiaries than any thing that has 
 gone before — that if there were excitement at the South 
 on the subject, there was also the same in the non-slave- 
 holding States — and there were individuals making it 
 their business and calling, to increase that excitement — 
 and they entreated their Southern brethren to aid them 
 
 1 Cong. Globe, 24th Cong., Sess. 1, p. 172. 
 
The Missouri Compromise and its Repeal. 135 
 
 in combating it rather than by any action of theirs add- 
 ing to it."^ 
 
 Among the advocates for fair dealing with the South 
 we find prominently Franklin Pierce, of New Hamp- 
 shire, elected President in 1852. 
 
 Mr. Adams became more and more conspicuous for 
 his — crankiness — may it be called in homely parlance? 
 He tried in every way to evade the decision of Congress 
 in regard to the reception of Abolition petitions. He 
 impugned General Jackson's veracity, and it was proven 
 on examination, to be a case of forgetfulness on his own 
 part.^ He made himself so obnoxious generally that the 
 House did not hesitate to vote down his motions upon all 
 occasions. 
 
 During the next session we find him creating an in- 
 tense excitement in the House by inquiring of the 
 Speaker if it were against the rules for him to present a 
 petition purporting to be from slaves — which, however, 
 he declined to send up, or state the substance of, until 
 the House should have decided that it might be received. 
 This inquiry, as to the propriety of presenting a petition 
 from slaves, raised a perfect storm of indignation among 
 the Southern members. 
 
 Amid cries for his expulsion, a resolution calling Mr. 
 Adams up to the bar for censure was offered, on the 
 ground of disrespect to the House in that he had at- 
 tempted "to introduce into this House a petition of 
 slaves for the abolition of slavery in the District of Co- 
 lumbia."^ It was taken for granted that this was the 
 object of the petition. Mr. Adams, however, denied the 
 charge, said he had not stated what the prayer of the 
 petition was. After keeping the House at a boiling point 
 of heat for nearly a week, the petition turned out to be a 
 hoax perpetrated on Mr, Adams by some wag of Washing- 
 ton — it purporting to be from twenty-two slaves of the Dis- 
 trict and asking for Mr. Adams' expulsion from Congress. 
 
 * Cong. Globe, 24th Cong., Sess. 1, p. 120. ^ Idem, pp. 455-456, 
 'Idem, p. 168. 
 
136 The True History of 
 
 But bitter feelings had been aroused and bitter words 
 spoken. The words could not be erased, nor the feel- 
 ings wholly calmed down, and the House was so indig- 
 nant at being trifled with on such a subject that only 
 Mr. Adams' age, his high position, his past distinguished 
 services, and his extreme and evident sensitiveness to a 
 Censure from the House, protected him from it. A 
 resolution was passed by an immense majority, 160 to 
 35, that, in regard to the inquiry made of the Speaker 
 "by an honorable gentleman from Massachusetts," the 
 House could not receive such a petition "without disre- 
 garding its own dignity, the rights of a large class of 
 citizens of the South and West, and the Constitution of 
 the United States." And also "that slaves do not 
 possess the right of petition secured to the people of the 
 United States by the Constitution."^ 
 
 It is almost impossible to measure the mischief done 
 to the country by Mr. Adams' extraordinary persistence 
 in this course of opposition to the South, which, as he 
 declared he was not an Abolitionist, can be accounted 
 for only on the ground of his intense hatred for Gen. 
 Jackson (whose every measure he seemed to oppose at 
 every point) , and his desire to be reinstated in the office 
 now held by Jackson ; for the right of petition was in 
 no manner of danger, and the hue and cry on the sub- 
 ject could have been raised for no other purpose than to 
 get up excitement in the North against the South in the 
 hope that it would turn the next election in favor of 
 Mr. Adams and his party. The ability, tenacity, and 
 bull-dog courage he showed would have been worthy of 
 a better cause, but his bitterness, bigotry, and narrow- 
 ness of spirit were certainly most unworthy of the noble 
 cause of Liberty, of which he declared himself the de- 
 fender. His love of liberty seemed to be of such a sort 
 that he wanted a monopoly of her — he desired her bless- 
 ings for himself and his partisans alone — and he appar- 
 
 ^ Cong. Globe, 24th Cong., Sess. 2, pp. 184, 185. 
 
The Missouri Compromise and its Repeal. 137 
 
 ently well earned the title bestowed on the Abolitionists 
 by Mr. Preston (of South Carolina), of "hot-headed, 
 cold-hearted fanatics."^ 
 
 But Mr, Adams was not a fanatic. He had too much 
 sense not to know perfectly well that there was no more 
 danger of the Constitutional right of petition being in- 
 terfered with by the Southern people than there was of 
 the moon falling from the sky, and he only used it as a 
 means of arousing public sentiment at the North in order 
 to divert it into another channel and one favorable to 
 himself. His fanaticism was entirely personal, and his 
 own ambitions and his own hates were the objects on 
 which it spent itself. The conviction is irresistible that 
 to John Quincy Adams more than any other citizen 
 of the Republic is due the credit of the intense feeling 
 which was excited in the North against the South in 
 1836, and by the logic of human nature, also in the 
 South against the North, and equally irresistible to the 
 impartial reader is the conviction that Mr. Adams was 
 influenced, not by love of liberty or fear of encroachment 
 on any Constitutional right by the South, but solely by 
 his personal hate and political ambition. 
 
 1 Cong. Globe, 24th Cong., Sess. 1, p. 76. 
 
138 The True History of 
 
 CHAPTER VI. 
 
 1838 — Mr. Calhoun's Kesolutions — Sustained by Franklin Pierce, Senator 
 from New Hampshire — Mr. Pierce's speech. 
 
 Texas had declared her independence in 1836, and our 
 Government had acknowledged it, October 22, 1837. 
 The question of her annexation was before the people. 
 Gen. Jackson and the South were in favor of it, Mr. 
 Adams and the North against it. Petitions and memo- 
 rials poured into Congress from the North by hundreds 
 and thousands on the subject. 
 
 On the 19th of December, 1837, Mr. Swift presented 
 to the Senate a memorial and resolutions from the Leg- 
 islature of Vermont protesting against the annexation 
 of Texas, or the admission of any more slave States, 
 and insisting on the abolition of slavery in the District, 
 and in all Territories of the United States. 
 
 Mr. Calhoun, on the 27th, presented a series of resolu- 
 tions, six in number, counter to the object of the 
 memorial from Vermont, and upon these resolutions oc- 
 curred the most intensely interesting and exciting of all 
 the debates ever yet held on the subject. They mark 
 the divergence into different paths of the three greatest 
 intellects of their day, Calhoun, Webster, and Clay — all 
 of them true men and sincere patriots — but each look- 
 ing from a different standpoint. They also define the 
 position of Franklin Pierce, who not only voted straight 
 out for each one of Mr. Calhoun's propositions, except 
 the last (which was laid on the table on motion of Mr. 
 Preston, of South Carolina, who thought that "branch 
 of the subject would be more appropriately discussed in 
 connection with the resolutions introduced by him for 
 the annexation of Texas"), but spoke most em- 
 
The Missouri Compromise and its Repeal. 139 
 
 phatically in favor of them. The resolutions were as 
 follows : 
 
 "1. Resolved, That in the adoption of the Federal 
 Constitution, the States adopting the same acted, sever- 
 ally, as free, independent, and sovereign States ; and 
 that each for itself, by its own voluntary assent, entered 
 the Union Avith the view to its increased security against 
 all dangers, domestic as well as foreign, and the more 
 perfect and secure enjoyment of its advantages, natural, 
 political, and social, 
 
 "2. Resolved, That in delegating a portion of their 
 powers to be exercised by the Federal Government, the 
 States retained, severally, the exclusive and sole right 
 over their own domestic institutions and police, and are 
 alone responsible for them, and that any intermeddling 
 of any one or more States, or a combination of their 
 citizens, with the domestic institutions and police of the 
 others, on any ground, or under any pretext whatever, 
 political, moral, or religious, with the view to their 
 alteration or subversion, is an assumption of superiority 
 not warranted by the Constitution, insulting to the 
 States interfered with, tending to endanger their do- 
 mestic peace and tranquillity, subversive of the object 
 for which the Constitution was formed, and, by neces- 
 sary consequence, tending to weaken and destroy the 
 Union itself. 
 
 "3. Resolved, That this Government was instituted and 
 adopted by the several States of this Union as a com- 
 mon agent, in order to carry into effect the powers 
 which they had delegated by the Constitution for their 
 mutual security and prosperity ; and that, in fulfillment 
 of this high and sacred trust, this Government is bound 
 so to exercise its powers as to give, as far as may be 
 practicable, increased stability and security to the do- 
 mestic institutions of the States that compose this Union ; 
 and that it is the solemn duty of the Government to re- 
 sist all attempts by one portion of the Union to use it 
 as an instrument to attack the domestic institutions of 
 
140 The True History of 
 
 another, or to weaken or destroy such institutions, in- 
 stead of strengthening and upholding them, as it is in 
 duty bound to do, 
 
 "4. Resolved, That domestic slavery, as it exists in 
 the Southern and Western States of this Union, com- 
 poses an important part of their domestic institutions, 
 inherited from their ancestors, and existing at the 
 adoption of the Constitution, by which it is recognized 
 as constituting an essential element in the distribution 
 of its powers among the States ; and that no change of 
 opinion or feeling on the part of the other States of the 
 Union in relation to it can justify them or their citizens 
 in open and systematic attacks thereon with the view of 
 its overthrow ; and that all such attacks are in manifest 
 violation of the mutual and solemn pledge to protect 
 and defend each other, given by the States respectively, 
 on entering into the Constitutional compact which 
 formed the Union, and as such is a manifest breach of 
 faith and a violation of the most solemn obligations, 
 moral and religious. 
 
 "5. Resolved, That the intermeddling of any State or 
 States or their citizens, to abolish slavery in this Dis- 
 trict or any of the Territories on the ground, or under 
 the pretext, that it is immoral or sinful, or the passage 
 of any act or measure of Congress with that view, would 
 be a direct and dangerous attack on the institutions of 
 all the slaveholding States. 
 
 "6. Resolved, That the Union of these States rests on 
 an equality of rights and advantages among its mem- 
 bers ; and that whatever destroys that equality, tends to 
 destroy the Union itself ; and that it is the solemn duty 
 of all, and more especially of this body, which repre- 
 sents the States in their corporate capacity, to resist all 
 attempts to discriminate between the States, in extend- 
 ing the benefits of the Government to the several por- 
 tions of the Union ; and that to refuse to extend to the 
 Southern and Western States any advantage which 
 would tend to strengthen, or render them more secure, 
 
The Missouri Compromise and its Repeal. 141 
 
 or increase their limits or population by the annexation 
 of new Territory or States, on the assumption or under the 
 pretext that the institution of slavery, as it exists among 
 them, is immoral or sinful, or otherwise obnoxious, would 
 be contrary to that equality of rights and advantages which 
 the Constitution was intended to secure alike to all the 
 members of the Union, and would, in effect, disfran- 
 chise the slave-holding States, withholding from them 
 the advantages, while it subjected them to the burdens, 
 of the Government."* 
 
 Mr. Calhoun took the ground that the only safety for 
 the Republic lay in the preservation of the rights of the 
 States. He would not argue "with fanatics who would 
 violate any moral or political principle to obtain their 
 ends." He offered these resolutions to see what could 
 be done — the alien and sedition law was defeated by a 
 series of brief, summary and abstract resolutions — he 
 did not wish these resolutions to be considered as a 
 Southern measure — he "hoped that the vote that would 
 be given upon them would be a Northern and Western, 
 as well as a Southern vote," and that it would tend to 
 avert "this fatal tide of fanaticism." He declared him- 
 self "to be a firm and unflinching supporter of the 
 Union" — that he wished the Senate to decide if there 
 were any neutral ground upon which all the friends of 
 the Union might rally — that the disease of Abolitionism 
 must be fought in the non-slave-holding States where it 
 originated — and where, by means of incendiary and 
 slanderous jpublications, it was "infusing a deadly 
 poison into the minds of the rising generation, implant- 
 ing in them feelings of the most deadly hatred, instead 
 of affection and love, for one-half of the Union. "^ 
 
 The first four resolutions passed by large majorities — 
 Mr. Clay, Mr. Pierce and Mr. Buchanan all voting for 
 them — Mr. Webster against. He said: "He admitted 
 the necessity of some definite action on the subject on 
 
 ^ Cong. Globe, 25th Cong., Sess. 2, p. 55. ^ Idem, p. 75. 
 
142 The True History of 
 
 the part of Congress ; but his objection to the adoption 
 of the resolutions now under consideration was based 
 solely on the belief that they were at variance with the 
 correct interpretation of the Constitution." 
 "If the resolutions could be modified to meet the consti- 
 tutional requisitions, asserting that the Constitution 
 permitted slavery, and protected the institution, he would 
 vote for them. . . . The doctrines here set forth he 
 viewed as a sweeping declaration against the letter and 
 spirit of the Constitution."^ 
 
 When the fifth resolution came up for consideration, 
 it was opposed on various grounds. Hon. Franklin 
 Pierce spoke warmly in its support. 
 
 He stated in his speech that "The Senate had come at 
 length to the ground on which this contest was to be de- 
 termined. The District of Columbia was now emphati- 
 cally the battle-field of the Abolitionist, and the resolu- 
 tion immediately under consideration, with, perhaps, 
 some modifications in phraseology, would present the 
 true issue here and to the country — an issue which 
 would raise, not a mere question of expediency, but one 
 of a much higher character, in which the public faith is 
 directly involved. ... I have no hesitation in say- 
 ing that I consider slavery a social and political evil, 
 and most sincerely wish that it had no existence upon 
 the face of the earth ; but it is jDerfectly immaterial how 
 it maybe regarded, either by you or myself ; it is not 
 for us to sit in judgment, and determine whether the 
 rights secured to the different States by the Constitution 
 are blessings or otherwise : it is sufficient for the argu- 
 ment that they are rights, which the inhabitants do not 
 choose to relinquish. 
 
 "Mr. President, yielding to my inclination, I would 
 here take leave of this irritating subject, now and for- 
 ever ; but the manner in which it appears to be connect- 
 
 1 Cong, Globe, 25th Cong., Sess. 2, p, 73. 
 
Tlie Missouri Compromise and its Repeal. 143 
 
 ing itself with other topics, renders it proper in my 
 judgment, to add a few remarks. 
 
 "When, it is often asked, is this agitation, in Congress, 
 and out of it, to cease? When is it to terminate, and 
 with what results? These are questions which, three 
 years since, would not have cost me one moment's un- 
 easiness. I thought the apprehensions of Southern gen- 
 tlemen, to a great extent, had their origin in a morbid 
 sensibility upon this subject. Still, mindful of their 
 interests and peculiar relations, I appreciated their feel- 
 ings, and deeply regretted the cause of irritation. And 
 now these questions would create little interest, certainly 
 excite no alarm, in my mind, if the agitators upon the 
 subject were only to be found in the circle of avowed 
 Abolitionists. With regard to the State which I have 
 the honor, in part, to represent, I am perfectly satisfied, 
 as well from my own observation as from the expression 
 of the Legislature during the last winter, that public 
 sentiment can hardly be said to be divided upon this 
 subject. But here, sir, I feel bound to admit that there 
 are indications in New England which can not and 
 ought not to be overlooked. The aspect of things in this 
 respect has undergone some change, and I fear the ele- 
 ments of still greater change are in active operation. I 
 do not mean to say that the Abolitionists proper are gain- 
 ing strength rapidly ; but what I do mean to say is, 
 that they are finding allies in the cause of agitation in 
 the political press. Sir, if politics are to be mingled 
 w^ith this subject, let it be known ; it can not be pro- 
 claimed too soon. I have been taught that the way to 
 overcome difficulties and threatening dangers is to meet 
 them on the advance, not to wait their approach ; and, 
 although I would create no unnecessary alarm, I assure 
 the mover of these resolutions that he shall not find me 
 standing tamely by, or attempting to lull otliers into 
 false security by the cry "all's well," when I believe 
 there is danger — when I know there is an enemy in mo- 
 tion, professing and claiming to be influenced by consid- 
 
144 The True History of 
 
 erations and governed by motives above and beyond the 
 Constitution and laws of my country, and that enemy 
 likely to be sustained by an alliance with party politics. 
 No, sir, we have no concealments upon this subject. 
 All we demand is, that since we are to be the first to feel 
 the effects of Abolition ascendency at home, should it 
 ever be acquired (which, by the way, I by no means an- 
 ticipate) , we may meet the question unembarrassed, and 
 not be driven by any course here upon a collateral issue, 
 such as the right of petition, or any other. The force of 
 this suggestion will be more fully apprehended after the 
 remarks which I am about to make. 
 
 "It is not to be disguised that, from an insignificant 
 beginning, and with comparatively few, even now, who 
 hold what are generally considered abolition sentiments, 
 this subject is assuming an aspect of fearful interest and 
 momentous consequence. 
 
 "The Senator from Alabama, on my left (Mr. King) , in 
 my judgment, pointed, at an early day of the session, to 
 the true cause of the alarm, if any exists. It was this : 
 that religious fanaticism no longer moves alone in this 
 matter ; that the misguided enthusiast has joined hands 
 with the designing politician. Sir, I refer to it with re- 
 luctance. I have no party purposes to answer. I should 
 be unworthy of a seat here, and unworthy of the confi- 
 dence that has been reposed in me by an honest, intelli- 
 gent, and patriotic people, if I could indulge any thing 
 like partisan feelings on an occasion like this. No, sir ; 
 no, sir, I believe this question may, and I believe it is 
 the only question that can, lead to a dissolution of the 
 Union ; and I have but one object, that is, to guard 
 against it ; to preserve inviolate the public faith and the 
 provisions of the Constitution under which we have so 
 long lived in prosperity. The Abolitionists, it is well 
 known, long since avowed their determination to make 
 this the test question in elections ; and I have seen, with 
 profound regret, that in one State at least, some of the 
 prominent individuals of both parties have submitted to 
 
The Missouri Compromise and its Repeal. 145 
 
 their catechisms. Let those who doubt that the poli- 
 ticians in Connecticut and New Hampshire are making 
 use of Abolition for party purposes, with a view to the 
 approaching elections, notice the tone of the political 
 newspapers there within the last three or four weeks. 
 It is true the}'- do not avow Abolition doctrines, but they 
 make up an issue not warranted by the state of facts, 
 and that issue happens to be the same upon which the 
 Abolitionists are waging their war. They allege that to 
 receive and lay upon the table without reading or print- 
 ing, is equivalent to the rejection of petitions. It is no- 
 torious that the question of receiving petitions upon this 
 subject has been taken in both Houses, and decided af- 
 firmatively by overwhelming majorities; and yet there 
 is a persevering and systematic attempt on the part of 
 the political as well as the Abolition press to give the 
 impression that the right of petition is denied." 
 
 Mr. Clay did not approve the fifth resolution. He 
 also disapproved the course of the Senate in regard to 
 petitions. He said that "the Abolitionists had increased 
 rather than diminished, because they have been able to 
 persuade many that the right of petition is invaded and 
 has been denied." He thought "our conduct should not 
 be regulated by the harsh, vituperative or fanatical lan- 
 guage of those who oppose us, but by the standard of 
 our own respectability, standing, and character in life." 
 
 He then offered a series of resolutions in place of Mr. 
 Calhoun's fifth resolution — the principal features of 
 which were that Congress had no right to interfere with 
 slavery in the States — that they could not constitution- 
 ally abolish it in the District without comjDensation to 
 the owners, and that it ought not to be done at all — but 
 that any petitions regarding it, "couched in decorous 
 language, which may be presented by citizens of the 
 United States," should be received and respectfully 
 treated by the Senate. 
 
 And finally that "it would be highly inexpedient to 
 10 
 
146 The True History of 
 
 abolish slavery in Florida, the only Territory in which 
 it now exists. . . . because the people of that Ter- 
 ritory have not asked it to be done, and, when admitted 
 as a State into the Union, will be exclusively entitled to 
 decide that question for themselves ; and, also, because 
 it would be in violation of a solemn compromise,^ made 
 at a memorable and critical period in the history of this 
 country, by which, while slavery was prohibited north, 
 it was admitted south of the line of 36° 30' north lati- 
 tude. "^ 
 
 Mr. Calhoun declared that to adopt Mr. Clay's resolu- 
 tion would be to abandon utterly the entire ground of 
 those already adopted. 
 
 "The great and governing principles which pervade 
 all these resolutions are non-interference on the part of 
 any of the States or their citizens with the institutions 
 of the other States, and non-discrimination on the part 
 of this Government (the common agent of the States) 
 in reference to the institutions of the several States — 
 principles that lie at the foundation of our political 
 system. 
 
 "He would tell the Southern Senators if these great 
 principles be abandoned, theirs will be the responsibility. 
 If they yield, if even a small portion, one or two, yield 
 in the slave-holding States, the members from the non- 
 slave-holding States must yield. They can not do 
 otherwise. You force them to do it. How can they 
 stand up when you abandon your position? How can 
 they defend themselves at home, when told that even 
 Southern members had surrendered the ground? Let 
 not the fallacious hope of drawing in votes, of 
 uniting all, induce a surrender of the strong and im- 
 
 ^ Could Mr. Clay have really believed in the Act of 1820, as a "solemn 
 compromise?" Could he have really regarded it as anything more 
 than an expedient, inexcusable except that it seemed unavoidable ? Or 
 did he merely use it, to help his argument and carry his point, as an 
 argumentum ad ignoranliam f — AuTnoR. 
 
 ■^ App. to Cong. Globe, 25th Cong., Sess. 2, p. 59. 
 
The Missouri Compromise and its Repeal. 147 
 
 pregnable position we occupy. There is no hope but in 
 meeting the danger, and it is better to stand alone, 
 ■without a vote beyond the slave-holding States, than to 
 surrender an inch of ground. But such will not be the 
 alternative. If we stand fast, all who agree with us 
 from every quarter, all who hold to our political creed, 
 will ultimately rally around our principles and the Con- 
 stitution ; but, on the contrary, if we surrender our 
 ground, in order to bring in the timid and those of an 
 opposite creed, we will lose all. The timid will become 
 more timid, and those of a different political faith, in 
 spite of all the concessions you may make, will, in the 
 hour of trial, be found in the opposite ranks ; and thus 
 principles and supporters, all will be lost. 
 
 "Before he concluded his remarks, he would call on 
 the Southern Senators to bear in mind that the first 
 battle is to be fought in this District and in the Terri- 
 tories ; and that, by carrying these points, the Abolition- 
 ists hoped to carry them in the States. To yield here, 
 or in the Territories, is to give ground where the two 
 lines come into conflict ; to give the first victory to the 
 foe, with all the fatal consequences which usually follow 
 a defeat on the first encounter. With these reflections, 
 he would ask, he would make a solemn appeal to his as- 
 sociates from the South ; which presented the more im- 
 pregnable position on these exposed points — the high and 
 lofty ground of non-interference and non-discrimination 
 assumed in the fifth resolution or that of inexpediency 
 in the amendment now proposed as a substitute? And 
 he would ask, on what motive of policy, or duty, would 
 they surrender the stronger and occupy the weaker — 
 give up the Constitution, and rely on expediency f 
 
 "He saw (said Mr. C.) in the question before us, the 
 fate of the South. It was higher than the mere naked 
 question of master and slave. It involved a great po- 
 litical institution, essential to the peace and existence of 
 one-half of this Union. A mysterious providence had 
 brought together two races, from different portions of the 
 
148 The True History of 
 
 globe, and placed them together in nearly equal num- 
 bers in the Southern portion of this Union. They were 
 there inseparably united, beyond the possibility of sepa- 
 ration. Experience had shown that the existing rela- 
 tions between them secured the peace and happiness of 
 both. Each had improved ; the inferior greatly ; so 
 much so, that it had attained a degree of civilization 
 never before attained by the black race in any age or 
 country. Under no other relation could they co-exist 
 together. To destroy it was to involve a whole region 
 in slaughter, carnage and desolation ; and, come what 
 will, we must defend and preserve it. 
 
 "This agitation has produced one happy effect at 
 least ; it has compelled us to the South to look into the 
 nature and character of this great institution, and to 
 correct many false impressions that even we had enter- 
 tained in relation to it. Many in the South once be- 
 lieved that it was a moral and political evil ; that folly 
 and delusion are gone, we see it now in its true light, 
 and regard it as the most safe and stable basis for free 
 institutions in the world. It is impossible with us that 
 the conflict can take place between labor and capital, 
 which make it so difficult to establish and maintain free 
 institutions in all wealthy and highly civilized nations 
 where such institutions as ours do not exist. The 
 Southern States are an aggregate, in fact, of communi- 
 ties, not of individuals. Every plantation is a little 
 community, with the master at its head, who concen- 
 trates in himself the united interests of capital and 
 labor, of which he is the common representative. 
 These small communities aggregated make the State in 
 all, whose action, labor, and capital is equally repre- 
 sented and perfectly harmonized. Hence the harmony, 
 the union, and stability of that section, which is rarely 
 disturbed except through the action of this Government. 
 The blessing of this state of things extends beyond the 
 limits of the South. It makes that section the balance 
 of the system, the great conservative power, which pre- 
 
Ttce Missouri Compromise and its Repeal. 149 
 
 vents other portions less fortunately constituted from 
 rushing into conflict. In this tendency to conflict in the 
 North between labor and capital, which is constantly on 
 the increase, the weight of the South has and ever will 
 be found on the conservative side against the aggression 
 of one or the other side, whichever may tend to disturb 
 the equilibrium of our political system. This is our 
 natural position, the salutary influence of which has 
 thus far preserved, and will long continue to preserve, 
 our free institutions if we should be left undisturbed. 
 Such are the institutions which these deluded madmen 
 are stirring heaven and earth to destroy, and which we 
 are called on to defend by the highest and most solemn 
 obligations that can be imposed on us as men and 
 patriots."^ 
 
 The question was narrowed down to the adoption of 
 the resolution of Mr, Clay, last quoted, and which had 
 been modified in several respects. Mr. Calhoun said : 
 
 "He was glad that the portion of the amendment 
 which referred to the Missouri Compromise had been 
 struck out. He was not a member of Congress when 
 that compromise was made, but it is due to candor to 
 state that his impressions were in its favor ; but it is 
 equally due to say that, with his present experience and 
 knowledge of the spirit which then for the first time 
 began to disclose itself, he had entirely changed his 
 opinion. He now believed that it was a dangerous 
 measure, and that it had done much to rouse into action 
 the present spirit. Had it then been met with uncom- 
 promising opposition, such as a then distinguished and 
 sagacious member from Virginia (Mr. Randolph) , now 
 no more, opposed to it, abolition might have been 
 crushed forever in its birth. He then thought of Mr. 
 Randolph, as, he doubts not, many think of him now, 
 who have not fully looked into this subject, that he was 
 too unyielding, too uncompromising, too impracticable, 
 
 \App. to Cong. Globe, 25th Cong., Sess. 2, pp. 61, 62. 
 
150 The True History of 
 
 but he nad been taught his error, and took pleasure in 
 acknowledging it."^ 
 
 "Mr. Clay, of Kentucky, said he was very sorry that 
 the Senator from South Carolina could not reconcile his 
 Judgment to vote for the resolution now under consid- 
 eration. He thought the declaration in the resolution, 
 that abolition was inexpedient, was not strong enough, 
 and that higher grounds ought to be assumed. But 
 what higher grounds? Was any man pref)ared to say 
 that the naked power of abolition did not exist? Mr. C. 
 spoke of the naked power, and not of its exercise, but 
 the abstract question of the existence of the power. 
 Now, though it did not exist in relation to the States, on 
 the mere question of abstract power, Mr. C. thought the 
 Senator from South Carolina would not declare that it 
 would be unconstitutional for Congress to abolish 
 slavery in the District or Territories. The power, like 
 many others, was not to be exercised on high considera- 
 tions, amounting in the District to the plighted faith of 
 the Government, during the existence of a state of things 
 which put a restriction on the exercise of the jDower ; 
 but when that state of things should no longer exist, the 
 power might be exercised. So as to the Floridas : the 
 power existed, but, for high considerations, was not to 
 be exercised. 
 
 "Sir, I want to do nothing to aggravate this spirit at 
 the North and to increase the Abolitionists. I want to 
 prevent the residue of the North from going over to join 
 them. There lies our danger, and there also are we to 
 look for safety. The Senator's resolutions are all 
 sound ; but there will be nothing gained by them of 
 safety to the cause or of permanency to the Union. 
 These are great objections. It is well that our lan- 
 
 ^ The author had not seen this opinion of Mr. Calhoun until after 
 writing the previous chapters, but confirmation from so high a source 
 is pretty good proof of the correctness of the views heretofore expressed 
 in regard to the course of the South. 
 
The Missouri Compromise and its Repeal. 151 
 
 guage should be firm, maintaining our rights ; but let 
 us avoid exasperating and irritating language."^ 
 
 (In response to an earnest and impassioned protest by 
 Mr. Pickens, Mr. Vanderpool, of New York, had said : 
 
 "I will take occasion to say as a Northern man, op- 
 posed with all my soul to the wild schemes of the 
 Northern Abolitionists, and feeling the full weight of ob- 
 ligation and sacred compact, my incentives to duty have 
 not been strengthened by speeches of Mr. Pickens and 
 other Southern gentlemen. We have for two years 
 heard too much of blood and disunion, too much hurl- 
 ing of defiance to afford us encouragement in our duty. 
 Southern gentlemen do not appreciate our position at 
 the North. We have and always will have fanatics and 
 fools there as elsewhere. But we can keep them in sub- 
 jection if their arms are not nerved and their ranks 
 thickened by indiscretions of our Southern brethren.") 
 
 Mr. Calhoun "believed that most of the Senators 
 from the non-slave-holding States had gone as far as 
 they could, consistently, with their opinion of what was 
 due to the feelings and temper of those they represented. 
 He asked them not to go further. His object was to 
 see how far they believed they might safely advance 
 on constitutional grounds in taking a stand against 
 agitators. 
 
 "The first four resolutions were well sustained, al- 
 though they took the highest constitutional ground ; but 
 on the fifth, which involved the same principles with 
 the preceding, he regretted to say, there had been a giv- 
 ing away. The constitutional ground is abandoned, and 
 that of mere expediency substituted. 
 
 ' ' Think of the folly of attempting to resist the power- 
 ful impulses that urge them to the work of destruction 
 with so feeble a word ! You might as well think of ex- 
 tinguishing a conflagration that mounted to the clouds, 
 by throwing a bucket of water on it. Expediency, con- 
 
 ^ App. to Cong. Globe, 25th Cong., Sess. 2, pp. 70, 71. 
 
152 The True History of 
 
 cession, compromise ! Away with such weakness and 
 folly. Right, justice, plighted faith, and the Constitu- 
 tion : These, and these only, can be relied on to avert 
 the conflict. These have been surrendered for expedi- 
 ency ! . . . 
 
 "He would never consent to place our rights on such 
 frail foundation. He stood on the Constitution — on the 
 great principles of non-interference and non-discrimina- 
 tion, and he would never surrender them and put the 
 question on mere expediency. He would leave those 
 who took different views to decide on the resolution as 
 amended as they might think proper. He would take 
 no part in it, one way or another."^ 
 
 Mr. Preston, of South Carolina, said that "his posi- 
 tion was to deny the jurisdiction, to declare the subject 
 was coram nonjudice, and not to stand here and be in- 
 sulted by agitation and discussion of his undoubted 
 rights. Therefore, he utterly disclaimed the course of 
 dragging the South before the Senate by resolutions and 
 abstractions."^ 
 
 After a good deal of discussion, the resolution was 
 modified to read : 
 
 '■^Resolved, That any attempt of Congress to abolish 
 slavery in any Territory of the United States in which 
 it exists would create serious alarm and just apprehen- 
 sion in the States sustaining that domestic institution ; 
 would be a violation of good faith toward the inhabitants 
 of any Territory who have been permitted to settle with 
 and hold slaves therein, because the people of any such 
 Territory have not asked for the abolition of slavery 
 therein, and because, when any such Territory shall be 
 admitted into the Union as a State, the people thereof 
 will be entitled to decide that question exclusively for 
 themselves."^ And passed in that form by 35 to 9 as a 
 substitute for Mr. Calhoun's fifth resolution, Mr. Cal- 
 
 1 App. to Cong. Globe, 25th Cong., Sess. 2, pp. 71, 72. 
 ^ Idem, p. 72. ^ Idem, p. 74. 
 
The Missouri Compromise and its Repeal. 153 
 
 houn himself voting for it at the urgent insistence of his 
 friends. 
 
 The sixth resolution, on motion of Mr. Preston, was 
 laid on the table. Mr. Calhoun regarded this as the 
 most important of all, having for its basis the equality 
 of the States, but he was outvoted by 35 to 9, Mr. 
 Pierce and Mr. Clay both voting in favor of Mr. Preston's 
 motion.* 
 
 Mr. Pierce's position in respect to these resolutions is 
 especially interesting, and specially noted by the writer, 
 for the reason that the election in 1852, to the Presi- 
 dency, of a man who held the views herein expressed by 
 him, certainly would seem indicative of a disposition on 
 the part of the majority of the Northern peoj)le to do 
 that justice to the South which had been denied them in 
 1820, and which was only granted them in appearance 
 and on an equivoque in 1850. For while the compromise 
 of 1850 was based on non-interference by Congress with 
 slavery in the States, yet it is very certain that although 
 California lay in great part south of 36° 30', and so 
 within that region in which, according to the ground 
 taken by Mr. Clay in 1837, slavery ivas admitted by the 
 the Compromise of 1820 — yet had she desired to admit 
 slavery instead of forbidding it, non-interference would 
 have been a non-entity. The election of Mr. Pierce in 
 1852, however, seemed decisive of the sincerity of in- 
 tent on the part of the majority of the North to carry 
 out that principle in good faith and to its full and legiti- 
 mate extent. It was to this purpose, and in view of this 
 apparent intent, that Mr. Dixon, in 1854, offered to re- 
 peal that act of intervention, of 1820, which was so 
 utterly at variance, not only with the principle of non- 
 intervention as adopted in 1850, but also with every 
 principle of justice to the South and of equality between 
 the States. 
 
 1 App. to Cong. Globe, 25th Cong., Sess. 2, p. 109. 
 
154 The True History of 
 
 CHAPTER VII. 
 
 1840_'44_Congress adopts " 21st Rule "—Petition to dissolve the Union 
 presented by John Quincy Adams — Annexation of Texas a Jackso- 
 nian measure — Defeat of Henry Clay for the Presidency. 
 
 In the debates on Mr. Calhoun's Resolutions, the 
 lines of divergence in opinion were clearly drawn ; 
 lines which, followed to their logical sequence, would 
 inevitably lead, sooner or later, to war between the 
 States. 
 
 Mr. Calhoun's voice rang out, high and clear, like a 
 clarion call, in defense of rights that were threatened, 
 to all appearance at no distant day ; claiming the pro- 
 tection of the Constitution for the property of the people 
 in their slaves, in the Territories as well as in the 
 States, and declaring that Congress had no right under 
 the Constitution to set the slaves free, either in the Ter- 
 ritories or in the District of Columbia, 
 
 Mr. Webster, on the contrary, declared that slavery 
 was only a local institution, and that the Constitution 
 had no power to transfer it to the Territories, and 
 therefore no power to protect slave property in them, 
 and that slaves removed to the Territories would become 
 free for lack of the laws to make them slaves. (Of 
 course all territory of the United States would, by this 
 method of reasoning, be forever closed to the slave 
 States ; and they would be hemmed in on all sides, with 
 no outlet whatever for the increase of their slave popu- 
 lation.) 
 
 Whilst Mr. Clay maintained that, although Congress 
 had the undoubted right to set the slaves free in the 
 Territories and the District, it would yet be inexpedient, 
 a violation of good faith toward the South, and would 
 endanger the Union of the States. He sounded the 
 
The Missouri Compromise and its Repeal. 155 
 
 trumpet for parley always, and endeavored by mutual 
 concession to preserve the Union and peace. 
 
 Meantime, the Abolitionists grew apace, like mush- 
 rooms in the night. When the religious element became 
 involved, as it soon did, all hope of permanent peace 
 was but a dream, and a dream never to be realized. 
 Not only was religion invoked — but envy also, that most 
 potent factor in the destruction of Paradise itself, was 
 brought to bear upon the Northern people. Of the 
 South they were told that, "Few nobles in Europe can 
 command so great a retinue of servants, and no king on 
 earth possesses more absolute authority. Indeed, such 
 is their dignity, wealth and influence, that although but 
 half a million, they are able to control twelve and a half 
 millions, and do in fact govern the Union ; and the plan 
 is now laid to keep up and increase their dignity, wealth 
 and power to future generations."^ 
 
 The literature of the North, too, was drawn into the gen- 
 eral excitement, and there were now but "few newspapers 
 or magazines, scarcely a school-book or common geogra- 
 phy published, that did not contain something, by in- 
 uendo or insinuation, of prejudice" against the people 
 of the South. 2 
 
 Texas had been anxious to be annexed to the United 
 States from the day that she conquered her independ- 
 ence from Mexico in 1836, and Gen. Jackson, then 
 President, had been most strongly in favor of it, declar- 
 ing that if she were not annexed, England might secure 
 her allegiance or alliance to herself. The Northern 
 people, however, were violently opposed to the an- 
 nexation, as it would add another slave State to the 
 Union, and by resolutions of legislatures, public meet- 
 ings, and other demonstrations of opinion, endeavored 
 to prevent it. 
 
 Thousands of memorials from the North against 
 
 ' Anti-slavery Circular— 1835. App. 24th Cong., Sess. 1, p. 567. 
 ' Mr. Pickens, of South Carolina, App. 24th Cong., Sess. 1. p. 287. 
 
156 The True History of 
 
 slavery, opposing the annexation of Texas at all, and 
 especially as a slave State, continued to pour into Con- 
 gress at every session. In January of 1840, in self- 
 defense. Congress adopted what was known as the 21st 
 Rule, which was as follows : "That no petition, memo- 
 rial, resolution, or other paper, praying the abolition of 
 slavery in the District of Columbia or any State or Ter- 
 ritory, or of the slave-trade in the States or Territories 
 of the United States in which it now exists, shall be 
 received by this House or entertained in any way what- 
 ever."^ 
 
 All attempts, however, of reasonable men to keep this 
 fire-brand out of Congress were rendered nugatory by 
 the persistent and determined efforts of John Quincy 
 Adams. Able, vindictive, vituperative, exasperating to 
 the last degree ; sharp, acrid, quick, shrewd, arrogant, 
 insulting ; pertinacious, selfish, jealous, and ambitious, 
 without even the excuse of an honest fanaticism, he 
 seems to have been an open victim of his own pestilent 
 hate ; which, centering on Gen, Jackson and radiating 
 thence, embraced the entire South and every thing 
 else connected with him, and appears, to the reader of 
 his course and speeches in Congress, to have been the 
 pivot upon which turned the whole aim and career of 
 this extraordinary man after his defeat by Jackson for 
 the Presidency in 1828. 
 
 When he himself was President, Mr. Adams had 
 taken measures to procure the annexation of Texas from 
 Mexico ; but, when Jackson was President, he insisted 
 that it must not be annexed, though Texas had mean- 
 while conquered her independence from Mexico, even 
 going so far as to declare that "Great Britain would not 
 suffer the United States to annex the independent State 
 of Texas, above all to acquire it by conquest and the re- 
 establishment of slavery."^ 
 
 1 26th Cong., Sess. 1, January 28, 1840. 
 " A pp. 24th Cong., Sess. 1, p. 449. 
 
The Missouri Compromise and its Repeal. 157 
 
 He declared he was not an Abolitionist, and that he 
 would not set the slaves in the District free if he could, 
 and in this he no doubt was sincere. For then the fire- 
 brand would no longer exist which he expected to fan 
 into the flame that should light his way to the White 
 House, But he made attempt after attempt to have the 
 21st Rule rescinded ; failing in this, he amused himself 
 by offering every variety of petition that could be 
 imagined, which really violated the spirit and intent 
 of the rule, but did not come within the letter of it, as, 
 for instance, a petition to have duty taken off foreign 
 cotton ; to be protected from wearing clothes made of 
 cotton grown by slaves ; to remove the Capitol to a non- 
 slave-holding State, etc., ad libitum. His ready re- 
 sources, his learning, his sarcasms, his gibes and savage 
 thrusts, all made him interesting if not amiable ; and 
 Henry A. Wise, of Virginia, was always anxious that 
 Mr, Adams be allowed to speak, that he might answer 
 him, Mr. Wise being one of those . impracticable men 
 sufficiently hot-headed to gratify Mr. Adams by getting 
 "exasperated to the last degree," which was exactly 
 what Mr. Adams was aiming at. Thos. F. Marshall, of 
 Kentucky, being a new member, was also in favor of 
 allowing him "full swing" just for "the fun of the 
 thing." So in consideration, partly, of his age and 
 high position, partly, of his own persistence, and, 
 partly, because of his intense and whimsical personality 
 which made him always interesting even when most 
 disagreeable, Mr, Adams was suffered to speak often and 
 long on the forbidden subject. 
 
 He finally introduced a petition from the citizens of 
 Haverhill, Massachusetts, for the dissolution of the Union. 
 This was more than even Tom Marshall's sense of humor 
 could accept. And in connection with Mr. Gilmer, of 
 Virginia, he offered resolutions of censure of Mr, Adams, 
 which he supported by one of the most eloquent pleas 
 for the Union on record, and spoken as only Tom Mar- 
 
158 The True History of 
 
 shall could speak, for his personality was as strong and 
 intense as that of any man who ever lived. 
 
 But his eloquent denunciation of this indignity 
 offered to the House by the presentation of a petition 
 which would involve, in the execution of its purpose, 
 subornation of perjury and high treason, did not pro- 
 cure the passage of the resolutions of censure. On the 
 contrary, Mr. Adams secured exactly what he wanted ; 
 an intense excitement, a storm of tempestuous feeling, 
 an opportunity to speak for several days together on all 
 the points he chose to make, with a final vote, after two 
 weeks, simply to reject the petition, by 166 to 40. Im- 
 mediately after this vote Mr. Adams rose and stated 
 that he had two more petitions of the same tenor as the 
 one rejected : one from New York and one from Penn- 
 sylvania, but in the present disposition of the House he 
 would reserve them for some future occasion. He then 
 proceeded to present all manner of Abolition petitions, 
 some of which coming under the 21st Rule, were not re- 
 ceived, and others having the question of reception 
 raised on them, the question was laid on the table. 
 "Mr. Adams in conclusion said that he had now got 
 through with all his petitions with the exception of the 
 two to dissolve the Union, and, as he had before ob- 
 served, he would, in the present disposition of the 
 House, preserve them for a future occasion."^ 
 
 Lord Morpeth, in a lecture delivered in England, in 
 1851, gave an account of Mr. Adams as a defender "of 
 the right of petition — the right to petition against the 
 continuance of slavery in the District of Columbia, with 
 a majority of the House usually deciding against him, 
 and a portion of it lashed into noise and storm. I 
 thought it was very near being, and to some extent it 
 was, quite a sublime position, but it rather detracted 
 from the grandeur of the effect, at least, that his own 
 excitement was so great as to pitch his voice almost into 
 
 » 27th Cong., Sess. 2, p. 215. 
 
The Missouri Compromise and its Repeal. 159 
 
 a screech, and to make him more disorderly than all tlie 
 rest. He put one in mind of a fine old game cock, and 
 occasionally showed great energy and power of sarcasm. 
 I had certainly an opportunity of forming my opinion, 
 as I sat through a speech of his that lasted three days, 
 but then it is fair to mention that the actual sittings 
 hardly lasted above three hours a day ; about four, din- 
 ner is ready, and they all go away for the day, differing 
 much herein from our practice ; and on this occasion 
 they frequently allowed Mr. Adams to sit down and rest. 
 All the time I believe he was not himself for the discon- 
 tinuance of slavery even in the District of Columbia, 
 but he contended that the Constitution had acceded 
 the free right of petition. One morning he presented a 
 petition for the dissolution of the Union, which raised a 
 great tempest. Mr. Marshall, a fine and graceful 
 speaker, moved a vote of censure upon him. Another 
 member,^ whom I need not name, who was the ablest 
 and fiercest champion whom I heard on the Southern 
 or slaveholder's side, made a most savage onslaught on 
 Mr. Adams; then, up got that 'old man eloquent,' and 
 no one could have reproached him with not understand- 
 ing how to speak even daggers. His brave, but some- 
 what troublous spirit, has passed from the scenes upon 
 which he played so conspicuous a part, but he has left 
 behind him some words, the sparks of which are not ex- 
 tinct. Nothing came of all this stir ; I used to meet 
 Mr. Adams at dinner while it went on, very calm and 
 undisturbed. After seeing and hearing what takes 
 place in some of these meetings, one is tempted to think 
 that the Union must break up next morning ; but the 
 flame appeared generally to smoulder almost as quickly 
 as it ignited. The debates in the Senate, during the 
 same period, were dignified, business-like, not very 
 lively, so it may be judged which House had tlie most 
 attraction for the passing traveler. 
 
 5 52 
 
 Mr. Wise, doubtless. * Louisville Journal, Jan. 11, 1851. 
 
160 The True History of 
 
 Well might Lord Morpeth say of Mr. Adams: "He 
 has left behind him some words the sparks of which are 
 not extinct." The fires of hatred smoulder and blaze 
 up and smoulder again, and years do not extinguish 
 them. How careful, then, should every lover of his 
 country be, not to kindle those fires of hatred in the 
 hearts of his countrymen? Long after all the ambitions, 
 all the hopes, all the loves of John Quincy Adams had 
 perished, and only the memory of his greatness re- 
 mained, that hatred which his own heart had conceived, 
 his own ambition cherished, and his whole intellect 
 nourished, survived ; and it grew apace in the hearts of 
 his people, who reverenced him and believed in him, not 
 realizing that his claim for the right of petition was but 
 a cloak for his ambition and a mere excuse to get up a 
 sectional storm, whose fierce winds should bear him in 
 triumph to the White House and thus secure to him 
 both the Presidency, and a triumph over his hated rival, 
 Andrew Jackson. The legacy of hate is a fearful 
 legacy — be it personal, sectional, or national — and should 
 be deprecated by every true patriot, as a poison to the 
 life of the nation, the State, and the individual. 
 
 ANNEXATION OF TEXAS. 
 
 The annexation of Texas was distinctly a Democratic 
 measure, and moreover, it was a Jacksonian Democratic 
 measure. 
 
 Gen. Jackson was the most picturesque, as he was one 
 of the grandest, of all the historic figures that have 
 loomed up above the American horizon, and he still re- 
 mained, in 1844, the head of the Democratic party, 
 though retired from public life ; and from the shades of 
 the Hermitage he still dictated its policy. 
 
 When, in 1844, he again announced, as he had done 
 whilst President, that " Texas r>iust be annexed, else she 
 might ally herself with England," that "this golden 
 moment must not be lost, or real necessity might compel 
 
The Missouri Compromise and its Repeal. 161 
 
 Texas to look elsewhere for protection,"' the Democracy 
 at once adopted that policy as a part of their platform ; 
 and with annexation for their war-cry and James K. 
 Polk, a Tennessee, Andrew Jackson Democrat, their 
 candidate, they entered upon that Presidential race, in 
 which was defeated the great leader of the great Whig 
 party, the idol of Kentucky, and probably the most 
 popular man of the day, the country over, Henry Clay. 
 
 Gen. Jackson was as pronounced in his enmities as 
 was Mr. Adams, and more outspoken. But whilst he 
 was a good hater, his hatred extended only to individ- 
 uals, and the British nation. Perfectly devoted to the 
 Union of the States, he would never have admitted to 
 his breast, for a moment, even, any sectional feeling 
 whatever. His patriotism was as intense as his love for 
 his friends was ardent ; and for country or for friends 
 he would have shed the last drop of his blood. He had 
 hated the British nation with a most intense hatred ever 
 since the war of the Revolution, when British soldiers 
 had taken him prisoner and treated him with indignity, 
 mere lad as he was. He may have always hated Mr. 
 Adams, but he certainly did so after he had defeated 
 him for the Presidency in 1824 ; and he hated Henry 
 Clay with the most bitter and undying hate because he 
 believed, however unjustly, to the day of his death that 
 Henry Clay had sold him out to Adams in the matter of 
 the Presidency. He was perfectly convinced that Mr. 
 Clay had made a bargain with Mr. Adams by which the 
 latter was chosen President, and his convictions were 
 unchangeable on this subject. 
 
 In the annexation of Texas, he saw his opportunity 
 not only to secure a great territory for his beloved country, 
 but also to checkmate Great Britain in her purpose to 
 acquire Texas ; to triumph over Mr. Adams and to de- 
 feat Henry Clay's dearest ambition and highest hope. 
 
 ^ Letter of Andrew Jackson, March 11, 1844, Hermitage. 
 
162 The True History of 
 
 At one blow he could crush the three enemies of his life ; 
 and he dealt it well. 
 
 Gen, Jackson claimed that Texas, properly, belonged 
 to the United States ; and the Democrats openly accused 
 Mr. Adams of having yielded up Texas, in exchange 
 for the Floridas, to Spain in the treaty of 1819, because 
 of his settled enmity to the West and South ; he being 
 Secretary of State at the time and having arranged 
 the treaty with the Spanish government. Mr. Adams 
 of course denied this. Mr. Clay, in a speech made, in 
 1819, in opposition to that exchange, had declared that 
 our "title to the Rio Del Norte was as well founded as it 
 was to the island of New Orleans." And had offered 
 some resolutions in the House to the effect that "the 
 equivalent given in the treaty for Texas was inadequate," 
 and that no treaty "purporting to alienate" any part of 
 our territory was "valid without the concurrence of 
 Congress." And when he was Secretary of State, dur- 
 incr Mr. Adams' administration, he had made strenuous 
 efforts to regain the lost territory. But, in April of 1844, 
 Mr. Clay wrote a letter from Raleigh, saying, " I do not 
 think that Texas ought to be received into the Union as 
 an integral part of it, in decided opposition to the wishes 
 of a considerable and respectable portion of the Confed- 
 eracy."^ Of course this "respectable portion" meant 
 the Whig party of the North who were opposed to any 
 increase of Southern territory whatever. This declara- 
 tion by Mr. Clay alienated his party in the South to 
 a great extent from him ; the three States of Louisiana, 
 Mississippi, and Georgia, which had all gone for Harri- 
 son in 1840, now voting the Democratic ticket. Besides 
 these, the great States of New York and Pennsylvania, 
 and also Maine, returned to their allegiance to the 
 Democratic party, from which the glamour of Gen. Har- 
 rison's military fame had temporarily allured them. 
 
 1 Ealeigh letter of April 17, 1844, p. 447, App. Con. Globe, 28 Cong., 
 Sess. 1. 
 
The Missouri Compromise and its Repeal. 163 
 
 Foreign emigration, especially from Ireland and Ger- 
 many, had now assumed vast proportions, and these 
 emigrants invariably voted the Democratic ticket, that 
 being regarded by them as essentially the party of the 
 people, whilst the Whigs were rather looked upon as the 
 party of gentlemen and conservatives. In addition to 
 this element of opposition to Mr. Clay, was the Abolition 
 vote, nearly 59,000 all told ; most of it taken from the 
 Whig party. 15,000 votes of Abolition Whigs were cast 
 in New York alone for James Birney, the first Abolition 
 Candidate for the Presidency, and a native of Danville, 
 Kentucky. 
 
 The canvass was a most exciting one, and most en- 
 thusiastic on the part of the Whigs, especially in Ken- 
 tucky, Mr. Clay's home, where he was almost wor- 
 shiped. There was no end of torch-light processions, 
 miles long, with every manner of device conceivable, to 
 illustrate the devotion of the people to "Harry Clay." 
 Men on horseback, ladies in their carriages with their 
 little children, wagon loads of people from all the coun- 
 try round, rode in these processions, which were gotten 
 up without money and purely from love, until far into 
 the night ; even the children singing themselves hoarse, 
 shouting Whig songs. 
 
 Louisville was called the "Banner City," Whig ban- 
 ners floated to the breeze from nearly every house-top, 
 and the city presented a most beautiful appearance as 
 you approached it from above on the great mail steam- 
 ers, which then carried all the travel of this part of the 
 country upon the broad bosom of the Ohio. Gas had 
 just been introduced, and on the nights of illumination 
 every Whig house was resplendent, and the very few 
 Democratic houses were held in the greatest contempt. 
 Banks, stores, and hotels vied with each other in the 
 beauty of the legends which blazoned forth, in letters 
 of living light, the glory of their chieftain, "Harry of 
 the West." 
 
 Not a Whig doubted but their ticket would be tri- 
 
164 The True History of 
 
 umphant. Defeat seemed to them an impossibility, and 
 the Whig politicians sat up all night, night, after night, 
 counting votes. The excitement was at fever heat when 
 every State had been heard from but Pennsylvania, and 
 her vote would decide the election. On that night a 
 great crowd assembled at the wharf, waiting anxiously 
 for the mail boat, which, of course, was later than 
 usual, because people were so anxious she should be 
 early. A young member of the bar, weary with long 
 waiting, concluded to go to the Gait House, which was 
 then on the corner of Second and Main, and take a bed. 
 About half-past three he was awakened by a tremendous 
 shouting ; the boat was coming ! As she neared the 
 wharf, there was a pin-drop silence ; people hardly drew 
 their breaths ; then the silence grew ominous ; he put 
 his head out of the window, and was about to ask the 
 news, when he heard a deep, gruff voice say, hoarsely, 
 "Da77^?^ Pennsylvania f^ That told the tale, and the 
 crowd separated for their homes — the bluest, most down- 
 cast, heart-stricken, of any political party that ever 
 suffered defeat. For weeks after, women wept over it ; 
 men walked the floor of nights and groaned over it ; the 
 very children at their Christmas parties, as they danced 
 to the tune, "Hurrah for Harry Clay," would sing the 
 whole song with tears rolling down their cheeks, and 
 dancing as they sang, while old Williams ^ played it on 
 his violin, keeping time with both feet, and singing, 
 too, at the top of his voice, and crying along with the 
 girls and boys. 
 
 Letters poured in upon Mr. Clay from every quarter 
 of the country, expressing the confident belief that with 
 his defeat the country was lost ; and men felt, as well as 
 believed, all they said. Such personal devotion has 
 rarely been given to any political leader. 
 
 ^ Williams' baud played at all the partfes in Louisville for many 
 years. He was devoted to Mr. Clay, and exceedmgly proud of his al- 
 legiance. The old darky was a splendid musician and a great favorite 
 with the young people. — Authok. 
 
The Missouri Comproviise and its Repeal. 165 
 
 Of all his friends, both personal and political, not one 
 was more truly devoted to Henry Clay than Archibald 
 Dixon, of Kentucky. Not one believed more in his 
 greatness as a man, in his political integrity, in his utter 
 devotion to the Union of the States and the welfare of 
 his country, in his patriotism and his wisdom. And, 
 up to the day of his death, Mr. Dixon would notice how 
 Mr. Clay was being quoted from, more and more, and 
 would often express the opinion that his fame would 
 brighten as the years went by, and would out-last that 
 of any of his contemporaries. And this, notwithstanding 
 that on some points of policy he had differed with him 
 very greatly. He agreed fully with him as to the equal- 
 ity of the States, and that, as to them, "equality is 
 equity." That equality which Mr. Clay had endeav- 
 ored, though unsuccessfully, to preserve in 1820, and 
 which Mr. Dixon, in 1854, determined to restore by the 
 removal of the restriction on the property rights of the 
 citizens of the slave-holding States in regard to the Ter- 
 ritories of the United States. As the originator of this 
 important measure, Mr. Dixon's characteristics and per- 
 sonality become a matter of interest to the reader, inas- 
 much as the inner motives which prompt a measure form 
 a part of a history of the measure itself. The writer, 
 therefore, gives a short chapter containing some facts in 
 respect to the life, character, and career of Archibald 
 Dixon previous to his election as Lieutenant-Governor of 
 Kentucky, in 1844, the period of Mr. Clay's defeat for 
 the Presidency, as above recorded. 
 
166 The True History of 
 
 CHAPTER VIII. 
 
 Archibald Dixon ^author of The Repeal of the Missouri Compromise) — 
 
 His early life and character. 
 
 "He belonged to that class of statesmen who served 
 their country from the love of it, whose proudest birth- 
 right was their American citizenship, and who esteemed 
 their country's honor, their own, and their own 
 country's. When a boy he had heard from his father's 
 lips of the struggles at Camden and Eutaw, and how 
 his grandsire had fallen fighting for American liberty. 
 He came from a stock who laid the foundations of our 
 independence and gave their lives to secure it. Born 
 while the Confederation was in its infancy, and breath- 
 ing the same air that unfolded a new born and glorious 
 flag, it is not to be wondered at that Archibald Dixon, 
 through all his political life, should be guided by 
 the principles of his forefathers and inherit their 
 patriotism."^ 
 
 Archibald Dixon was born in Caswell county, North 
 Carolina, April 2, 1802. His grandfather was Col. 
 Henry Dixon, a most gallant Revolutionary officer, who, 
 at the battle of Camden, distinguished himself by hold- 
 ing the field the entire day against the British army 
 with his regiment of North Carolina militia in conjunc- 
 tion with the Maryland troops. Speaking of this bat- 
 tle. Light-horse Harry Lee says, in his "Southern 
 Memoirs:" "None without violence to the claims of 
 honor and justice can withhold applause from Col. 
 Dixon and his North Carolina regiment of militia. 
 Having their flank exposed by the flight of the other 
 militia, they turned with disdain from the ignoble ex- 
 
 ^ Editor Union Weekly Local, Uniontown, Kentucky, April 29, 1876. 
 
The Missouri Compromise and its Repeal. 167 
 
 ample, and fixing their eyes on the Marylanders, whose 
 left they became, determined to vie in deeds of courage 
 with their veteran comrades. 
 
 "Nor did they shrink from this daring resolve. In 
 every vicissitude of the battle, this regiment maintained 
 its ground ; and, when the reserve under Smallwood, 
 covering our left relieved its naked flank, forced the 
 enemy to fall back. 
 
 "Col. Dixon had seen service, having commanded a 
 continental regiment under Washington. By his pre- 
 cepts and example, he infused his own spirit into the 
 breasts of his troops, who, emulating the noble ardor of 
 their leader, demonstrated the wisdom of selecting ex- 
 perienced officers to command raw soldiers. 
 
 "The American war presents examples of first rate 
 courage, occasionally exhibited by corps of militia, and 
 often with the highest success. 
 
 "Here was a splendid instance of self possession by a 
 single regiment out of two brigades."^ 
 
 From a biographical sketch of Lieut. -Col. "Hal" 
 Dixon by Judge Schenck, of North Carolina, we learn 
 that Col. Dixon served with Gen. Washington in 1777, 
 taking part in the battles of Brandy wine, Germantown, 
 and Monmouth, and sharing in the privations and suffer- 
 ings of Valley Forge in the winter of 1777-78, "Dixon 
 being conspicuous for bravery and skill during the 
 whole of that sanguinary campaign." 
 
 "In 1780, we find Col. Dixon commanding a regi- 
 ment at Gates' defeat, near Camden, the 15th of August. 
 It was in this battle that he rose to the grandeur of 
 his fame and shed immortal luster on the North Caro- 
 lina troops under his command. 
 
 "When the raw militia from Virginia broke in a panic 
 without resistance early in the battle, it exposed the left 
 flank of the North Carolina militia to a raking fire, and 
 they were routed in succession by the bayonet. The 
 
 ^ Lee's Southern Memoirs. 
 
168 The True History of 
 
 line broke until it reached Dixon's regiment. This 
 regiment rested its right on the Maryland Regulars. 
 
 "When their comrades fled, Dixon, standing before 
 his men in the midst of the fire from front and flank, 
 ordered a part of his command to face to the left, and 
 there at bay he refused to yield or fly. His men fell 
 around him thick and fast on every side, but his tall, 
 majestic figure was still seen moving among his com- 
 rades exhorting them to courage and firmness. His 
 'bugle blast was worth a thousand men.' 
 
 "All the militia on Dixon's left having been routed, 
 his battalion alone was left to protect the flank of the 
 regulars under the Baron DeKalb. The enemy, now dis- 
 engaged, pressed Dixon sorely, and were about to over- 
 whelm him with numbers when he ordered his little 
 band to charge bayonets, and, leading the charge him- 
 self, he drove the enemy before him, and then in sullen 
 obstinacy resumed his steady fire from the line. Sur- 
 rounded on every side, DeKalb fell with eleven wounds, 
 but the North Carolinians under Dixon were still fight- 
 ing over his body and witnessed his expiring moments. 
 At last every cartridge in their belts was exhausted, and, 
 facing about, Dixon ordered a second charge of bayonets, 
 and again cut his way through the serried hosts of the 
 British, bringing with him the few who survived the 
 dreadful carnage of this battle. 
 
 "Colonel Dixon's Regiment was a part of General 
 Gregory's Brigade, and Lamb, the British historian, 
 says : 'The Continental troops behaved well, but some 
 of the militia were soon broken. In justice to the 
 North Carolina militia, it should be remarked that part 
 of the brigade commanded by General Gregory acquitted 
 themselves well. They formed immediately to the left 
 of the Continentals, and kept the field while they had a 
 cartridge to fire ; Gregory himself was twice wounded by 
 a bayonet in bringing off his men. Several of his regi- 
 ment and many of his brigade, who were made prisoners, 
 had no wounds except from bayonets.'' 
 
The Missouri Compromise and its Repeal. 169 
 
 "This is the only instance I have found in American 
 history where militia charged the British Regulars with 
 the bayonet and drove them back, and these militia, 
 I am proud to say, were North Carolinians. General 
 Sumner did the same thing with six-months recruits 
 at Eutaw Springs in September, 1781, and the com- 
 manders of the respective armies looked on with wonder, 
 the one with consternation, the other with exultant joy 
 and pride. "^ 
 
 Colonel Dixon lost his life from a wound received at the 
 battle of Eutaw Springs. His son, Wynn Dixon, entered 
 the army in 1780 as an ensign, at the age of sixteen, and 
 served during the remainder of the war. For gallant 
 conduct at the battles of Camden, Eutaw and Guilford 
 Court-House, he was promoted to a lieutenancy.'^ He 
 married Rebecca, daughter to David Hart, of North 
 Carolina, whose brother, Thomas Hart, of Lexington, 
 Kentucky, was father to the wife of Henry Clay. 
 
 Archibald Dixon was their son, and the only son of 
 his mother, who was Captain "Wynn Dixon's second wife. 
 In 1805, they removed to Kentucky, where they selected 
 for their home one of the loveliest spots in all this lovely 
 Kentucky of ours, about six miles out from the city of 
 Henderson, or "Red Banks," as it was then called. 
 And here, under the shadow of the primeval forest, 
 listening to the songs of the wonderful birds pictured by 
 Audubon, to the howl of the wolf and the scream of the 
 wild-cat by night, skating for miles over the fiats which 
 then extended, covered with water during the winter 
 from four to six feet deep, as far as Sebree, and were 
 supposed to have been once the bed of the Ohio ; or 
 wading up to his waist in the water in these same flats 
 after wild ducks ; hunting the deer and wild turkeys 
 through the grand old woods, riding races with his 
 young companions and joining in all their games, grew 
 
 ' North Carolina University Maj^azine, October, 1895. 
 
 ' He was brevetted on the field at Guilford Court-House.— Author. 
 
170 The True History of 
 
 to manhood the lad who was to "achieve for himself 
 fame and fortune, by native force, honor and pluck."* 
 Tall and straight and strong, handsome as Apollo, 
 active and graceful, Nature was his foster-mother, and 
 from her he received a nurture that no modern art could 
 supply. 
 
 His father's health being greatly impaired, whilst a 
 mere boy, the care of the farm fell chiefly upon him ; 
 with the assistance of a negro man he plowed the fields 
 and raised the corn for bread ; he grew the cotton which 
 his mother and sisters spun and wove and made into 
 clothing for the family ; he tapped the trees to make the 
 sugar and molasses, the only kind they then had ; he 
 killed the deer and tanned the hides which his mother 
 fashioned into outer garments for him ; whilst the only 
 shoes he ever had, when a boy, were manufactured by 
 himself of the same material. 
 
 But though he plowed the fields, or hunted the deer 
 through the days, yet his winter evenings were spent in 
 reading aloud to his mother and sisters, from the best 
 poets and authors, whilst they picked the cotton or knit 
 the stockings. His young imagination was fired with 
 the sublime ideas of Milton and Homer ; Pope and Ad- 
 dison were his familiar friends ; and that grandest of all 
 poets and philosophers, Shakespeare, became as one of 
 his household gods. In that primitive log house, by 
 the light of a tallow candle, or blazing wood fire, he sat 
 and read through the long evenings. 
 
 The pioneers of Kentucky were many of them very 
 cultivated people, who perhaps had met with reverses of 
 fortune and sought in this El Dorado of the West to re- 
 trieve themselves, but they brought their books with them 
 into the wilds, as well as their native refinement and lofty 
 principles. Captain Dixon had lost his fortune by going 
 security for a friend, but his family retained in the 
 wilderness of the Green River country the habits of 
 
 1 Union Local. 
 
The Missouri Compromise and its Repeal. 171 
 
 culture and thought which had belonged to them in tlie 
 old North State. It was this feature, doubtless, of 
 pioneer life which gave to Kentucky, even in her "Po- 
 litical Beginnings," a power and distinction enjoyed by 
 very few States in their infancy. 
 
 All the surroundings of young Dixon's home were 
 poetic. On the brow of a crescent-shaped hill, the grand 
 forest in the background ; a low, lovely, grassy valley be- 
 tween, where still stands the orchard planted by his boyish 
 hands. Down a winding path, shaded by thickets of 
 wild plum and sumach, is the spring, gushing sweet 
 and pure as in that early day when its bright waters 
 first welcomed the newcomers to this virgin and beauti- 
 ful land. 
 
 The great book of Nature lay open before the lad in 
 all its pages. In her vast solitudes, amidst her trackless 
 wilds, he learned that cool caution in danger, that pa- 
 tience of labor and energy of pursuit, that watchful 
 judgment and quick action which, engrafted on the 
 dauntless courage of a soul that never knew fear or de- 
 ceit, and united to a vehement will and impetuous tem- 
 per that brooked no opposition or control, made his after 
 life a success under difficulties that would have over- 
 borne one less able or less daring. From her, too, he 
 learned early to adore the beautiful. In the hush of the 
 morning, when the light first breaks over the world, lie 
 worshiped at her altar. When the moon's soft rays 
 threw their splendor on forest and on stream, his young 
 heart arose in gladness and delight ; and the stars in 
 their mysterious loveliness thrilled his whole being. To 
 the last days of his life no flower was so dear to him as 
 the wild rose which in his boyhood had clothed field and 
 wood, hill and vale, with the brightness of its delicate 
 beauty ; and no song so sweet as that of the native 
 mocking-bird. 
 
 The boy's ambition was fired as well as his imagina- 
 tion, and he resolved to conquer for himself a place in 
 that great world of which he had dreamed the dreams 
 
172 The True History of 
 
 that belong only to genius and to youth. With this re- 
 solve began for him the stormy battle of life. He had 
 received no education in the schools, save what could be 
 obtained at the "field-school," taught by a Mr. Ander- 
 son, a most excellent gentleman, who gave instruction, 
 however, in only the plainest elements. But, after 
 studying for two years in the office of Mr. James Hilyer, 
 his uncle by marriage, and a gentleman of good legal 
 attainments and many excellent and noble qualities, he 
 was admitted, at the age of twenty-two, to the bar, and 
 began the practice of the law. 
 
 A biographer says of him at this period : "Mr. Dixon 
 made rapid progress in his studies. His whole heart 
 was in the work. His days and nights were devoted to 
 the prosecution of a science, which to a beginner seems 
 made up of recondite principles and dry details. Pleas- 
 ure was forgotten, amusement disregarded. He worked 
 not for fame only, but for bread." ^ 
 
 The first time he left home to go on the circuit, he 
 wore a suit of blue jeans spun and woven and made up 
 by his mother, and had to borrow ten dollars to pay his 
 expenses. But his talents, high character, and noble 
 bearing soon won him friends, and he sprang into a lu- 
 crative and extensive practice in a marvelously short 
 time. Nor was it confined to his own State. He was 
 quite as popular and as much sought after in the circuit 
 courts of Southern Indiana and Illinois. 
 
 Not only did his impassioned eloquence and masterly 
 handling of the most difficult cases give men confidence 
 in his ability, but he soon came to be known as a fearless 
 friend of the helpless and friendless, and they were 
 never afraid to go to him for his services. An eye- 
 witness told me the following story, which I give as 
 illustrative of the character of the man. A poor old 
 woman, a widow, had been wronged in some way by a 
 very mean fellow who was also a very great bully. She 
 
 ' Livingston's Biographical Magazine, June, 1853. 
 
Tlie Missouri Compromise and its Repeal. 173 
 
 said : "I will go to Archie Dixon ; he will stand by me.'* 
 She stated her case, and he at once agreed to defend it 
 for her, though she could pay him no fee. The bully, 
 hearing of it, made his threats of what he would do. 
 Mr. Dixon had heard of the threats, and, as soon as he 
 rose to speak, he proceeded to pay the gentleman his 
 compliments in that style of which he was so entirely 
 the master. If there was one thing in which Mr. Dixon 
 excelled more than another, it was the fierce and with- 
 ering denunciation of meanness. The bully grew furious 
 at once, and dared him to come out and he would whip 
 him as he deserved. Mr. Dixon very coolly said : "Wait, 
 I am not through with you yet ; ' ' and went on with his 
 speech, growing more vehement and contemptuous to 
 the close. When he had finished speaking, he said : 
 "Now, I am ready for you." They went outside, and, 
 without waiting for the bully to attack him, he jumped 
 upon him, knocked him down, and rolled him over and 
 over down the court-house hill to the gate amid the 
 shouts of laughter and applause of the people, who 
 loudly jeered the defeated bully, as he slunk away with- 
 out having been able to strike a single blow. He was 
 evidently completely taken by surprise, never having 
 dreamed that this tall, graceful, slender strippling of the 
 bar, with his sunny hair and flashing eyes, had muscles 
 of steel and a heart of fire. 
 
 Outside of his law practice, Mr. Dixon made various 
 ventures in a business way, and was usually very suc- 
 cessful. He took a flat-boat loaded with corn to New 
 Orleans once, when a very young man, and sold it at a 
 good profit. 
 
 Some years later, he set up a store on the corner of 
 Main and Second streets, employing Squire James 
 Hatchett to sell the goods which he himself went to New 
 York and purchased at auction sales, selling them at 
 low prices and realizing handsome profits. In eight 
 years he cleared eighteen thousand dollars in this busi- 
 ness. All of his means he invested in land and negroes, 
 
174 The True History of 
 
 and in 1854, he had become one of the wealthiest 
 planters and largest slave-owners in Southern Kentucky. 
 Having himself tilled the soil, he was a good judge of 
 land, and his purchases were all judicious. His skill 
 in managing men enabled him to secure the faithful 
 services of the best overseers, who loved him as well as 
 feared his disapprobation. 
 
 In 1830, he was elected to the Legislature from Hen- 
 derson, and, says his biographer, "His course during 
 the session he served was marked by his usual industry 
 and talent." He presented a bill for the better pro- 
 tection of married women, which was afterwards adopted 
 into the legislation of the State ; and it was he who pro- 
 posed the bill for the building of the Nashville Railroad. 
 In 1836, he was elected to represent the counties of 
 Henderson, Hopkins, and Daviess in the Senate. In 
 1841, he was again elected to the Legislature from the 
 county of Henderson without opposition. In 1844, he 
 was elected Lieutenant-Governor of Kentucky on the 
 ticket with Judge Owsley, the Whig candidate for gov- 
 ernor, whom he outran by several thousand votes. An 
 ardent admirer and devoted political friend of Henry 
 Clay, his canvass of Whig principles was so able, his 
 eloquence so captivating, that he drew crowds to hear 
 him wherever he spoke, and his popularity over the State 
 increased daily. 
 
 In the performance of his duties as presiding officer 
 of the State Senate for the next four years, he gave uni- 
 versal satisfaction. Of this his biographer says : "Ever 
 present at his post, the promptitude of his decisions was 
 only equaled by their inflexible justice." The four 
 years during which he served as President of the Senate 
 of Kentucky were replete with historical events which 
 led to the disruption of the great Whig party, and, by 
 the inexorable logic of sequence, to the Repeal of the 
 Missouri Compromise. 
 
The Missouri Compromise and its Repeal. 175 
 
 CHAPTER IX. 
 
 1845-1849 — Texas admitted to the Union — Origin of the war with 
 Mexico — Gen. Taylor elected President in 1848 — Victorious Whig 
 Party and Administration face the momentous question of division 
 of territory acquired from Mexico — Wilmot Proviso— Clayton Com- 
 promise — Oregon — Boundaries of Texas, New Mexico, and Cali- 
 fornia — Mr. Calhoun's Southern Address. 
 
 The annexation of Texas followed immediately upon 
 Mr. Polk's inauguration in March of 1845 ; and she was 
 admitted with her slave constitution in December of 
 1845 to the Union of the States, the guns on the Capitol 
 Hill thundering forth the announcement. 
 
 Her Constitution was an improvement on that of Ken- 
 tucky, though very much like it : and it contained a pro- 
 vision that no new State should be formed out of any of 
 her territory without her consent. This being as counter 
 to the condition, inserted in the resolutions of Congress 
 preceding her admission, which stipulated that States to 
 be formed of the territory lying south of 36° 30' should 
 have slavery or not as the majority of inhabitants might 
 elect, but in those formed of the territory north of that 
 line, slavery should be prohibited forever. 
 
 This clause in her Constitution, of course, caused 
 some opposition to her admission, as did also that one 
 which forbade her Legislature to make any laws to 
 emancipate any of her slaves without full consent of 
 their owners and compensation therefor. These two 
 provisions giving to Texas entire control of the slave 
 question within her limits. But the bill for her admis- 
 sion passed, notwithstanding, by a vote of 141 to 56 in 
 the House and 31 to 14 in the Senate, Mr. Webster 
 voting nay. 
 
 It is not within the limits of this work to relate the 
 
176 TJie True History of 
 
 incidents or course of the war with Mexico which fol- 
 lowed close on the heels of the annexation of Texas. 
 But a brief resume of its inception is in order. 
 
 Mexico had never forc^iven Texas for achieving her 
 Independence, nor the United States for acknowledging 
 it, and had kept up hostilities against Texas, to a degree 
 through all the years. In 1843, she had proclaimed 
 that in the event of annexation she would declare war 
 against the United States. President Tyler, in his next 
 message, called attention to this threat, affirming that 
 "Texas was an independent republic, and that we were 
 free to enter into any treaty of alliance with her which 
 the two republics saw fit, without regard to the threat 
 or will of Mexico ; that the latter had carried on for 
 seven or eight years a species of warfare injurious to 
 the United States and unjust to Texas ; that it was time 
 for that war to cease, and he had not hesitated to so in- 
 form the Government of Mexico." 
 
 In April of 1844, he sent to the Senate a treaty which 
 he had negotiated with Texas, by which she transferred 
 to the United States all her rights of independent 
 sovereignty. The Senate rejected this treaty ; but in 
 anticipation of its acceptance, and in view of the threat 
 of Mexico, the President had ordered a fleet to the Gulf 
 of Mexico, and as large a military force as could be 
 spared, to Fort Jessup, on the border of Texas. Whilst 
 Mexico, in her resentment at the treaty negotiated by 
 the President, issued her edicts, "ordering the desolation 
 of whole tracts of country, and the destruction of all 
 ages, sexes and conditions of existence." 
 
 The Presidential election of 1844 was carried by the 
 strong popular feeling for annexation. In his message 
 to Congress in December, President Tyler again declared 
 that "it was time the war shall cease — that its continu- 
 ance was calculated to exhaust both countries, and 
 subject them to the interference of other powers, which, 
 without the intervention of the United States, might 
 eventuate to our serious injury." Referring to the edicts 
 
The Missouri Compromise and its Repeal. Ill 
 
 of Mexico, "he promptly," says a distinguished writer, 
 "laid down a principle of law, and proclaimed a doctrine 
 as bold as the Monroe Doctrine, and worthy to be held 
 as inviolable.'" He said: "Over the manner of con- 
 ducting war, Mexico possesses no exclusive control. 
 She has no right to violate at pleasure the principles 
 which an enlightened civilization has laid down for the 
 conduct of nations at war, and thereby retrograde to a 
 period of barbarism which, happily for the world, has 
 long since passed away. All nations are interested in 
 enforcing an observation of these principles, and the 
 United States, the oldest of American republics, and the 
 nearest of the civilized powers to the theater in which 
 these enormities are proposed to be enacted, could not 
 content themselves to witness such a state of things." 
 
 It is easy to see how, after Texas had become one of 
 the United States, the first invasion of her soil by the 
 Mexicans would inevitably lead to war with Mexico. It 
 is also easy to understand that the victorious Democratic 
 party, which had won its triumph through the popular 
 sympathy for the "Lone Star" of Texas, would justly 
 regard that war as absolutely necessary and proper ; 
 though it was denounced by the Whigs as entirely un- 
 necessary, unjust and unholy. They had elected Mr. 
 Tyler on the ticket with General Harrison in 1840, but 
 seem to have had no sympathy with his views on this 
 question, which indeed appear to have been derived 
 from his life-long affiliation with the Democrats, rather 
 than his newly-formed association with the Whigs. 
 The country was at that time mainly divided into these 
 two parties ; and many of the Whigs of the Southern 
 States, who still steadily adhered to their great leader, 
 notwithstanding his defeat, were as pronounced in their 
 condemnation of the war as those of the North. 
 
 But the prestige of the Whig party had been greatly 
 
 • ^ Col. J. Stoddard Johnston in letter to Courier- Journal. 
 
 12 
 
178 The True History of 
 
 broken during the administration of President Tyler, and 
 by Mr. Clay's subsequent defeat ; and the Abolition wing 
 of the party in the North, as a third and independent party 
 was growing daily in strength and numbers (as well as 
 in defiance of constitutional law), and their defection 
 greatly weakened the main body of the Whigs. Added 
 to this, the Germans and Irish, emigrating by thousands 
 to the North and West, all became Democrats ; the 
 Whigs even then holding those native American prin- 
 ciples which a little later produced that Know Nothing 
 faction which aided so materially in wrecking utterly and 
 forever the great Whig party of the Union. When the 
 Democracy gained such headway in the South as they 
 did by the annexation of Texas, they possessed elements 
 of power both North and South that threatened the very 
 existence of the Whigs as a political organization. 
 
 In this dilemma, despairing of the election of any ci- 
 vilian, since their greatest had been defeated four years 
 before, and remembering how the battle cry of "Tip- 
 pecanoe and Tyler too!" had borne their candidates 
 in triumph to the White House in 1840, the Whigs, in 
 1848, resolved to utilize the glamour of military glory 
 and so rescue their sinking fortunes. General Zachary 
 Taylor, a Whig, a native Kentuckian, and a Southerner 
 by residence, as commander of the American forces in 
 Mexico, had won in brilliant and rapid succession the 
 battles of Palo Alto, Resaca de la Palma, Monterey and 
 Buena Vista ; the last the most brilliant victory of all, 
 where 6,000 Americans had completely routed 25,000 
 Mexicans, the flower of Santa Anna's army. When 
 General Taylor sent his celebrated reply to Santa Anna's 
 summons to surrender, "General Taylor never surren- 
 ders," he elected himself President of the United States ; 
 and the Whigs nominated him as their candidate over 
 Henry Clay, their whilom idol, in spite of their disap- 
 proval of the war in which he had won his laurels. 
 
 In the treaty of peace, which was ratified May 30, 
 1848, between the United States and Mexico, the latter 
 
The Missouri Compromise and its Repeal. 179 
 
 had been compelled to yield as indemnity to the United 
 States a large portion of her territory, embracing Cali- 
 fornia, New Mexico, Utah, Arizona, Nevada, and the 
 western half of Colorado. 
 
 The acquisition of this territory furnished a new sub- 
 ject of discord between the Northern and Southern 
 States, and upon General Taylor's election to the Presi- 
 dency, the Whig party of the Union found itself in a 
 most perilous and critical position. The very hour of 
 its triumph was fraught with its greatest danger. The 
 Northern Whigs had supported Taylor on the ground 
 that, as a National Whig, he would not veto any law 
 Congress might pass prohibiting slavery in the territory 
 acquired from Mexico ; and many Northern Free Soil 
 Democrats, for the same reason, had preferred him to 
 their own candidate. General Cass, who had declared, in 
 his celebrated Nicholson letter, that Congress had no 
 constitutional power to legislate on the subject of slavery, 
 and who might, therefore, be expected to use the veto 
 power in case of any such law. The Southern AVhigs 
 had supported Taylor because as an honest, bold South- 
 ern man, and himself a large slave-holder, they felt they 
 might expect justice from his administration in all mat- 
 ters relating to the much vexed question of slavery ; and 
 many Southern Democrats had preferred to trust him 
 rather than Cass, in whose professions they had but little 
 confidence. 
 
 So that General Taylor, after his election, stood be- 
 tween two fires, more difficult to him to subdue than the 
 guns of Monterey or Buena Vista. 
 
 Meantime the Free Soilers, an offshoot of the Demo- 
 cratic party North, and the Abolitionists, composed 
 mainly of Northern Whigs, were gaining strength day 
 by day, and encroaching more and more upon the posi- 
 tion of the large body of conservative men of the North 
 who, loving their country more than party or power, 
 were anxious to do justice to the South and to preserve 
 the Union in a reality of brotherhood and kindly feeling. 
 
180 The True History of 
 
 And now, the Whig party and Taylor's administration 
 had to face the momentous question of the division of the 
 territory conquered from Mexico ; which, the South 
 justly felt, belonged to her equally with the North ; 
 whilst the North was at once disposed to claim the whole 
 of it, and to assert that Southerners could not take their 
 slave property with them into any part of that territory. 
 
 THE WILMOT PROVISO. 
 
 The North had, from the first, been violently opposed 
 to the acquisition of any territory from Mexico, fearing 
 it would be just so much more slave territory. As far 
 back as 1846, upon the occasion of President Polk ask- 
 ing an appropriation from Congress to enable him to ne- 
 gotiate "a treaty of peace, limits and boundaries" with 
 Mexico, Mr. David Wilmot, of Pennsylvania, had offered 
 an amendment to the bill proposed in accordance with 
 the President's recommendations, and known as the two- 
 million bill.^ 
 
 ^^ Provided^ That as an express and fundamental condi- 
 tion to the acquisition of any territory from the Repub- 
 lic of Mexico by the United States, by virtue of any 
 treaty which may be negotiated between them, and to 
 the use by the Executive of the moneys herein appropri- 
 ated, neither slavery nor involuntary servitude shall 
 ever exist in any part of the said territory, except for 
 crime, whereof the party shall first be duly convicted." 
 
 And this was the celebrated Wilmot Proviso, of which 
 so much was said during all the struggle for political 
 supremacy between the North and South. 
 
 Of course, this would have been an entirely unconsti- 
 tutional measure, as it would have been an interference 
 by the House with the treaty-making power, which was 
 vested solely in the President and Senate ; but, owing to 
 the opposition of the Whigs as a party to the acquisition 
 of more territory — a party opposition, due as much to 
 
 1 See Journal of the House of Representatives for 1845-46, p. 1283. 
 
The Missouri Compromise and its Repea.. 181 
 
 the Democratic advocacy of the policy of acquisition as 
 to other causes — the Wilmot Proviso received consider- 
 able support ; even some Southern Whigs voting for it, 
 on the ground that such a provision would defeat the 
 appropriation measure. The Democrats, however, de- 
 feated the Proviso, and when finally, in 1848, the treaty 
 was concluded without it, it was hoped that the "Wil- 
 mot Proviso" was dead and buried; but, like Banquo's 
 bloody ghost, it would not "down," and we find it resur- 
 rected in every shape and form, and alluded to in page 
 after page of the records. 
 
 THE CLAYTON COMPROMISE. 
 
 After the treaty of peace with Mexico, of February 2, 
 1848, had been ratified, Mr. Clayton (of Delaware), a 
 Whig Senator, proposed a bill to create territorial gov- 
 ernments for Oregon, California and New Mexico. This 
 bill did not interfere with the boundaries of Texas ; it 
 declared "that the Constitution and laws of the United 
 States are hereby extended over and declared to be in 
 force in said Territories of California and New Mexico, 
 so far as the same, or any provision thereof, may be ap- 
 plicable,"* and was framed distinctly on the doctrine of 
 non-intervention as advocated and understood by Mr. 
 Calhoun. The legislative power of these two new Ter- 
 ritories — which, until Congress should otherwise pro- 
 vide, was to be vested in the "Governor, Secretary, and 
 Judges of the Supreme Court" — was expressly prohib- 
 ited from making any law "respecting an establishment 
 of religion, or respecting the prohibition or establish- 
 ment of African slavery." 
 
 Oregon was given a Legislative Assembly, and nothing 
 was said as to either religion or slavery within her limits. 
 This bill passed the Senate on the 27th of July, 1848, 
 after a continuous session of thirty-one hours — Messrs. 
 Berrien, Butler, Benton, Calhoun, Davis of Mississippi) , 
 
 1 Cong. Globe, July 26, 1848, p. 1005. 
 
182 The True History of 
 
 Douglas, and Foote all voting for it ; Mr, Badger (of 
 North Carolina) against it, declaring it was a complete 
 surrender of the rights of the South. It was, however, 
 defeated in the House, being laid on the table on motion 
 of Alexander Stephens, who took the ground that it 
 would not settle any thing, would only postpone the 
 question, and not give peace to the country. 
 
 Another bill, creating a territorial government for the 
 Territory of Oregon alone — giving to the inhabitants 
 "all the rights and privileges" and subjecting them to 
 "all the conditions, restrictions, and prohibitions" of 
 the Ordinance of 1787 — was passed during this session. 
 
 Judge Douglas had offered, in the Senate, as an amend- 
 ment to this bill, the line of 36° 30', "known as the 
 Missouri Compromise," to "extend to the Pacific Ocean ; 
 and the said eighth section, together with the compro- 
 mise therein effected, is hereby revived and declared to 
 be in full force and binding for the future organization of 
 the Territories of the United States, in the same sense 
 and with the same understanding with which it was 
 originally adopted."^ 
 
 Which, of course, was the prohibition of slavery north 
 of that line, with the recognition of it to the south of 
 that line, and leaving it an open question to be decided 
 by the inhabitants themselves ; but of necessity it could 
 apply only to the territory acquired from Mexico, as 
 Oregon lay entirely north of 36° 30'. 
 
 This, too, passed in the Senate, all the Southern men 
 voting for it, but was defeated in the House, and the 
 original bill finally passed both Houses with the pro- 
 visions of the ordinance of 1787 attached to it.^ 
 
 The debates on this amendment were violent and 
 very excited, Mr, Webster proclaiming that he was "op- 
 posed to slavery in every shape, and was against any 
 compromise of the question," whilst Mr. Calhoun said 
 
 1 Cong. Globe, August 10, 1848, p, 1063. 
 » Cong. Globe, August 12, 1848, p. 1078. 
 
The Missouri Compromise and its Repeal. 183 
 
 that it could never be settled until the people of the 
 South took it "into their own hands." And Mr. But- 
 ler's "advice to his constituents would be to go into 
 these Territories with arms in their hands, to go as 
 armed communities and take possession of the lands 
 which they had helped to acquire and see who would 
 attempt to dispossess them."^ 
 
 Mr, Polk, in his message to Congress of December, 
 1848, took the ground most emphatically that as "the 
 gallant forces who had obtained these possessions as 
 indemnity for our just demands against Mexico" be- 
 longed to no one section but to the whole country, so it 
 would be unjust "for any one section to exclude another 
 from all participation in the acquired territory." That, 
 although he believed it to be an abstract rather than a 
 practical question, yet, "involving as it does a principle 
 of equality of rights of the separate and several States, 
 as equal co-partners in the Confederacy, it should not be 
 disregarded." 
 
 ". . . That no duty imposed on Congress by the 
 Constitution requires that they should legislate on the 
 subject of slavery, while their power to do so is not only 
 seriously questioned, but denied by many of the soundest 
 expounders of that instrument." He refers to the 
 Missouri Compromise, saying : "The restriction north 
 of the line was only yielded to in the case of Missouri 
 and Texas upon a principle of compromise, made neces- 
 sary for the sake of preserving the harmony, and pos- 
 sibly the existence of the Union. 
 
 "It was upon these considerations that, at the close 
 of your last session, I gave my sanction to the principle 
 of the Missouri Compromise line by approving and sign- 
 ing the bill to establish the Territorial Government of 
 Oregon. From a sincere desire to preserve the harmony 
 of the Union, and in deference for the acts of my prede- 
 cessors, I felt constrained to yield my acquiescence to 
 
 > Cong. Globe, August 10, 1848, p. 1060. 
 
184 The True History of 
 
 the extent to which they had gone in compromising this 
 delicate and dangerous question. But if Congress shall 
 now reverse the decision by which the Missouri Com- 
 promise was effected, and shall propose to extend the 
 restriction over the whole territory, south as well as 
 north of the parallel of 36° 30', it will cease to he a coni- 
 promise, and must be regarded as an original question." 
 
 The settlement of the boundary line between Texas 
 and New Mexico presented the greatest difficulty in the 
 way of organizing any government for New Mexico. 
 The boundary of Texas, as between the United States 
 and that Republic, had been settled by a convention en- 
 tered into at Washington, April 28, 1838. It recited 
 that : 
 
 "The treaty of limits, made and concluded on the 
 12th day of January, 1828, between the United States 
 of America on the one part and the United Mexican 
 States on the other, is binding upon the Republic of 
 Texas, the same having been entered into at a time 
 when Texas formed a part of said United Mexican 
 States. ... 
 
 "The boundary line between the two countries west of 
 the Mississippi shall begin on the Gulf of Mexico, at the 
 mouth of the Sabine, in the sea, continuing north along 
 the western bank of that river to the second degree of 
 latitude ; thence by a line due north to the degree of 
 latitude where it strikes the Rio Roxo of Nachitoches, 
 or Red River ; thence following the course of the Rio 
 Roxo westward to the degree of longitude 100 west from 
 London and 23 from Washington ; thence crossing the 
 said Red River and running thence by a line due north 
 to the River Arkansas ; thence following the course of 
 the southern bank of the Arkansas to its source in lati- 
 tude 42 north ; and thence by that parallel of latitude 
 to the South Sea." 
 
 By solemn treaty, then, between the United States 
 and the Republic of Texas, this boundary was settled. 
 
The Missouri Compromise and its Repeal. 185 
 
 The boundaries of Texas, as declared by her Act of 
 Congress in 1836, were as follows : 
 
 "Beginning at the mouth of the Sabine River, and 
 running west along the Gulf of Mexico, three leagues 
 from land, to the mouth of the Rio Grande ; thence up 
 the principal stream of said river to its source ; thence 
 due north to the forty-second degree of north latitude ; 
 thence along the boundary line, as defined in the treaty 
 between the United States and Spain, to the beginning. 
 And that the President be and is hereby authorized and 
 required to open a negotiation with the Government of 
 the United States of America as soon as, in his opinion, 
 the public interest requires it, to ascertain and define 
 the boundary line as agreed upon in said treaty." 
 
 It was evidently the intention of the joint resolutions 
 of annexation to admit Texas with the boundary as 
 claimed by herself. They declare : 
 
 "That Congress doth consent that the territory prop- 
 erly included within, and rightfully belonging to, the 
 Republic of Texas, may be created into a new State," 
 etc. ... 
 
 On the boundary of Texas the only limit placed was 
 the following : 
 
 "Said State to be formed, subject to the adjustment 
 by the Government of all questions of boundary that 
 may arise with other Governments." 
 
 As was well said by Mr. Howard, of Texas, January 
 22, 1850 : 
 
 'There is no one who will undertake to assert that, 
 under this office of negotiator, the United States could 
 so negotiate the question as to acquire the subject-matter 
 for herself, in opposition to the claim which she had un- 
 dertaken to treat for or settle in this trust capacity. 
 Neither as agent, nor judge, of the rights of Texas, could 
 the United States acquire any right under this authority, 
 and set it up against the State of Texas, unless it be 
 gravely asserted that the attorney may appropriate to 
 himself the land, the title to which he has undertaken 
 
186 The True History of 
 
 to adjust for his client, or that the judge, or arbitrator, 
 may award the subject to himself. Not only do the res- 
 olutions of annexation assure to Texas the whole of that 
 country east of the Rio Grande, which was once in New 
 Mexico, but they give to the State three distinct guaran- 
 tees as to that portion of the country north of 36° 30' 
 entirely in the old State of New Mexico, and also north 
 of Santa Fe. 1. That Texas shall have a right to form 
 a new State out of this very territory north of 36° 30'. 
 2. That in any State created entirely north of that line 
 slavery shall not be tolerated. 3. And, as a necessary 
 consequence, if no State is formed out of that territory 
 north of the Missouri Compromise line, then slavery ex- 
 ists in the whole State by virtue of her existing law at 
 the time of annexation, as well as by virtue of its recog- 
 nition in the resolutions of annexation. The two Gov- 
 ernments did not undertake to abolish slavery in any 
 portion of Texas by the resolutions of annexation. It 
 was an institution existing in the extent of Texas, and 
 must so continue to exist, unless abolished by the State 
 itself, or unless Texas shall consent to the formation of 
 a new State entirely north of 36° 30'." ' 
 
 But although Texas, under her act of Independence of 
 1836, under her treaty as an Independent Republic with 
 the United States in 1838, and the terms of her annexation 
 in 1844, could justly claim down to the Rio Grande (or 
 Rio Bravo) from its mouth to its source, and up to the 
 forty-second degree of latitude, yet the North seemed de- 
 termined to assert the right of New Mexico to all that 
 southern part of Texas lying between the River Nueces 
 and the lower Rio Grande, as well as to a great portion 
 of her northern territory east of the Rio Grande ; regard- 
 less of the fact that by three separate treaties the United 
 States had acknowledged all this territory as belonging 
 to the Republic, and then to the State of Texas. 
 
 On January 22, 1849, Mr. Dix, of New York, pre- 
 
 1 Cong. Globe, Vol. 21, p. 207. 
 
The Missouri Compromise and its Repeal. 187 
 
 sented a set of resolutions from the Legislature of his 
 State instructing their Senators and Representatives to 
 secure, if possible, a territorial government for New 
 Mexico and California that would exclude domestic 
 slavery; also, "that the territory lying between the 
 Nueces and the Rio Grande, and that portion of New 
 Mexico lying east of the Rio Grande, are the common 
 property of the United States," and it must be protected 
 from "the unfounded claims of the State of Texas," 
 and "the extension over it of the laws of Texas, or the 
 institution of domestic slavery." ' 
 
 Mr. Rusk, of Texas, was indignant that New York 
 should undertake to dispose of the question of the bound- 
 ary of Texas; "a matter which is a question of sover- 
 eignty." "The claim of Texas to all the territory up to 
 the Rio Grande," he said, "rests upon as solid founda- 
 tions, upon as clear and direct principles, as does the 
 claim of New York to her own boundary. And it is a 
 claim, sir, which will never be surrendered. Texas may 
 not have the power to maintain her boundary. She 
 maintained it upon a former occasion, and she then 
 risked her all to maintain it ; and her people know that 
 it is their right, that it belongs to them, that it has cost 
 blood, and they will only surrender it with the surrender 
 of their existence as a sovereign State of this Union." ^ 
 
 Judge Douglas, early in the session, proposed a bill 
 for the admission of California as a State of the Union, 
 with all the rights of the original States, and to include 
 within her limits the whole of the territory acquired 
 from Mexico, with the proviso that new States might 
 afterward be formed of the territory lying east of the 
 Sierra Nevada Mountains. The Committee on Judiciary 
 reported adversely to this bill for various reasons, among 
 others, that the population was not yet fitted for the 
 exercise of the full rights of citizenship, and that the 
 boundary line, between Texas and New Mexico, ought 
 
 1 Cong. Globe, Vol. 20, p. 309. ' Idem, p. 310. 
 
188 The True History of 
 
 to be settled whilst New Mexico was still a Territory and 
 under control of the Federal Government. 
 
 The House, on December 13, 1848, had passed a reso- 
 lution of instructions to the Committee on Territories, to 
 bring in a bill providing territorial governments for New 
 Mexico and California, respectively, and excluding 
 slavery therefrom. So these debatable questions were 
 now fully before both Houses of Congress, and the 
 country as well, and the excitement was intense on all 
 sides, the Northern non-interference Democracy saying 
 to the Southern gentlemen : "We were opposed to any 
 legislation on slavery last session ; you insisted on legis- 
 lation for protection of slavery ; you defeated our candi- 
 date. Gen. Cass, on this very question ; now you and 
 Gen. Taylor may manage for yourselves ; we will have 
 nothing to do with it." Mr. Greeley, then in Congress, 
 told them that "the public feeling of the North is much 
 stronger on this subject than they imagine ; that it was 
 with them a matter of conscience. They dare not con- 
 sent to the extension of slavery. . . . That an al- 
 most total revolution in the Northern opinion had been 
 wrought within a few years past by the annexation of 
 Texas and the resistance on this floor to the rio-ht of 
 petition," etc. Whilst Mr. Chas. Brown, of Pennsyl- 
 vania, appealed to the sense of justice of the House, and 
 reminded them that "Texas, before it was annexed, was 
 all slave territory, . . . did we not take from the 
 South one-half of Texas, as we had that of Louisiana? 
 . And now, after having received as a gift from a 
 slave State, ^ the magnificent domain of the North-west, 
 we propose to take all of California and New Mexico, 
 and at the same time cry out against Southern encroach- 
 ments! " 
 
 During the entire session these questions were debated 
 with increasing earnestness and irritation. 
 
 On* the 3d of March, 1849, just the day before Gen. 
 
 * Virginia. 
 
The Missouri Compromise and its Repeal. 189 
 
 Taylor was to be inaugurated, and the session conse- 
 quently would be at an end, the bill for appropriations 
 to carry on the government was brought to the Senate 
 from the House with an amendment to the Fifty-third 
 Amendment of the Senate, which was a provision rela- 
 tive to the government of California. 
 
 This amendment of the House was in two sections ; 
 the first provided that the President was authorized to 
 take possession of New Mexico and California, and to 
 employ the army and navy to maintain peace and order 
 therein ; the second, that the Mexican laws should re- 
 main in force until otherwise provided by Congress, 
 
 Now, these laws all forbade slavery. In a debate of 
 ten days earlier, Mr. Calhoun and Mr. Webster had 
 taken exactly opposite ground in regard to the govern- 
 ment of the Territories, Mr. Webster having offered, on 
 February 21st, an amendment in the Senate of precisely 
 the same tenor as this amendment of the House. 
 
 Mr. Calhoun had maintained that the Constitution 
 was the supreme law of the land and extended over 
 every foot of territory the United States owned. Mr. 
 Webster contended that the Constitution did not extend 
 to the Territories; that "those great principles, which 
 are intended as general securities for public liberty, do 
 not exist in the Territories until introduced by the au- 
 thority of Congress." 
 
 Mr. Calhoun replied by asking: "If the Constitution 
 does not go there, how are we to have any authority or 
 jurisdiction whatever? Is not Congress the creature of 
 the Constitution? And shall we, the creature of the 
 Constitution, pretend that we have any authority be- 
 yond the reach of the Constitution? " ^ 
 
 Consequently, wiien the question came up on the last 
 day of the session, with opinions of leading men so 
 diametrically opposite, there could be no agreement ; 
 and, after the most exciting and violent debate, which 
 
 1 App. Cong. Globe, Vol. 20, p. 27:). 
 
190 The True History of 
 
 lasted for nineteen consecutive hours (and every shade 
 of opinion, every difference of feeling, became appar- 
 ent — and they were as many and as adverse, among 
 men of the same section even, as among the blades 
 of fancy grass we grow in our gardens, no two of which 
 can be found alike), Congress finally adjourned, at 7 
 o'clock A. M., of Sunday, March 4, 1849, without giving 
 a government of any sort to either New Mexico or Cali- 
 fornia, to the intense disgust of Stephen A. Douglas, 
 who had endeavored throughout the session to secure 
 some kind of organized government for these Territories, 
 he insisting that the Mexican laws would remain in force 
 until repealed by the conquering country ; and that the 
 people should have the right to legislate on the subject 
 of slavery to suit themselves. 
 
 THE SOUTHERN ADDRESS. 
 
 On Monday, the 15th of January, 1849, a Southern 
 convention had been held at the Capitol, composed of 
 the delegates to Congress from all the slave States. An 
 address was presented by Mr. Calhoun for their in- 
 dorsement, some extracts from which are given below. 
 They are peculiarly interesting, as the views of the man 
 who was undoubtedly the inspiration of the secession 
 movement of the South ; whose purity of motive and 
 patriotism were unquestionable ; to whose lofty intellect 
 was given an almost superhuman and singularly pro- 
 phetic prevision of the future ; but who was yet so 
 blinded by fate, or providence, or destiny, whatever you 
 may please to call it, that he failed to see what seemed 
 plain to many more ordinary minds, that the surest way 
 to render certain and speedy the abolition of slavery was 
 to withdraw it from the protection of the Constitution, 
 and that so would be brought upon his beloved South- 
 land the very calamities he so deprecated. 
 
 Mr. Calhoun's address, in part, as reported by him 
 from the Committee of Fifteen, is taken from the Louis- 
 ville Journal fo February 2, 1849. 
 
The Missouri Compromise and its Repeal. 191 
 
 After referring at some length to the Missouri Com- 
 promise, of which he says, with singular incorrectness 
 of information, that : "The Northern members embraced 
 it ; and, although not originating Avith them, adopted it 
 as their own ;"^ he goes on to say, still alluding to the 
 principle of the Missouri Compromise — 
 
 "So far from maintaining the doctrine which the issue 
 implies, we hold that the Federal Government has no 
 right to extend or restrict slavery, no more than to es- 
 tablish or abolish it ; nor has it any right whatever to 
 distinguish between the domestic institutions of one 
 State or section and another, in order to favor the one 
 and discourage the other. As the Federal representative 
 of each and all the States, it is bound to deal out, within 
 the sphere of its powers, equal and exact justice and 
 favor to all. To act otherwise, to undertake to discrimi- 
 nate between the domestic institutions of one and 
 another, would be to act in total subversion of the end 
 for which it was established — to be the common pro- 
 tector and guardian of all. Entertaining these opinions, 
 we ask not, as the North alleges we do, for the extension 
 of slavery. That w^ould make a discrimination in our 
 favor as unjust and unconstitutional as the discrimina- 
 tion they ask against us in their favor. It is not for 
 them, nor the Federal Government to determine whether 
 our domestic institution is good or bad, or whether it 
 should be repressed or preserved. It belongs to us, and 
 us only, to decide such questions. What then we do in- 
 sist on, is, not to extend slavery, but that we shall not 
 be prohibitnd from emigrating, with our property, into 
 the Territories of the United States because we are 
 slave-holders ; or, in other words, that we shall not on 
 
 * It has appeared to the author that the Southern members of Con- 
 gress were terribly handicapped by this same bup;-bear of beUef that the 
 South proposed this measure, when in reality she opposed it as long as she 
 could without breaking up the Union ; but only a few of them seem to 
 have understood the fact, although their misapprehension on this point 
 seems incredible. 
 
192 The True History of 
 
 that account be disfranchised of a privilege possessed by- 
 all others, citizens and foreigners, without discrimination 
 as to character, profession or color. All, whether sav- 
 age, barbarian, or civilized, may freely enter and remain, 
 we only being excluded. 
 
 "Ours is a Federal Government — a government in 
 which, not individuals, but States, as distinct sovereign 
 communities, are the constituents. To them, as mem- 
 bers of the Federal Union, the Territories belong ; and 
 they are hence declared to be Territories belonging to 
 the United States. The States, then, are the joint 
 owners. Now, it is conceded by all writers on the sub- 
 ject, that in all such governments their members are all 
 equal — equal in rights and equal in dignity. They also 
 concede that this equality constitutes the basis of such 
 government, and that it can not be destroyed without 
 changing their nature and character. To deprive, then, 
 the Southern States and their citizens of their full share 
 in territories declared to belong to them, in common with 
 the other States, would be in derogation of the equality 
 belonging to them as members of a Federal Union, and 
 sink them, from being equals, into a subordinate and de- 
 pendent position. Such are the solid and impregnable 
 grounds on which we rest our demand to an equal par- 
 ticipation in the territories. 
 
 "The great body of the North is united against our 
 peculiar institution. Many believe it to be sinful, and the 
 residue, with inconsiderable exceptions, believe it to be 
 wrong. Such being the case, it would indicate a very 
 superficial knowledge of human nature to think that, 
 after aiming at abolition systematically for so many 
 years, and pursuing it with such unscrupulous disregard 
 of law and Constitution, the fanatics, wiio have led the 
 way and forced the great body of the North to follow 
 them, would, when the finishing stroke only remained 
 to be given, voluntarily suspend it, or permit any con- 
 stitutional scruples or considerations of justice to arrest 
 it. To these may be added an aggression, though not 
 
 i 
 
The Missouri Compromise and its Repeal. 193 
 
 yet commenced, long meditated and threatened — to pro- 
 hibit what the Abolitionists call the internal slave trade 
 (meaning thereby the transfer of slaves from one State 
 to another), from whatever motive done, or however 
 effected. Their object would seem to be to render them 
 worthless by crowding them together where they are, 
 and thus hasten the work of emancipation. There is 
 reason for believing that it will soon follow those now in 
 progress, unless, indeed, some decisive step should be 
 taken in the meantime to arrest the whole. 
 
 "The question then is, will the measure of aggression 
 proposed in the House be adopted? 
 
 "They may not, and probably will not, be this session. . 
 But when we take into consideration that there is a ma- 
 jority now in favor of one of them, and a strong minor- 
 ity in favor of the other, as far as the sense of the 
 House has been taken ; that there will be in all proba- 
 bility a considerable increase in the next Congress of the 
 vote in favor of them, and that it will be largely increased 
 in the next succeeding Congress under the census to be 
 taken next year, it amounts almost to a certainty that 
 they wnll be adopted, unless some decisive measure is 
 taken in advance to prevent it. 
 
 "But, even if these conclusions should prove erro- 
 neous ; if fanaticism and the love of power should, con- 
 trary to their nature, for once respect constitutional bar- 
 riers, or if the calculations of policy should retard the 
 adoption of these measures, or even defeat them alto- 
 gether ; there would still be left one certain way to ac- 
 complish their object, if the determination avowed by 
 the North to monopolize all the Territories, to the exclu- 
 sion of the South, should be carried into effect. That 
 of itself would, at no distant day, add to the North a 
 sufficient number of States to give her three-fourths of 
 the whole ; wiien, under the color of an amendment of 
 the Constitution, she would emancipate our slaves, how- 
 ever opposed it might be to its true intent. 
 13 
 
194 The True History of 
 
 "Thus, under every aspect, the result is certain, if 
 aggression be not promptly and decidedly met. How it 
 is to be met, it is for you to decide. 
 
 "Such, then, being the case, it would be to insult you 
 to suppose you could hesitate. To destroy the existing 
 relation between the free and servile races at the South 
 would lead to consequences unparalleled in history. 
 They can not be separated, and can not live together in 
 jDeace or harmony, or to their mutual advantage, except 
 in their present relation. Under any other, wretched- 
 ness and misery and desolation would overspread the 
 whole South. The example of the British West Indies, 
 as blighting as emancipation has proved to them, fur- 
 nishes a very faint picture of the calamities it would 
 bring on the South. The circumstances under which it 
 would take place would be entirely different from those 
 which took place with them, and calculated to lead to far 
 more disastrous results. 
 
 "There the government of the parent country emanci- 
 pated the slaves in her colonial possessions — a govern- 
 ment rich and powerful, and actuated by views of policy 
 (mistaken as they turned out to be) rather than fanati- 
 cism. It was, besides, disposed to act justly toward the 
 owners, even in the act of emancipating their slaves, 
 and to protect and foster them afterward. It accordingly 
 appropriated nearly $100,000,000 as a compensation to 
 them for their losses under the act, which sum, although 
 it turned out to be far short of the amount, was thought 
 at that time to be liberal. Since the emancipation, it 
 has kept up a sufficient military and naval force to keep 
 the blacks in awe, and a number of magistrates and 
 constables and other civil officers to keep order in the 
 towns and plantations and enforce respect to their former 
 owners. To a considerable extent these have served as 
 a substitute for the police formerly kept on the planta- 
 tions by the owners and their overseers, and to preserve 
 the social and political superiority of the white race. 
 But, notwithstanding all this, the British West India pos- 
 
The Missouri Compromise and its Repeal. 195 
 
 sessions are ruined, impoverished, miserable, wretched, 
 and destined probably to be abandoned to the black race. 
 Very different would be the circumstances under which 
 emancipation would take place with us. If it ever 
 should be effected, it will be through the agency of the 
 Federal Government, controlled by the dominant power 
 of the Northern States of the Confederacy, against the 
 resistance and strength of the Southern. 
 
 "It can, then, only be effected by the prostration of the 
 white race ; and that would necessarily engender the 
 bitterest feelings of hostility between them and the 
 North. But the reverse would be the case between the 
 blacks of the South and the people of the North. Ow- 
 ing their emancipation to them, they would regard 
 them as friends, guardians, and patrons, and center ac- 
 cordingly all their sympathy in them. The people of 
 the North would not fail to reciprocate, and to favor 
 them, instead of the whites. Under the influence of 
 such feelings and impelled by fanaticism and love of 
 power they would not stop at emancipation. Another 
 step would be taken — to raise them to a political and 
 social equality with their former owners, by giving them 
 the right of voting and holding public offices under the 
 Federal Government. We see the first step towards it 
 in the bill already alluded to — to vest the free blacks 
 and the slaves with the right to vote on the question of 
 emancipation in this district. But when once raised to 
 an equality, they would become the fast political asso- 
 ciates of the North, acting and voting with them on all 
 questions, and, by this political union between them, 
 holding the white race at the South in complete subjec- 
 tion. The blacks and the profligate whites that might 
 unite with them, would become the principal recipients 
 of federal offices and patronage, and would, in conse- 
 quence, be raised above the whites of the South in the 
 political and social scale. We would, in a word, change 
 conditions with them — a degradation greater than has 
 ever yet fallen to the lot of a free and enlightened 
 
196 The True History of 
 
 people, and one from which we could not escape, 
 should emancipation take place (which it certainly 
 will if not prevented) , but by fleeing the home of our- 
 selves and ancestors, and by abandoning our country 
 to our former slaves, to become the permanent abode 
 of disorder, anarchy, poverty, misery, and wretched- 
 ness. 
 
 "With such a prospect before us, the gravest and 
 most solemn question that ever claimed the attention of 
 a people is presented for your consideration. What is 
 to be done to prevent it? It is a question belonging to 
 you to decide. All we propose is, to give you our 
 opinion. 
 
 "We, then, are of the opinion that the first and indis- 
 pensable step, without which nothing can be done, and 
 with which every thing may be, is to be united among 
 yourselves, on this great and most vital question. The 
 want of union and concert in reference to it has brought 
 the Soutli, the Union, and our system of government to 
 their present perilous condition. Instead of placing it 
 above all others, it has been made subordinate, not only 
 to mere questions of policy, but to the preservation of 
 party ties and insuring of party success. As high as 
 we hold a due respect for these, we hold them subor- 
 dinate to that and other questions involving our safety 
 and happiness. Until they are so held by the South, 
 the North will not believe that you are in earnest in op- 
 position to their encroachments, and they will continue 
 to follow, one after another, until the work of abolition 
 is finished. To convince them that you are, you must 
 prove by your acts that you hold all other questions 
 subordinate to it. If you become united and prove your- 
 selves in earnest, the North will be brought to a pause, 
 and to a calculation of consequences ; and they may 
 lead to a change of measures and the adoption of a 
 course of policy that may quietly and peacefully ter- 
 minate this long conflict between the two sections. If it 
 should not, nothing would remain for you but to stand 
 
The Missouri Compromise and its Repeal. 197 
 
 up immovably in defense of rights, involving your 
 all — ^your property, prosperity, equality, liberty, and 
 safety, 
 
 "As the assailed, you would stand justified by all laws, 
 human and divine, in repelling a blow so dangerous, 
 without looking to consequences, and to resort to all 
 means necessary for that purpose. Your assailants, and 
 not you, would be responsible for consequences. 
 
 " Entertaining these opinions, we earnestly entreat 
 you to be united, and for that purpose adopt all neces- 
 sary measures. Beyond this we think it would not be 
 proper to go at present. 
 
 "We hope, if you should unite with anything like 
 unanimity, it may of itself apply a remedy to this deep- 
 seated and dangerous disease ; but, if such should not 
 be the case, the time will then have come for you to de- 
 cide what course to adopt." ^ 
 
 This union among the Southern States, politic as it 
 would certainly have been, Mr. Calhoun was destined 
 not to secure. 
 
 Gov. Morehead of Kentucky, thought the address 
 ' 'looked to a remedy above and beyond the Constitution. ' ' 
 He offered some resolutions as an amendment, which 
 declared "an unalterable devotion to the Union;" re- 
 called the fact that slavery existed when the Constitution 
 was made, had received a full and unqualiffed recogni- 
 tion at that time ; and advised that the "same spirit of 
 conciliation and compromise be now exercised by true 
 patriots." 
 
 The resolutions were taken to the clerk's desk, Mr. 
 Foote put an interrogatory to Mr. Morehead. "If the 
 Wilmot Proviso should be enacted, would not the gentle- 
 man then be for disunion?" 
 
 Mr. Morehead : "No, so help me God, never. I will 
 never raise the parricidal arm against this glorious 
 Union for any such cause ! ' ' 
 
 ' Louisville Journal, February 2, 1849. 
 
198 The True History of 
 
 Mr. Calhoun rose afterwards and said that he was for 
 the Union, but, if that could not be preserved, he was 
 for taking care of the South. If the gentleman from 
 Kentucky (Mr. Morehead) should insist on a vote on 
 his resolutions, he would offer an amendment to them, 
 declaring "that disunion was preferable to emancipation 
 in the States." 
 
 As the whole matter was re-committed to the general 
 committee, no vote on the address or the resolutions 
 was taken. 
 
 Mr. Berrien, of North Carolina, also issued an ad- 
 dress, of much the same character as Mr. Calhoun's, but 
 of a different tenor. He set forth the wrongs done the 
 South with a strong and masterly hand, but protested 
 against disunion as a remedy, and appealed to the 
 patriotism and justice of the whole people. 
 
 A few days after this Convention, Mr. Calhoun, whose 
 feelings had been wrought up to the highest pitch of ex- 
 citement, believing that the only safety for the South 
 lay in the united action of her people, and, having failed 
 in securing this action, was engaged in vehement con- 
 versation on the subject, when he fell senseless and was 
 with much difficulty restored to consciousness. 
 
 Mr. Calhoun's Southern address called forth very 
 different responses from the different sections of the 
 Union. 
 
 The Anti-Slavery Society of Massachusetts passed 
 resolutions commending in the highest terms "the 
 earnestness, intrepidity, consistency, and self-sacrifice" 
 which "distinguished Hon. John C. Calhoun in his 
 efforts to bring about a dissolution of the Union," 
 whilst the New Orleans Times, on the contrary, declared 
 the most ardent devotion of the South to the Union, and 
 that "Mr. Calhoun is, in this, as many other cases, the 
 maker of the crisis he so lamentably bemoans." "His 
 prophesies are vagaries worthy only of ridicule or the 
 severest form of reprobation." "For ourselves we have 
 
The Missouri Compromise and its Repeal. 199 
 
 no fears of the future, at least no such fears as those 
 expressed in the Southern address. And as for the 
 sentiment of the Southern people, we believe there is 
 not a man among us who does not re-echo in the depths 
 of his soul the immortal words, "Liberty and Union, 
 now and forever, one and inseparable."^ 
 
 ^ New Orleans Times, republished in Louisville Journal, February 26, 
 1849. 
 
200 The True History of 
 
 CHAPTER X. 
 
 1849 — Mr. Clay's Emancipation Letter, February, 1849 — Decadence of 
 the Whig Party in Kentucky — Archibald Dixon opposes emancipa- 
 tion in the Constitutional Convention of the State — It is defeated 
 in the new Constitution. 
 
 Whilst all this excitement prevailed at the Capitol 
 and spread thence over the whole country, Kentucky- 
 was agitating the question of a Convention for the pur- 
 pose of making a new Constitution. Many new and 
 important reformations in the organic law were pre- 
 sented for the consideration of her people, and among 
 these was the proposition for the gradual emancipation 
 of the slave population. Mr. Richard Pindell, of Lex- 
 ington, addressed a letter to Mr. Clay (who had been 
 elected to the Senate by a large majority of the Legisla- 
 ture on February 1st) , asking his views on the subject. 
 As a matter of historical interest, his reply, hitherto un- 
 published in any work reparding his life, so far as the 
 author is aware, is given in full : 
 
 [From the Lexington Observer of Saturday.] 
 LETTER FROM MR. CLAY. 
 
 "New Orleans, February 17, 1849. 
 '■'■Dear Sir: — Prior to my departure from home in De- 
 cember last, in behalf of yourself and other friends, you 
 obtained from me a promise to make a public exposition 
 of my views and opinions upon a grave and important 
 question which, it was then anticipated, would be much 
 debated and considered by the people of Kentucky dur- 
 ing this year in consequence of the approaching Con- 
 vention summoned to amend their present Constitution. 
 I was not entirely well when I left home, and, owing to 
 that cause and my confinement several weeks during my 
 sojourn in this city from the effects of an accident which 
 
The Missouri Compromise and its Repeal. 201 
 
 befell me, I have been delayed in the fulfillment of ray- 
 promise, which I now proceed to execute. 
 
 "The question to which I allude is, whether African 
 slavery, as it now exists in Kentucky, shall be left to a 
 perpetual or indefinite continuance, or some provision 
 shall be made in the new Constitution for its gradual 
 and ultimate extinction? 
 
 "A few general observations will suffice my present 
 purpose without entering on the whole subject of slavery 
 under all its bearings and in every aspect of it. I am 
 aware that there are respectable persons who believe 
 that slavery is a blessing, that the institution ought to 
 exist in every well-organized society, and that it is even 
 favorable to the preservation of liberty. Happily, the 
 number who entertain these extravagant opinions is not 
 very great, and the time will be uselessly occupied in an 
 elaborate refutation of them. I would, however, remark 
 that, if slavery be fraught with these alleged benefits, 
 the principle on which it is maintained would require 
 that one portion of the white race should be reduced to 
 bondage to serve another portion of the same race when 
 the black subjects of slavery could not be obtained, and 
 that in Africa, where they may entertain as great prefer- 
 ence for their color as we do for ours, they would be 
 justified in reducing the white race to slavery in order 
 to secure the blessings which that state is said to diffuse. 
 
 "An argument in support of reducing the African race 
 to slavery is sometimes derived from their alleged intel- 
 lectual inferiority to the white races, but, if this argu- 
 ment be founded in fact (as it may be, but which 1 
 shall not now examine) , it would prove entirely too 
 much. It would prove that any white nation which 
 had greater advances in civilization, knowledge, and 
 wisdom than another white nation would have a right to 
 reduce the latter to a state of bondage. Nay, further, 
 if the principle of subjugation, founded upon intellectual 
 superiority, be true, and be applicable to races and to na- 
 tions, what is to prevent it being applied to individuals? 
 
202 The True History of 
 
 And then the wisest man in the world would have a 
 right to make slaves of all the rest of mankind ! 
 
 "If, indeed, we possess this intellectual superiority, 
 profoundly grateful and thankful to Him who has be- 
 stowed it, we ought to fulfill all the obligations and du- 
 ties which it imposes, and these would require us not to 
 subjugate or deal unjustly by our fellow-men who are 
 less blessed than we are, but to instruct, to improve, and 
 to enlighten them. 
 
 "A vast majority of the people of the United States, 
 in every section of them, I believe, regret the introduc- 
 tion of slavery into the Colonies under the authority of 
 our British ancestors, lament that a single slave treads 
 our soil, deplore the necessity of the continuance of 
 slavery in any of the States, regard the institution as a 
 great evil to both races, and would rejoice in the adop- 
 tion of any safe, just, and practicable plan for the re- 
 moval of all slaves from among us. Hitherto, no such 
 satisfactory plan has been presented. When, on the 
 occasion of the formation of our present Constitution of 
 Kentucky, in 1799, the question of the gradual emanci- 
 pation of slavery in that State was agitated, its friends 
 had to encounter a great obstacle in the fact that there 
 then existed no established colony to which they could 
 be transported. Now, by the successful establishment 
 of flourishing colonies on the western coast of Africa, 
 that difficulty has been obviated. And I confess that, 
 without indulging in any undue feelings of superstition, 
 it does seem to me that it may have been among the 
 dispensations of Providence to permit the wrongs under 
 which Africa has suffered to be inflicted, that her chil- 
 dren might be returned to their original home, civilized, 
 imbued with the benign spirit of Christianity, and pre- 
 pared ultimately to redeem that great continent from 
 barbarism and idolatry. 
 
 "Without undertaking to judge for any other State, 
 it was my opinion, in 1799, that Kentucky was in a 
 condition to admit of the gradual emancipation of her 
 
The Missouri Compromise and its Repeal. 203 
 
 slaves ; and how deeply do I lament that a system, with 
 that object, has not been established. If it had been, 
 the State would now be nearly rid of all slaves. My 
 opinion has never changed, and I have frequently 
 publicly expressed it. I should be most happy if what 
 was impracticable at that epoch could be now accom- 
 plished. 
 
 "After full and deliberate consideration of the sub- 
 ject, it appears to me that three principles should regu- 
 late the establishment of a system of gradual emancipa- 
 tion. The first is that it should be slow in its operation, 
 cautious, and gradual, so as to occasion no convulsion, 
 nor any rash or sudden disturbance, in the existing 
 habits of society ; second, that, as an indispensable con- 
 dition, the emancipated slaves should be removed from 
 the State to some colony ; and, thirdly, that the expenses 
 of their transportation to such colony, including an 
 outfit for six months after their arrival at it, should be 
 defrayed by a fund to be raised from the labor of each 
 freed slave. 
 
 "Nothing could be more unwise than the immediate 
 liberation of all slaves in the State, comprehending both 
 sexes and all ages, from that of tender infancy to ex- 
 treme old age. It would lead to the most frightful dis- 
 orders and the most fearful and fatal consequences. 
 Any great change in the condition of society should be 
 marked by extreme care and circumspection. The in- 
 troduction of slaves into the Colonies was an operation 
 of many years' duration ; and the work of their removal 
 from the United States can only be effected under the 
 lapse of a great length of time. 
 
 "I think that a period should be fixed, when all 
 born after it should be free at a specified age, all 
 born before it remaining slaves for life. That period, I 
 would suggest, should be 1855, or even 1860, for on this 
 and other arrangements of the system, if adopted, I in- 
 cline to a liberal margin, so as to obviate as many 
 objections, and unite as many opinions as possible. 
 
204 The True History of 
 
 "Whether the commencement of the operation of the 
 system be a little earlier or later, is not so important as 
 that a day should be permanently fixed ^ from which we 
 could look forward, with confidence, to the final termi- 
 nation of slavery within the limits of the Common- 
 wealth. 
 
 "Whatever may be the day fixed, whether 1855 or 1860, 
 or any other day, all born after it, I suggest, should be 
 free at the age of twenty-five and be liable afterwards to 
 be hired out, under the authority of the State, for a term 
 not exceeding three years, in order to raise a sum sufii- 
 cient to pay the expense of their transportation to the 
 Colony and to provide them an outfit for six months 
 after their arrival there, 
 
 "If the descendants of those, who were themselves to 
 be free, at the age of twenty-five, were also to be 
 considered as slaves until they attained the same age, 
 and this rule were continued indefinitely as to time, 
 it is manifest that slavery would be perpetuated in- 
 stead of being terminated. To guard against this con- 
 sequence, provision might be made that the off-spring 
 of those who were to be free at twenty-five, should be 
 free from their birth, but upon the condition that they 
 should be apprenticed until they were twenty-one, and be 
 also afterwards liable to be hired out, a period not exceed- 
 ing three years, for the purpose of raising funds to meet 
 the expenses of the Colony and their subsistence for the 
 first six months, 
 
 "The Pennsylvania system of emancipation fixed the 
 period of twenty-eight for the liberation of the slaves 
 and provided, for so her courts have since interpreted 
 the system to mean, that the issue of all who were 
 free at the limited age were from their birth free. 
 The Pennsylvania system made no provision for coloni- 
 zation. 
 
 "Until the commencement of the system, which I am 
 endeavoring to sketch, I think all the legal rights of the 
 proprietors of the slaves, in their fullest extent, ought 
 
Tfie Missouri Compromise and its Repeal. 205 
 
 to remain unimpaired and unrestricted. Consequently 
 they would have the right to sell, devise, or remove 
 them from the State, and, in the latter case, without 
 their offspring being entitled to the benefit of emancipa- 
 tion, for which the system provided. 
 
 "2. The colonization of the free blacks, as they success- 
 ively arrive, from year to year, at the age entitling them 
 to freedom, I consider a condition absolutely indispens- 
 able. Without it, I should be utterly opposed to any 
 scheme of emancipation. One hundred and ninety odd 
 thousand blacks, composing about one-fourth of the en- 
 tire population of the State, with their descendants, 
 would never live in peace, harmony and equality with 
 the residue of the population. The color, passions and 
 prejudices would forever prevent the two races from 
 living together in a state of cordial union. Social, 
 moral and political degradation would be the inevitable 
 lot of the colored race. Even in the free States (I use 
 the terms free and slave States not in any sense deroga- 
 tory to one class, or implying any superiority in the 
 the other, but for the sake of brevity) that is their pres- 
 ent condition. In some of those free States, the penal 
 legislation against the people of color is quite as severe, if 
 not harsher, than it is in some of the slave States. As 
 nowhere in the United States are amalgamation and 
 equality between the races possible, it is better that 
 there should be a separation, and that the African de- 
 scendants should be returned to the native land of their 
 fathers. 
 
 "It will have been seen that the plan I have suggested 
 proposes the annual transportation of all born after a 
 specified day, upon their arrival at the prescribed age, 
 to the colony which may be selected for their destina- 
 tion ; and that this process of transportation is to be con- 
 tinued until the separation of the two races is completed. 
 If the emancipated slaves were to remain in Kentucky 
 until they attained the age of twenty-eight, it would be 
 about thirty-four years before the first annual transpor- 
 
206 The True History of 
 
 tation began, if the system commences in 1855, and 
 about thirty-nine years, if its operation begin in 1860. 
 
 "What the number to be annually transported would 
 be, can not be precisely ascertained. I observe it stated 
 by the auditor that the increase of slaves in Kentucky 
 last year was between three and four thousand. But, as 
 that statement was made upon a comparison of the ag- 
 gregate number of all the slaves in the State, without 
 regard to births, it does not, I presume, exhibit truly 
 the natural increase, which was probably larger. The 
 aggregate was effected by the introduction and still 
 more by the exportation of slaves. I suppose that there 
 would be less, possibly more, than five thousand to be 
 transported the first year of the operation of the system ; 
 but after it was in progress some years, there would be 
 a constant diminution of the number. 
 
 "Would it be practicable annually to transport five 
 thousand persons from Kentucky? There can not be a 
 doubt of it, even a much larger number. We receive 
 from Europe, annually, emigrants to an amount exceed- 
 ing two hundred and fifty thousand, at a cost for the 
 passage of about ten dollars per head, and they embark 
 at European ports, more distant from the United States 
 than the western coast of Africa. It is true that the 
 commercial marine, employed between Europe and the 
 United States, affords facilities in transportation of 
 emigrants at that low rate, which that engaged in the 
 commerce between Liberia and this country does not 
 now supply ; but that commerce is increasing, and by 
 the time the proposed system, if adopted, would go into 
 operation, it will have greatly augmented. If there 
 were a certainty of the annual transportation of not less 
 than five thousand persons to Africa, it would create a 
 demand for transports, and the spirit of competition 
 would, I have no doubt, greatly diminish the present 
 cost of the passage. That cost has been stated upon 
 good authority to be at present fifty dollars per head, 
 including the passage, and six months outfit after the 
 
The Missouri Compromise and its Repeal. 207 
 
 arrival of the emigrant in Africa. Whatever may be 
 the cost, and whatever the number to be transported, 
 the funds to be raised by the hire of the liberated slaves, 
 for a period not exceeding three years, will be amply 
 sufficient. The annual hire, on the average, may be 
 estimated at fifty dollars, or one hundred and fifty for 
 the whole term. 
 
 "Colonization will be attended with the painful eff'ect 
 of the separation of the colonists from their parents, 
 and in some instances from their children ; but from the 
 latter it will be only temporary, as they will follow and 
 be again reunited. Their separation from their parents 
 will not be until they have attained a mature age, nor 
 greater than voluntarily takes place with emigrants 
 from Europe, who leave their parents behind. It will 
 be far less distressing than what frequently occurs in a 
 state of slavery, and will be attended with the animat- 
 ing encouragement that the colonists are transferred 
 from a land of bondage and degradation for them, to a 
 land of liberty and equality. And, 
 
 "3. The expense of transporting the liberated slave 
 to the colony, and of maintaining him there for six 
 months, I think, ought to be provided for by a fund de- 
 rived from his labor, in the manner already indicated. 
 He is the party most benefited by emancipation. It 
 v/ould not be right to subject the non-slave-holder to any 
 part of that expense ; and the slave-holder will have made 
 sufficient sacrifices, without being exclusively burdened 
 with taxes to raise that fund. The emancipated slave 
 could be hired out for the time proposed, by the sheriff 
 or other public agent, in each county, who should be 
 subject to a strict accountability. And it would be re- 
 quisite that there should be kept a register of all births 
 of children of color, after the day fixed for the com- 
 mencement of the system, enforced by appropriate sanc- 
 tions. It would be a very desirable regulation of law to 
 have the births, deaths, and marrages of the whole 
 
208 The True History of 
 
 population of the state registered and preserved, as is 
 done in most well governed States. 
 
 "Amon2 other considerations which unite in recom- 
 mending to the State of Kentucky a system for the 
 gradual abolition of slavery, is that arising out of her 
 exposed condition, affording great facilities to the escape 
 of her slaves into the free States and into Canada. 
 She does not enjoy the security which some of the slave 
 States have, by being covered in depth by two or three 
 slave States, intervening between them and the free 
 States. She has a greater length of border on free 
 States than any other slave State in the Union. That 
 border is the Ohio River, extending from the mouth of 
 the Big Sandy to the mouth of the Ohio, a distance of 
 nearly six hundred miles, separating her from the 
 already powerful and growing States of Ohio, Indiana, 
 and Illinois. Vast numbers of slaves have fled from 
 most of the counties in Kentucky from the mouth of the 
 Big Sandy to the mouth of the Miami, and the evil has 
 increased and is increasing. Attempts to recover the 
 fugitives lead to most painful and irritating collisions. 
 Hitherto countenance and assistance to the fugitives 
 have been chiefly afforded by persons in tlie State of 
 Ohio ; but it is to be apprehended, from the progressive 
 opposition to slavery that, in process of time, similar 
 facilities to the escape of slaves will be found in the 
 States of Indiana and Illinois. By means of railroads, 
 Canada can be reached from Cincinnati in a little more 
 than twenty-four hours. In the event of a civil war 
 breaking out, or in the more direful event of a dissolu- 
 tion of the Union, in consequence of the existence of 
 slavery, Kentucky would become the theater and bear 
 the brunt of the war. She would doubtless defend her- 
 self with her known valor and gallantry ; but the supe- 
 riority of the numbers by which she would be opposed 
 would lay waste and devastate her fair fields. Her 
 sister slave States would fly to her succor; but, even if 
 they should be successful in the unequal conflict, she 
 
The Missouri Compromise and its Repeal. 209 
 
 never would obtain any indemnity for the inevitable 
 ravages of the war. 
 
 "It may be urged that we ought not, by the gradual 
 abolition of slavery, to separate ourselves from the other 
 slave States, but continue to share with them in all their 
 future fortunes. The power of each slave State, within 
 its limits, over the institution of slavery, is absolute, 
 supreme, and exclusive — exclusive of that of Congress 
 or that of any other State. The government of each 
 slave State is bound, by the highest and most solemn 
 obligations, to dispose of the question of slavery so as 
 to best promote the peace, happiness, and prosperity of 
 the people of the State. Kentucky being essentially a 
 farming State, slave labor is less profitable. If, in most 
 of the other slave States, they find that labor more 
 profitable in the culture of the staples, cotton and sugar, 
 they may perceive a reason in that feeling for continuing 
 slavery, which it can not be expected should control the 
 judgment of Kentucky as to what may be fitting and 
 proper for her interests. If she abolish slavery, it would 
 be her duty, and I trust that she would be as ready as 
 she is now, to defend the slave States in the enjoyment 
 of all their lawful and constitutional rights. Her 
 power, political and physical, would be greatly in- 
 creased, for the one hundred and ninety-nine thousand 
 slaves and their descendants would be gradually super- 
 seded by an equal number of white inhabitants, who 
 would be estimated per capita and not by the federal 
 rule of three-fifths prescribed for the colored race in the 
 Constitution of the United States. 
 
 "I have thus, without reserve, freely expressed my 
 opinion and presented my views. The interesting sub- 
 ject of which I have treated would have admitted of 
 much enlargement, but I have desired to consult brevity. 
 The plan which I have proposed will hardly be accused 
 of being too early in its commencement or too rapid in 
 its operation. It will be more likely to meet with con- 
 14 
 
210 The True History of 
 
 trary reproaches. If adopted, it is to begin thirty-four 
 or thirty-nine years from the time of its adoption, as the 
 one period or the other shall be selected for its com- 
 mencement. How long a time it will take to remove all 
 the colored race from the State, by the annual trans- 
 portation of each year's natural increase, can not be ex- 
 actly ascertained. After the system has been in opera- 
 tion some years, I think it probable, from the manifest 
 blessings that would flow from it, from the diminished 
 value of slave labor, and from the humanity and benevo- 
 lence of private individuals prompting a liberation of 
 their slaves and their transportation, that a general dis- 
 position would exist to accelerate and complete the work 
 of colonization. 
 
 "That the system will be attended by some sacrifices 
 on the part of the slave-holder, which are to be regretted, 
 need not be denied. What great and beneficial enter- 
 prise was ever accomplished without risk and sacrifice? 
 But these sacrifices are distant, contingent, and incon- 
 siderable. Assuming the year 1860 for the commence- 
 ment of the system, all slaves born prior to that time 
 would remain such during their lives, and the personal 
 loss of the slave-holder would be only the difference in 
 value of a female slave whose offspring, if she had any 
 born after the first day of January, 1860, should be free 
 at the age of twenty-five or should be slaves for life. In 
 the meantime, if the right to remove or sell the slave 
 out of the State should be exercised, that trifling loss 
 would not be incurred. The slave-holder, after the com- 
 mencement of the system, would lose the difference in 
 value between slaves for life and slaves until the age of 
 twenty-five. He might also incur some considerable ex- 
 pense in rearing, from their birth, the issue of those 
 who were to be free at twenty-five, until they were old 
 enough to be apprenticed out ; but, as it is probable that 
 they would be most generally bound to him, he would 
 receive some indemnity for their services until they at- 
 tained their majority. 
 
The Missouri Compromise and its Repeal. 211 
 
 "Most of the evils, losses, and misfortunes of human 
 life have some compensation or alleviation. The slave- 
 holder is generally a land-owner, and I am persuaded 
 that he would find, in the augmented value of his land, 
 some, if not full, indemnity for losses arising to him 
 from emancipation and colonization. He would also 
 liberally share in the general benefits accruing to the 
 whole State from the extinction of slaverv. These have 
 been so often and so fully stated that I will not, nor is it 
 necessary to, dwell upon them extensively. They may 
 be summed up in a few words. We shall remove from 
 among us the contaminating influence of a servile and 
 degraded race of diff'erent color ; we shall enjoy the proud 
 and conscious satisfaction of placing that race where 
 they can enjoy the great blessings of liberty and civil 
 and political and social equality ; we shall acquire the 
 advantage of the diligence, the fidelity, and the con- 
 stancy of free labor, instead of the carelessness, the in- 
 fidelity, and the unsteadiness of slave labor ; we shall 
 elevate the character of white labor and elevate the 
 social condition of the white laborer ; augment the value 
 of our lands, improve the agriculture of the State ; at- 
 tract capital from abroad to all the pursuits of commerce, 
 manufacture, and agriculture ; redress, as far and as fast 
 as we safely and prudently could, any wrongs which the 
 descendants of Africa have suffered at our hands, and 
 we shall demonstrate the sincerity with which we pay 
 indiscriminate homage to the great cause of liberty of 
 the human race. 
 
 "Kentucky enjoys high respect and honorable consid- 
 eration throughout the Union and throughout the civil- 
 ized world ; but, in my humble opinion, no title which 
 she has to the esteem and admiration of mankind, no 
 deeds of her former glory, would equal in greatness and 
 grandeur that of being the pioneer State in removing 
 from her soil every trace of human slavery and in es- 
 tablishing the descendants of Africa, within her juris- 
 dictton, in the native land of their forefathers. 
 
212 The True History of 
 
 "I have thus executed the promise I made, alluded 
 to in the commencement of this letter, and I hope that I 
 have done it calmly, free from intemperance, and so as 
 to wound the sensibilities of none. I sincerely hope 
 that the question may be considered and decided without 
 the influence of party or passion. I should be most 
 happy to have the good fortune of coinciding in opinion 
 with a majority of the people of Kentucky ; but, if there 
 be a majority opposed to all schemes of gradual eman- 
 cipation, however much I may regret it, my duty will 
 be to bow in submission to their will. If it be perfectly 
 certain and manifest that such a majority exists, I should 
 think it better not to agitate the question at all, since, in 
 that case, it would be useless and might exercise a per- 
 nicious collateral influence upon the fair consideration 
 of other amendments which may be proposed to our 
 Constitution. If there is a majority of the people of 
 Kentucky, at this time, adverse to touching the subject 
 of slavery as it now exists, we, who had thought and 
 wished otherwise, can only indulge the hope that, at 
 some future time, under better auspices and with the 
 blessings of Providence, the cause which we have so 
 much at heart may be attended with better success. 
 
 "In any event, I shall have the satisfaction of having 
 performed a duty to the State, to the subject, and to 
 myself, by placing my sentiments permanently upon 
 record. 
 
 "With great regard, I am your friend, and obedient 
 servant, H. Clay. 
 
 "Richard Pindell, Esq."^ 
 
 With the publication of this letter began the deca- 
 dence of the victorious Whig party, in Kentucky, hith- 
 erto its stronghold. It gave life at once to the embryo 
 emancipation party, and emancipation candidates for 
 the Convention sprang up in many of the counties of 
 
 ' Louisville Journal, March 5, 1849. 
 
Tlie Missouri Compromise and its Repeal. 213 
 
 the State, Though only three of them were elected, 
 yet not only did these candidates take from the strength 
 of the Whig party, from whose ranks the emancipation- 
 ists mainly gathered their forces, but many pro-slavery 
 Whigs in this election voted for the Democratic candi- 
 dates as being more absolutely opposed to emancipation 
 than the Whigs could be, since their great leader openly 
 recommended it as the best policy for the State to pursue. 
 Mr. Clay, however, like Mr. Calhoun, anticipated the 
 most fearful and fatal consequences from the immediate 
 liberation of the slaves ; and insisted not only that 
 emancipation should be gradual, but that the removal of 
 the negro race "to some colony" should be a. sine qua non 
 of their freedom. But it was not easy to satisfy the ma- 
 jority of Kentucky agriculturists that, in emancipating 
 their slaves, they would "find compensation in the en- 
 hanced value of their lands," and their "reward in the 
 proud consciousness of duty performed, in placing that 
 race where they can enjoy the great blessings of liberty, 
 and civil, political, and social equality." It was a 
 Utopian view, as the negroes were not willing to go 
 back "to the land of their forefathers," of which they 
 knew nothing ; and no Kentuckian was ever yet found 
 who was willing to part with his property for such im- 
 aginary and aesthetic considerations as those suggested 
 by Mr. Clay. 
 
 Nor had Kentucky any reason to desire emancipation. 
 As a State she was eminently prosperous. Her people 
 were happy and contented. Her banks paid large divi- 
 dends and enjoyed the best credit. Her bonds stood at 
 the head of the list. Her farmers lived like princes in 
 the abundance and plenty about them. She had no 
 paupers.^ 
 
 ^ "Sir, there was one Miss Dix, an Englishwoman, who, some three or 
 four years before, came into the State of Kentucky to inquire into the 
 statistics of poverty and jails; and I recollect an anecdote that occurred, 
 which may serve to illustrate the point under discussion. She went to 
 the town of Danville, and, among other inquiries of the landlord of the 
 
214 The True History of 
 
 Though her common schools were not so well estab- 
 lished as they might have been, yet there were good 
 private schools, and her colleges ranked high. Her 
 voters were the best informed on political subjects of 
 any in the Union. The stump and the newspaper were 
 their educators. All could hear the speaker from the 
 stump, and all could read the newspaper or hear 
 it read. If slave labor was not profitable, her people 
 felt they had capacity to find it out for themselves. 
 
 Happy m their homes, prosperous in all their ways, 
 assured in their position, simple in their habits, her 
 people (as did the South generally) lived an independent, 
 frugal life. As in Acadia — "There the richest was poor, 
 and the poorest lived in abundance."^ They were too 
 proud to be jealous of their neighbor States, and too 
 generous for suspicion. If sometimes haughty, they were 
 also magnanimous — if imperious, yet open and frank 
 — disdaining all dissimulation and all petty meanness. 
 If quick to resent, yet ready to forgive — cherishing no 
 secret revenges. Holding their honor and the honor of 
 their families as dearer than life, they were ready to de- 
 hotel, she asked where was the poor-house of the county ? He replied 
 that there was none. She asked if there were no poor in the county. 
 The landlord replied that there were a great many very poor persons. 
 She inquired what was their condition, and was informed by the 
 landlord that the poorest of them lived upon seventy or eighty acres of 
 land, not worth more than from three to four dollars an acre ; that they 
 raised their two or three hundred bushels of potatoes; that they kept 
 their horses and their cows, and if they did live in a log house, they gen- 
 erally contrived to keep the cold out and have enough to eat and wear. 
 Said she, ' are those your poor ? ' ' Yes,' replied the landlord, * and as 
 for a poor-house, we havn't such a thing in the county.' That degree 
 of poverty, sir, is the greatest we ever see in Kentucky. You will find 
 that the ' poor man ' has his horse to ride to court on ; you will find 
 that his corn crib is filled with corn ; and you will find that we are not 
 reduced to that miserable system which prevails in the Northern States, 
 of calculating on how little the miserable people can live. Let the gen- 
 tleman then examine closely that part of machinery of the State of 
 Massachusetts, before he makes this invidious distinction between it 
 and his native State." — Wm. Preston, Debates Kentucky Convention. 
 
 ' Evangeline. 
 
The Missouri Compromise and its Repeal. 215 
 
 fend it with the last drop of their blood. Such were the 
 people whom Mr. Clay now called upon to set free their 
 slaves, and in so doing turn the whole tide of Northern 
 Abolitionism loose upon their sister States of the South. 
 From a people so independent, so prosperous, so well in- 
 formed as to their own rights, so sensitive to honor and 
 so loyal to its claims, with their slaves so well contented, 
 and in the best condition of any laboring class in the 
 world, but one answer could be expected. 
 
 In truth, mild as were the terms of Mr. Clay's letter, 
 sincere as it certainly was, it so enraged and disgusted 
 a large portion of the people of Kentucky, as to estrange 
 them, for the time being, almost entirely from him ; and 
 many of his warmest friends of 1844 were now ready to 
 vote with the Democrats, or to oppose any Whig who 
 lent any support or countenance in him ; nor did his 
 subsequent action, as President of the Emancipation 
 Convention, held April 28th, in Frankfort — by which 
 slavery was declared "adverse to a pure state of 
 morals," and emancipation was recommended for the 
 New Constitution, and no recommendation made on any 
 other subject — tend to allay the intensity of the feeling 
 against him. So far indeed was this feeling carried, 
 that when, in the month of October following, he went 
 over to Frankfort to the Convention, this man, who for 
 years had been received every-where in the most enthusi- 
 astic manner, upon whom Eulogy had exhausted herself, 
 in whose honor bonfires were burned and cannon fired, 
 who had traveled free all over the Union and was never 
 allowed to pay a bill at any hotel or on any steamboat ; 
 this man whose progress for years had been an ovation 
 wherever he went, and who had been the idol of his own 
 State, was received in her Capitol with such marked 
 coldness that il cut him to the very quick. Upon his 
 leaving Frankfort, but one friend accompanied him to 
 the boat.. And to him he said, as he wrung his hand in 
 parting, with tears in his eyes, "Dixon, I believe you 
 are the only friend I have left." 
 
216 The True History of 
 
 It is not, however, to be wondered at, that Kentuck- 
 ians should have felt so deeply on this subject, when it 
 is considered what emancipation meant to them. It 
 meant to them the upheaval of society ; the turning 
 loose of the ignorant, the bestial, the depraved ; all of 
 the worst elements without restraint. It meant to them 
 farms without laborers, lands gone to waste, themselves 
 beggared, their wives and children crying for bread and 
 none to give them. Yea, it meant worse still ; it meant 
 murder, arson, and every crime and horror attendant 
 upon their track. For they did not for a moment believe 
 that emancipation could ever be effected, even as Mr, 
 Clay proposed, without the greatest detriment to society 
 and property. They believed such a course would ren- 
 der the negro population so utterly worthless as laborers 
 and so difficult to control as to make them an incubus 
 not to be endured. Also, outside of their own interests, 
 they felt that it would be a betrayal of the other slave 
 States, a thing most abhorrent to all their ideas of honor 
 and justice. It is not surprising then that Kentuckians 
 should have turned their backs (though only tempo- 
 rarily) on their allegiance to Mr. Clay. 
 
 The position of Kentucky was unique in more respects 
 than one, and demanded strong and decided action. 
 With her fine climate and fertile soil, the negroes within 
 her borders multiplied with the greatest rapidity. In 
 some of the Southern States where slavery was avail- 
 able only in the culture of cotton and sugar, their over- 
 production had cheapened them until it hardly paid to 
 raise them ; and those States were threatening to pro- 
 hibit the further immigration of slaves into their bor- 
 ders. When gradual emancipation in Kentucky was 
 proposed by Mr. Clay, and the suggestion made that 
 "the legal rights of the proprietors of slaves should re- 
 main unimpaired," and they would consequently have 
 the right to sell, devise, or remove them from the State, 
 it at once sounded the alarm to these States, and the 
 susj^icion was openly expressed that "the hostility of the 
 
The Missouri Compromise and its Repeal. 217 
 
 more Northern slave States to slavery was only sus- 
 pended from fear of pecuniary loss, and the hope of 
 finally shifting their slave population for value received, 
 upon the South-western States/ This last alternative 
 will doubtless be accelerated by the enactment of pros- 
 pective emancipation laws, which mean simply that 
 their citizens may have time enough to sell their slaves, 
 and having pocketed the price, to unite against us in the 
 unjust and bitter crusades of our Northern brethren. 
 
 "If they be sincere in their ideas of Abolition, if they 
 are actuated by sickly sympathy for the condition of the 
 slave, then at least we force them to turn their slaves 
 loose upon their respective domains, and thus keep their 
 own nuisances and submit to their own loss. But this 
 latter alternative need never be apprehended. They dare 
 not turn them loose." ' 
 
 The apprehension of the passage of such prohibitory 
 acts by the more Southern States rendered it yet more 
 imperative on Kentucky not to take any step which 
 should hasten such action on the part of the South, 
 thereby depriving herself of the only means and place 
 of exodus for the immense increase of the slave popula- 
 tion yearly accruing from the prosperous condition of the 
 slaves in the Northern slave States. This question was 
 discussed in every shape — in so many years such an in- 
 crease confined to such an area, no outlet — the black 
 race largely outnumbering the white — a second San Do- 
 mingo, etc. 
 
 Not only did Kentucky have reason to apprehend the 
 closing up of the outlet south for her slaves, but also if 
 she freed them there was no outlet on her northern bor- 
 der for them, as all her neighbor States over the river 
 had either enacted laws, or else entertained sentiments, 
 forbidding free negroes to immigrate to them. Many 
 
 ^ As had been done in the case of the Eastern and Northern States 
 years before. — Author. 
 
 ' iSlr. Heydenfelt's letter to Governor Chapman, of Alabama, copied 
 from Louisville Journal, February, 1849. 
 
218 The True History of 
 
 other Northern States had laws of the same kind, and 
 though not hesitating to harbor runaway slaves, would 
 not permit freed negroes to come within their limits, so 
 worthless were they regarded as a population. 
 
 Kentucky, thus hemmed in on all sides, had to look 
 to her own safety ; and she did so, as she thought, 
 through her Convention, by making it an impossibility 
 under the new Constitution for her slaves to be set free 
 by any State authority or legal enactment whatever. 
 
 We have said the position of Kentucky was unique in 
 more than one respect. It was so, not only in regard to 
 her domestic policy, but in reference also to her posi- 
 tion politically. A slave State, she was looked to by 
 the Northern Whigs to preserve Whiggery. A Whig 
 State, she was looked to by the Southern Whigs to pre- 
 serve slavery. And slavery and Whiggery were both on 
 the fair road to — nowhere ! 
 
 ]n 1848, Archibald Dixon, who had adhered steadily 
 to Mr. Clay in the contest between him and Taylor for 
 the Presidential nomination, was chosen elector for the 
 State at large, and was also the choice of the great ma- 
 jority of the Whig Convention for the office of Governor. 
 But the unyielding opposition of a faction of the Whigs 
 which had never forgiven him for the brilliant race he 
 had made in 1844, nor for the superior majority he had 
 then won over the governor elect, convinced him that 
 his nomination would cause a split in the ranks of his 
 party. Being satisfied that any disagreement in the 
 Whig party of Kentucky would materially impair its 
 efficiency in the approaching Presidential, as well as 
 Gubernatorial, contest, he did not hesitate to sacrifice 
 his personal ambition to the good of the Whig cause, 
 and agreed to withdraw from the contest, providing his 
 opponent, W. J. Graves, would do the same. John C. 
 Crittenden was then nominated by the Convention, and 
 was elected over Gov. Powell, as was Taylor over Cass, 
 by a handsome majority. 
 
 In 1849, Mr. Dixon was unanimously chosen as dele- 
 
The Missouri Compromise and its Repeal. 219 
 
 gate to the Constitutional Convention, from Henderson 
 county. It assembled at Frankfort, on Monday, October 
 1st. The first direct evidence of the weakening of the 
 Whig party in Kentucky, as the result of Mr. Clay's 
 emancipation letter of February 17, 1849, was now given 
 in the election to the Presidency of the Convention, of 
 Jas. Gutlirie, Democrat, over Archibald Dixon, Whig, 
 by a strict party vote, with seven majority. Every 
 Whig voted for Mr. Dixon, except Squire Turner, of 
 Richmond ; and every Democrat for Guthrie, except 
 Judge James. So many pro-slavery Whigs had voted 
 for Democratic candidates for the Convention, that they 
 had been given the soubriquet of "Guthrie Whigs." 
 Only three emancipationists were elected to the Conven- 
 tion ; two of them were Democrats, and one a Whig. 
 And they voted respectively according to their party 
 affiliation. 
 
 Although Mr. Dixon was so warmly attached to Mr. 
 Clay, both personally and politically, yet he differed 
 from him in toto as regarded emancipation in Kentucky. 
 While there was scarcely a possibility of its immediate 
 success, Mr. Dixon believed that the mere agitation of 
 the question would be both impolitic and dangerous. 
 The shock which it might give to the stability and 
 security of sixty millions of property would, in his 
 opinion, more than counterbalance any remote and 
 doubtful advantage which could possibly accrue from 
 the discussion of so delicate a subject. He accordingly 
 opposed and denounced it with all the energy and ve- 
 hemence of his nature. And, on the 15th of October, 
 he brought forward the following resolution, which he 
 sustained with marked ability, and which, in substance, 
 was finally incorporated in the Constitution : "Whereas, 
 the right of the citizen to be secure in his person and 
 property is not only guaranteed by all free governments, 
 but lies at the very foundation of them ; and, whereas, 
 the powers derived to this Convention, immediately and 
 collectively, are directly from the people, and although 
 
220 The True History of 
 
 not expressed are implied, and that among these is the 
 power so to change the existing Constitution of the State 
 as to afford a more ample protection to the civil and re- 
 ligious rights of the citizen, but not to destroy them ; 
 and, whereas, the slaves of the citizens of this Common- 
 wealth are property, both those that are now in esse and 
 those hereafter born of mothers who may be slaves at 
 the time of such birth. Therefore, Resolved, that this 
 Convention has not the right, by any principle it may in- 
 corporate in the Constitution of the State, to deprive the 
 citizen of his property without his consent, unless it be 
 for the public good, and only then by making to him a 
 just compensation therefor."^ 
 
 The principles of this resolution were incorporated in 
 the Constitution, Sections 20 and 13 of 8th and 13th 
 Articles.^ Mr. Dixon's speech in support of it was called 
 ^Hhe speech of the Convention." Its delivery was so 
 earnest, its arguments so convincing, its eloquence so 
 powerful, that it carried the Convention by storm. 
 
 Early in the Convention, Squire Turner had offered a 
 resolution for the gradual emancipation of the slaves of 
 Kentucky, and Mr. Dixon had said in the debate on it : 
 "I do not mean to say that in my judgment slavery is a 
 blessing, or that, in my opinion, slavery as it exists in 
 Kentucky is an evil. This is a question which I mean 
 to discuss at a proper time — not abstractedly, but in 
 
 ' Debates Kentucky Convention, p. 130. 
 
 "Section 20. The right of property is before and higher than any 
 Constitutional sanction ; and the right of the owner of a slave to such a 
 slave, and its increase, is the same, and as inviolable, as the right of 
 the owner ot any property whatever. 
 
 " ARTICLE THIRTEENTH. 
 
 "Ssction 13. No person shall, for the same offense, be twice put in 
 jeopardy of his life or limb ; nor shall any man's property be taken or 
 applied to public use, without the consent of his representatives, and 
 without just compensation being previously made to him." (Pages 
 1100-1102, Debates Kentucky Convention.) 
 
The Missouri Compromise and its Repeal. 221 
 
 reference to the condition of society as it now exists in 
 the commonwealth of Kentucky. I would, if I had the 
 power, make all mankind free. I would have no such 
 thing as slavery or inequality. I would have equal 
 rights measured out to all ; but in the formation of civil 
 institutions for the government of man, we are to look 
 at the condition of things as they are — we are to adapt 
 the laws to the condition of those to be governed. It is 
 a question of grave importance, whether or not slavery 
 as it exists in Kentucky, is not better for the slave and 
 the master — and this is the great question, the only 
 question, which can have any particular interest in this 
 debate, I shall attempt to show that slavery is not a 
 curse as it now exists in Kentucky, and that it is a bless- 
 ing. I do not mean to say, as I remarked before, that 
 it would not be better, if there were no such thing as 
 slavery on the face of the earth. I do mean to say that 
 as slavery exists in Kentucky — in view of all the circum- 
 stances around it — in view of the wretched condition of 
 the slave, his relation to his master, the peculiar organi- 
 zation of the two races, the utter impossibility that the 
 one can rise to an equality in the scale of morality and 
 dignity with the other, the fact that the slave, whether 
 you call him freeman or not, is still but a slave, the 
 wretched off-cast slave — I say it becomes a question of 
 grave importance to Kentucky, whether it is not a bless- 
 ing alike to the slave and the white man, that he is a 
 slave. These are the questions which arise and present 
 themselves, from a view of the condition of this com- 
 mon wealth."^ 
 
 The second and third sections of the bill of rights 
 were offered by Mr. Dixon : 
 
 "article thirteen. 
 "Section 2. That absolute, arbitrary power over the 
 lives, liberty and property of the freeman exists nowhere 
 in a republic — not even in the largest majority. 
 
 ^ Debates Kentucky Convention, p. 82. 
 
222 The True History of 
 
 "Section 3. That all power is inherent in the people, 
 and all free governments are founded on their authority, 
 and instituted for their peace, safety, happiness, security 
 and the protection of property. For the advancement 
 of these ends, they have at all times an inalienable and 
 indefeasible right to alter, reform or abolish their gov- 
 ernment in such manner as they may think proper." 
 
 Mr. Dixon was an acknowledged leader in the Con- 
 vention, and was regarded by many as the ablest man 
 there. "His presence," said one in speaking of him, 
 "was commanding in the extreme, his form tall and 
 most handsomely proportioned, his countenance as ex- 
 pressive as ever given to mortal man, and his voice, 
 when he became animated, rang clear and inspiring as a 
 silver bugle. To the finest judgment, the acutest logic, 
 and an admirable method in argument, he added a pas- 
 sionate enthusiasm which made him irresistible before 
 an audience or a jury.'" 
 
 The author regrets that a limited space forbids further 
 extracts which would evidence from his speeches what 
 manner of man was the author of that Repeal, the true 
 evolution of which from cause and effect the writer is 
 attempting to show in this work. 
 
 Nowhere can a man's real character be so clearly 
 found as in his impromptu speeches. And in those of 
 Archibald Dixon one can read between the linos the 
 boldness, the justice and the honesty, which were the 
 marked characteristics of the man. 
 
 On December 21st, the new Constitution was signed 
 by every member of the Convention except Garrett 
 Davis. It was ratified by the vote of the people, and in 
 June of 1850, was proclaimed as the law of the land. 
 So far from taking any step in the direction of emanci- 
 pation, it threw every safeguard possible around the 
 property of Kentuckians in their slaves, and forbade the 
 emancipation of any slave by his master except upon 
 
 1 John AV. Lockett. 
 
The Missouri Compromise and its Repeal. 223 
 
 condition that such emancipated slave be sent out of the 
 State. 
 
 The gist of the organic laws as to the slaves of Ken- 
 tucky is contained in sections 1, 2, and 3 of Article 
 10th, as given below : 
 
 "article tenth. 
 
 "Section 1. The General Assembly shall have no 
 power to pass laws for the emancipation of slaves with- 
 out the consent of their owners, or without paying their 
 owners, previous to such emancii^ation, a full equivalent 
 in money for the slaves so emancipated, and providing 
 for their removel from the State. They shall have no 
 power to prevent immigrants to this State from bringing 
 with them such persons as are deemed slaves by the laws 
 of any of the United States, so long as any person of the 
 same age or description shall be continued in slavery by 
 the laws of this State. They shall pass laws to permit 
 owners of slaves to emancipate them, saving the rights 
 of creditors, and to prevent them from remaining in this 
 State after they are emancipated. They shall have full 
 power to prevent slaves being brought into this State as 
 merchandise. They shall have full power to prevent 
 any slaves being brought into this State who have been, 
 since the first day of January, one thousand seven hun- 
 dred and eighty-nine, or may hereafter be, imported into 
 any of the United States from a foreign country. And 
 they shall have full power to pass such laws as may be 
 necessary to oblige the owners of slaves to treat them 
 with humanity ; to provide for them necessary clothing 
 and provision ; to abstain from all injuries to them, ex- 
 tending to life or limb ; and in case of their neglect or 
 refusal to comply with the direction of such laws, to 
 have such slave or slaves sold for the benefit of their 
 owners. 
 
 "Section 2. The General Assembly shall pass laws 
 providing that any free negro or mulatto after immi- 
 grating to, or being emancipated in, and refusing to 
 
224 The True History of 
 
 leave, this State, or having left, shall return and settle 
 within this State, shall be deemed guilty of felony and 
 punished by confinement in the penitentiary thereof. 
 
 "Section 3. In the prosecution of slaves for felony, 
 no inquest by a grand jury shall be necessary ; but the 
 proceedings in such prosecution shall be regulated by 
 law, except that the General Assembly shall have no 
 power to deprive them of the privilege of an impartial 
 trial by a petit jury." 
 
The Missouri Compromise and its Repeal. 225 
 
 CHAPTER XI. 
 
 1850 — " Compromise of 1850," so-called— President Taylor's position- 
 Democratic Speaker elected — Extract from speech of Mr. Clemens 
 — Mr. Seward's Abolitionism— Southern sentiment as to Aboli- 
 tion and Secession — Mr. Clay's Resolutions — Extracts from his 
 speeches — He denies the authorship of the line of 36° 30', known as 
 the Missouri Compromise line — At the close of his great speech of 
 February 6th, advocating Union, Mr. Hale presents a petition to 
 dissolve the Union. 
 
 It would require a pen far more able than that of the 
 writer to depict even faintly the conflict of opinions, the 
 diversity of interests, and the tumult of passions that 
 agitated and swayed the minds and hearts of the Ameri- 
 can people in the years 1849 and 1850. 
 
 The gold^ fever, the Abolition fever, and the anti- 
 Abolition fever, were all at their height, raging and 
 epidemic. 
 
 Judge Douglas' endeavor to secure a government for 
 lawless California, to eliminate the gruesome question 
 of slavery from Congressional action or debate by the 
 admission of the entire new territory as one State, with 
 liberty to settle the question for itself — or for its settle- 
 ment by the extension of the Missouri Compromise line 
 over the new Territories across to the Pacific as he had 
 proposed in 1848 — had alike signally failed ; as had every 
 other proposition from every quarter — whether Whig or 
 Democratic. 
 
 A portion of the Northern Democracy had gone over 
 bodily to the Free Soilers, and many others of them 
 openly resented the defection of Southern Democrats 
 from Gen. Cass ; and declared that they would no longer 
 submit to "Southern dictation" — that if he had main- 
 tained his allegiance to the Wilmot Proviso, he would 
 
 '■ Owing to the discovery of the gold fields of California. 
 
226 The True H'istory of 
 
 have received the entire vote of the free States and been 
 triumphantly elected. 
 
 When it is remembered that the South had, for many- 
 years, held the balance of power, as between the two great 
 parties of the North where they were usually equal, and 
 that both of these parties had looked to the South for the 
 votes that might decide the supremacy of either ; such 
 political manifestations on the part of the Northern De- 
 mocracy were very significant, and ominous of the division 
 of parties into North and South rather than Whig and 
 Democrat. For whilst the Northern Whigs were daily 
 becoming more and more abolitionized, and sectional in 
 feeling and policy, the Democracy had hitherto main- 
 tained strenuously the strict construction of the Consti- 
 tution as an integral part of their policy, and conse- 
 quently had advocated the right of the States to regulate 
 their own domestic institutions, which was all the 
 South had heretofore asked or desired. 
 
 The Whig party was equally as much divided against 
 itself as was the Democratic. Gen. Taylor had been 
 elected by Northern Whigs, and Southern Democrats 
 and Whigs ; and he was now expected by the one section 
 to ui^hold the extension of slavery into the new Terri- 
 tories, and, by the other, to prevent it by his use of the 
 veto power. A Kentuckian, a Whig, and a slave-holder, 
 his administration was assailed not only by the Democ- 
 racy, whose candidate he had defeated for the Presi- 
 dency, but also by the great Kentuckian, leader of his 
 own party in Congress, Henry Clay, whom he had de- 
 feated for the nomination, and who, having a contempt 
 for his statesmanship (or lack of it) now derided his 
 policy and criticised his measures without mercy as 
 without stint. 
 
 The entire country indeed seemed at odds with itself. 
 The Abolitionists of Massachusetts and elsewhere were 
 clamoring against the execution of the fugitive slave law 
 — through pulpit and press they were declaring in favor 
 of that higher law which they claimed as above any 
 
The Missouri Compromise and its Repeal. 227 
 
 human statute, and as justifying the committing of 
 murder even, if necessary, to prevent the return of a 
 fugitive slave to his owner. 
 
 In South Carolina they were already drilling their 
 soldiers for that fierce conflict which they believed lay 
 before them in the near future. 
 
 Kentucky had entered her protest in the most em- 
 phatic way against the policy of emancipation, through 
 the election of proslavery Democrats and Whigs to her 
 Convention ; whilst her whilom idol, and Senator elect, 
 Henry Clay, was making a triumphal progress through 
 the Northern States and cities, where he was received with 
 boundless enthusiasm, and by immense crowds, who 
 made the welkin ring with their cheers, meeting him 
 with flying of flags, ringing of bells, and every other 
 demonstration of welcome, all because of his position in 
 favor of emancipation ; added of course to his previous 
 great popularity at the North, where he was beloved 
 almost as much as in his own State, and regarded as a 
 thoroughly national statesman. 
 
 But all this enthusiasm for Mr. Clay did not prevent 
 Abolitionists from enticing away his body servant, Levi 
 — whose duties were of the lightest character, simply to 
 wait in his master's room, brush his clothes, and provide 
 for his personal comfort generally. 
 
 When Levi reached Boston, however, he repented, re- 
 turned the $300 that had been given him as an induce- 
 ment, and went back to Mr. Clay. Levi, doubtless, be- 
 came convinced he had made a great mistake in giving 
 up a life of ease and of great dignity for a negro (otium 
 cum dignitate) to take upon himself his own support for 
 all time to come. 
 
 This incident shows the extraordinary ideas that Ab- 
 olitionists entertained of their duty under the higher law, 
 when they conceived it to call for the kidnapj^ing, by 
 bribery, of the slave (however content and well off he 
 might be) of any citizen, no matter how patriotic, or 
 distinguished, or benevolent, or devoted to the cause of 
 
228 The True History of 
 
 true liberty. This "higher law" made its disciples re- 
 gardless alike of constitution, of law, of justice, of the 
 rights of property, of common humanity to the white 
 people of the South, and of the terrible danger to the 
 Union of the States, in their action. 
 
 In his first message to Congress, December 4, 1849, 
 General Taylor stated, that "No civil Government hav- 
 ing been provided by Congress for California" or New 
 Mexico, the people of those territories would doubtless 
 present their constitutions to Congress and apply for ad- 
 mission to the Union in a short time. He recommended 
 a "favorable consideration of their application," if their 
 constitutions "should be conformable to. the requisitions 
 of the Constitution of the United States." And, "By 
 awaiting their action, all causes of uneasiness may be 
 avoided." The President plainly placed himself on the 
 ground of non-intervention by Congress with the question 
 of slavery in the Territories ; but which meant, to the 
 Southern people, a distinct intervention by the people of 
 those Territories themselves against their right to go 
 into them and carry their slave property with them, as 
 it was believed that neither New Mexico nor California 
 desired to have slavery introduced within their limits — 
 it having been, in fact, abolished there some years pre- 
 vious by the laws of Mexico. 
 
 No one can blame the people of those Territories for 
 objecting to having slaves brought into their country, 
 and yet one can not, either, blame the Southern people 
 for desiring a portion at least of the land which they had 
 so largely contributed to gain. Nor yet, in view of the 
 sentiment against slavery among the people of the North, 
 could they be blamed for desiring to prevent its exten- 
 sion to the new Territories, whose acquisition they had 
 opposed for the very reason that they feared they would 
 in the end become slave States. 
 
 It was a very difficult question that the American 
 Congress had to decide. 
 
 So difficult, indeed, that it seemed at one time almost 
 
The Missouri Compromise and its Repeal. 229 
 
 an impossibility to organize the House by the election of 
 a Speaker. As the Free Soil Democrats refused to act 
 with the regular Democratic party, and the Abolition 
 Whigs would not act with the majority of the Whig 
 party, neither side could get enough votes to elect a 
 Speaker. Mr. Cobb, of Georgia, Democrat, and Mr. 
 Winthrop, of Massachusetts, Whig, had been the most 
 prominent candidates of their respective parties, and 
 had received the majority of votes, but not enough to 
 elect either one. On the thirteenth ballot they each had 
 97 votes — then Mr. Cobb's vote began to scatter — Mr. 
 Winthrop held his own very steadily — about 102, being 
 a larger vote than any other Whig had received so far 
 until the thirty-seventh ballot, December ilth — when 
 W. J. Brown, of Indiana, Democrat, whose majority had 
 begun to increase on December 10th, received 107 votes, 
 113 being necessary to elect. On the fortieth ballot, 
 December 12th, Mr. Brown, who gained steadily, had 
 112 votes ; but, unfortunately for him, it was discovered 
 at this juncture that, in response to a note from Mr. 
 Wilmot (an Abolitionist of the most pronounced type) 
 of December 10th, he had written : 
 
 Washington City, December 10, 1849. 
 Dear Sir : In answer to yours of this date, I will state 
 that, should I be elected Speaker of the House of Rep- 
 resentatives, I will constitute the Committee on the 
 District of Columbia, on Territories, and on the Judi- 
 ciary, in such a manner as shall be satisfactory to your- 
 self and friends. I am a representative from a free 
 State, and have always been opposed to the extension of 
 slavery, and believe that the Federal Government should 
 be relieved from the responsibility of slavery, where 
 they have the constitutional power to abolish it. 
 
 I am truly yours, 
 
 W. J. Brown. 
 Hon. David Wilmot. 
 
230 The True History of 
 
 Mr. Wilmot's note was then called for and produced. 
 
 December 10, 1849. 
 
 Dear Sir: In the conversation which I had with you 
 this evening, you were free to say, that if elected 
 Speaker of the House of Representatives, you would 
 constitute the Committee on Territories, the Judiciary, 
 and the District of Columbia, in a manner that should 
 be satisfactory to myself and friends with whom I have 
 had the honor to act. I have communicated this to my 
 friends ; and if, in reply to this note, you can give them 
 the same assurance, they will give you a cheerful and 
 cordial support. Respectfully yours, 
 
 Hon. Wm. J. Brown. ^ D. Wilmot. 
 
 This revelation of treachery to his Democratic associ- 
 ates, Northern as well as Southern, on the part of a man 
 for whom they were voting as a Conservative, and who 
 was thus unmasked as in league with a Free Soiler, in- 
 tensely disgusted them. The Speaker's power in ap- 
 pointing committees made it very important that a man 
 should be elected whose fairness and impartiality would 
 command the respect and confidence of all parties. 
 
 The discussion that arose now, was, if possible, more 
 heated than any that had ever gone before. 
 
 Mr. Toombs, a Whig, and one of the wealthiest men 
 in the South — whose great talents and force of character 
 were only surpassed by his proud generosity of temper, 
 and his haughty and fearless spirit of independence — de- 
 clared most emphatically: "I do not, then, hesitate to 
 avow before this House and the country, and in the pres- 
 ence of the living God, that if by your legislation you seek 
 to drive us from the Territories of California and New 
 Mexico, purchased by the common blood and treasure of 
 the whole people, and to abolish slavery in this District, 
 thereby attempting to fix a national degradation upon 
 half the States of tliis Confederacy, I am for disunion ; 
 
 1 Cong. Globe, Vol. 21, p. 22. 
 
The Missouri Compromise and its Repeal. 231 
 
 and if my physical courage be equal to the maintenance 
 of my convictions of right and duty, I will devote all I am 
 and all I have on earth, to its consummation." 
 
 And Alexander Stephens, also a Whig and a Georgian, 
 stated: "I tell this House that every word uttered by 
 ray colleague (Mr. Toombs) meets my hearty response. 
 . Would you have us of the South to be an ap- 
 pendage to the Union? Would you have us submit to 
 aggression upon aggression? I tell you, for one — and I 
 do not intend to debate this question to-day — before that 
 God who rules the Universe, I would rather that the 
 Southern country should perish — that all her statesmen 
 and all her gallant spirits should be buried in honorable , 
 graves, than to submit one instant to degradation."^ 
 
 Andrew Johnson, of Tennessee, then a Democrat, and 
 afterwards elected as Vice-President with Mr. Lincoln, 
 spoke of the support Southern W^higs had given to 
 Taylor and Filmore ; and of the many anti-slavery pro- 
 positions introduced into the House since the election of 
 the present Whig administration ; and argued that "the 
 South might despair of any aid from those quarters."^ 
 
 Lynn Boyd, of Kentucky, Democrat, was then put in 
 nomination, but on the fifty-first ballot he had only 87 
 votes. So Mr. Winthrop was again taken up, and led 
 the majority, but up to the fifty-eighth ballot he only 
 got 86 votes — and the fifty-ninth only 28. 
 
 The Whigs and Democrats now determined on a Com- 
 mittee of Conference ; and it was decided that the House 
 should immediately proceed to the election of a Speaker, 
 viva voce; and, if, after the roll should be called three 
 times, no member had received a majority of the whole 
 number of votes, then, upon the next call, the one re- 
 ceiving the largest number of votes, provided it was 
 a majority of a quorum, should be declared elected 
 Speaker. 
 
 So the votes were taken the three times, Mr. Cobb 
 
 1 Cong. Globe, Vol. 21, pp. 28, 29. '' Idem, p. 33. 
 
232 The True History of 
 
 and Mr. Winthrop again leading ; Mr. Cobb ahead by a 
 few votes on the sixtieth and sixty-first call — on the 
 sixty-second each had 97 votes. The contingency con- 
 templated, of no choice, having now been reached — 
 when a majority should be sufficient to elect — the 
 roll was called for the sixty-third time, when Mr. 
 Cobb received 102 votes to Mr. Winthrop 's 90 ; and by 
 resolution was declared elected Speaker of the House — 
 147 yeas to 34 nays — on the 22d of December, 1849. 
 
 One of the singular features of this last vote was that 
 Mr. Toombs and Alex. Stephens voted nay, along with 
 Mr. Wilmot and Mr. Giddings, those very noted and 
 ^ jDronounced Free Soilers ; it is to be presumed because 
 their Whiggery was as yet predominant over every other 
 sentiment ; Mr. Cobb being a Georgia Democrat, and 
 thus more distinctly a political opponent than if he had 
 belonged to some other State. 
 
 And now Gen. Taylor, a Whig, elected President in 
 1848, by an overwhelming majority, had the mortifica- 
 tion, in 1849, of seeing a Democratic Speaker of the 
 House elected, and of finding a majority in both Houses 
 of Congress arrayed against his Administration. 
 
 The first blood drawn in the pugilistic war of words of 
 this session in the Senate, was upon the occasion of a 
 proposal to print some resolutions of the Legislature of 
 Vermont, in which her Senators and Representatives 
 were instructed to use every exertion to prevent the ex- 
 tension of slavery into the new Territories, and to pro- 
 cure a law to abolish slavery in the District and wher- 
 ever Congress had jurisdiction, denouncing it as "a 
 crime against humanity," and also speaking of the "so- 
 called compromises of the Constitution." 
 
 Some of the Southerners opposed the printing of the 
 resolutions, which were throughout of the same tenor, on 
 the ground that they were not respectful and should not 
 be received ; others wished them printed, that the people 
 of the Southern States might "see the progress of opin- 
 ion at the North." And others, again, held that any 
 
The Missouri Compromise and its Repeal. 233 
 
 communication from any sovereign State should be re- 
 ceived, "as the States themselves are to be judges of 
 their own conduct and language." ^ 
 
 Mr. Phelps, of Vermont, "deprecated all irritating 
 discussions upon the subject of slavery," and stated that, 
 when the Legislature passed those resolutions, "they 
 did not expect that any peculiar importance would be 
 attached to them — that they would receive the concur- 
 rence and sanction of the Senate — but said they ex- 
 pressed the sentiments of the civilized world, and that 
 it was a great moral, a great political question, and all 
 persons, at all times, should be at liberty to express their 
 opinions on it." 
 
 Mr. Hale, of New Hampshire, the humorist of the 
 Senate, said the resolutions were "harmless things" — 
 "intended only for home use," . . . "to be used 
 about election times." "The Whigs call the Democrats 
 pro-slavery," and, "when they are about to re-elect one 
 gentleman to an office, or another to fill it, it is very 
 convenient, sir, at such times, to show good resolu- 
 tions." Which caused "(great laughter)," says the 
 Record. 
 
 But Mr. Hale goes on to state, in regard to the 
 "moral sentiments of the people of the free States upon 
 this great subject of slavery," "that there is in the 
 feelings of the people a deep-rooted sentiment upon the 
 subject that will hold to a most rigid accountability any 
 Northern man that falters in the enunciation of that 
 feeling, of its sustentation upon the floor of Congress." 
 
 Mr. Calhoun said : "I have long labored faithfully — 
 faithfully to repress the encroachment of the North. 
 At the commencement, I saw where it would end and 
 must end ; and I despair of ever seeing it arrested in 
 Congress. It will go to its end ; for gentlemen have al- 
 ready yielded to the current of the North, whicli they 
 admit here that they can not resist. Sir, what the South 
 
 ' It was Mr. Calhoun who said this. 
 
234 The True History of 
 
 will do is not for me to say. They will meet it, in my 
 opinion, as it ought to be met." ^ 
 
 Mr. Borland, of Arkansas, opposed the printing of the 
 resolutions — like Mr. Yulee, of Florida, he thought the 
 language of them insulting to the South. He objected, 
 also, to the term ^'■so-called compromises of the Constitu- 
 tion" — "a denial that any compromises exist." 
 
 Mr. Clemens, of Alabama, spoke on the resolutions, 
 and his speech, from which are given some extracts, is 
 so indicative of the temper and sentiment of a portion 
 of the Southern people at this time as to make it very 
 instructive reading for those who wish to understand 
 the truth of history. The sincerity of the speaker can 
 not be doubted — he spoke as he felt, and felt as did 
 many of his people. 
 
 EXTRACTS FROM 
 
 "Remarks of Mr. Clemens, of Alabama, in the Senate, 
 January 10, 1850, on the Vermont Resolutions relating 
 to Slavery : 
 
 "I believe with the Senator from South Carolina (Mr. 
 Calhoun), that this movement will run its course, and 
 end, as all similar things have ended, in blood and tears. 
 The demagogues of the North have raised a tempest 
 they can not control. It is impelling them onwards with 
 an irresistible force — they can neither recede nor stand 
 still ; and, however fearful may be the path before 
 them, it is one they must tread. For a miserable par- 
 tisan purpose they have excited and kept alive bitter 
 sectional jealousies, and burning hatreds, which are 
 now bringing forth deadly fruits. . . . The North 
 will not save the Union, and the South can not, un- 
 less, indeed, we submit to indignities and wrongs of 
 so degrading a character as would almost make our 
 fathers 'burst the cerements of the tomb,' and come 
 among us once more to denounce and disown the de- 
 
 1 Cong. Globe, Vol. 21, p. 123. 
 
The Missouri Compromise and its Repeal. 235 
 
 generate descendants who have disgraced a glorious 
 ancestry. We know well what we have to expect. 
 Northern demands have assumed a form which it is 
 impossible for us to misunderstand. First comes our ex- 
 clusion from the Territories. Next, abolition in the Dis- 
 trict of Columbia — in the forts, arsenals, dock-yards, etc. 
 Then the prohibition of the slave trade between the 
 States, and, finally, total abolition. These results are 
 just as certain, unless the first step is firmly resisted, as 
 that the sun will rise to-morrow, and the night will fol- 
 low his going down. Heretofore it has been pretended 
 that it was not the purpose of any considerable body at 
 the North to interfere with slavery in the States ; but 
 this is an illusion which these resolutions have come in 
 good time to dispel. I always knew it was false, but I 
 did not expect to see the cloak so soon thrown aside. 
 But even if it were true, I would still say I do not choose 
 to place myself at your mercy. I will not exchange the 
 fortifications which the Constitution throws around my 
 rights for a frail reliance on your generosity or your for- 
 bearance. Concession never yet satisfied fanaticism, 
 nor has the march of the wrong-doer ever been stayed 
 by the supplications of the sufferer. Situated as we 
 are, the impulse of manliness is the dictate of j)rudence. 
 Our duty and our obvious policy alike demand that we 
 should meet the danger on the threshold and fall or con- 
 quer there. It is of no consequence by what name you 
 choose to designate your aggressions. When a principle 
 is established which must bring not only poverty, but 
 desolation and death to the South, it is immaterial 
 whether you call it abolition, free soil, or, to use the 
 phrase of the Senator from Ohio, free democracy ; the 
 end is the same, and so should be the resistance also. 
 When the fall of the out-works must be followed by the 
 fall of the citadel, he is a poor commander who hesi- 
 tates to risk every thing in their defense. It is so with 
 us ; we can not yield an inch of the ground we now 
 occupy without compromising our safety, and, what is 
 
236 The True History of 
 
 worse, incurring the reproach of eternal infamy. None 
 but children can be imposed upon by the miserable de- 
 lusion that abolition will pause in the midst of its suc- 
 cesses. One triumjDh will pave the way to another 
 until the wildest dream of fanaticism becomes a reality. 
 I understand the policy of the North, as avowed in the 
 other end of the Capitol, is to urge but one measure at 
 a time ; to j^roceed step by step, and to hide as much as 
 possible from the public eye all future results. That 
 would, indeed, be a shrewd game, and one well worthy 
 of the brain that conceived it ; but, unfortunately for 
 its success, there are more fingers than one in the pie ; 
 there are too many demagogues to control, and the 
 sentiment they have awakened among the honest but 
 misguided masses is too impatient of restraint to await 
 a process so slow and so fatiguing. They have been 
 taught to believe that every hour slavery continues on 
 the continent detracts from their chances of salvation, 
 and that its abolition has been specially intrusted to 
 them by God himself. No wonder they go beyond the 
 knaves who have duped them. No wonder they refuse 
 to listen to prudential counsels, and demand prompt 
 action at whatever sacrifice of life or property to them- 
 selves or others. It is human nature — above all, it is 
 the nature of the fanatic. 
 
 "The Senator from Ohio asks what grounds we have 
 of complaint. The list of grievances is a long one, and 
 the patience of the Senate would be exhausted if I at- 
 tempted to recount them all. I will, however, remind 
 him of some of the many claims the people of the North 
 have established to our gratitude. They have estab- 
 lished clubs throughout the North for the dissemination 
 of pamphlets and other incendiary publications among 
 our slaves, in which the foulest libels upon our citizens 
 are mingled with the most terrible appeals to all the 
 worst passions of the slave. Murder is boldly advocated, 
 and the burning of our dwellings and the violation of 
 our wives and daughters held up as a venial offense. 
 
The Missouri Compromise and its Repeal. 237 
 
 They have formed combinations to steal and run away 
 our property. They have hired lecturers whose sole 
 business it is to inflame the public mind at the North 
 against us. Enactment after enactment is crowded 
 into your statute books to hinder, delay, and defraud 
 the Southern man in the prosecution of his constitu- 
 tional rights. Your courts of justice have been con- 
 verted into the vilest instruments of oppression, and, 
 when other means have failed to accomplish a robbery, 
 riot and murder have been freely resorted to. Even 
 your pulpits have become the sanctuaries of slander, 
 and the temples dedicated to the worship of the living 
 God have echoed and re-echoed to vile and base de- 
 nunciations of our people and their institutions. Will 
 you tell me that all this is the work of a few mad- 
 brained fanatics? I answer that a few fanatics could 
 not have given color to the legislation of thirteen States, . 
 and prevented the justice of their courts. No, sir, no ! 
 It is general, nay, almost universal, and, whatever 
 magic there may be in that word 'Union,' it has no 
 balm for wounds like these. . . . However much I 
 may have loved that Union, I love the liberties of my 
 native land far more, and you have taught me that they 
 might become antagonists ; that the existence of one 
 might be incompatible with the other. The conviction 
 came but slowly, for it was not without its bitterness. 
 As a boy I looked upon the Union as a holy thing, 
 and worshiped it. As a man I have gone through that 
 in its defense, which would have shriveled thousands of 
 the wretched silk worms who, in peaceful times, earn a 
 cheap reputation for patriotism by professing unbounded 
 love for the Union. Even now I am not unmindful of 
 all the glorious memories that we have in common ; I 
 do not forget that there has come down to us a rich in- 
 heritance of glory which is incapable of division. I know 
 that side by side the North and South struggled through 
 the Revolution ; that side by side their bloody footprints 
 tracked the snow at Valley Forge ; that side by side they 
 
238 The True History oj 
 
 crossed the icy billows of the Delaware, and snatched 
 from fate the victory of Trenton. I remember all the 
 story of the times that tried men's souls, and feel the 
 full strength of all the bonds it has woven around us. 
 If they have been fearfully weakened, if they are now 
 about to snap asunder, the sin and folly belong not to us, 
 but to those who have forced us to choose between chains 
 and infamy on one hand, or equality and independence 
 on the other. We are not the assailants, but the as- 
 sailed ; and it does not become him who maintains a 
 just cause to calculate the consequences." ' 
 
 Mr. Hale thanks Mr. Clemens for having taught him 
 that "concession never satisfies fanaticism." And he 
 would recommend it as a "text" — "and tell the timid, 
 the doubtful and the wavering at the North that conces- 
 sion never satisfies fanaticism. I thank the Senator for 
 that." 
 
 In the Senate of 1849-50 were to be found a number 
 of the greatest men of our country since the time of the 
 Revolution. Clay, Calhoun and Webster — Foote, Benton 
 and Douglas — Houston, Cass, and Davis of Mississippi 
 — Soule and Chase, Corwin and Bell — Berrien and But- 
 ler, Hunter and Mason — Dickinson, Truman Smith, 
 Hale and Hamlin were the most distinguished in this 
 assemblage of great intellects. 
 
 Of these. Hale of New Hampshire, and Chase of 
 Ohio, were the only declared Free Soilers among the 
 Democrats — and their policy was exactly the same as 
 that declared by Mr. Phelps of Vermont, a Whig ; non- 
 intervention by Congress with the legislation of the 
 States on the subject of slavery, but the prohibition 
 of it every- where the United States had jurisdiction. 
 Mr. Seward, a Whig and a leader of his party in his own 
 State, New York, had openly declared himself an 
 Abolitionist, per se, and had been elected to the Senate 
 on this issue. 
 
 1 App. to Cong. Globe, Vol. 22, pages 52-54. 
 
The Missouri Compromise and its Repeal. 239 
 
 There were several different types of Abolitionists : 
 the humane, sincere, enthusiastic, visionary type, of 
 which Mr. Greeley and Hon. Gerritt Smith were illustra- 
 tions ; and who were termed, in that day, fanatics. 
 There was also the needy type, who embraced Abolition- 
 ism for the money that was in it ; the patriotic type, 
 who believed in the theory, but felt unwilling to subvert 
 the Constitution of their country, to carry out any theory 
 whatever ; and lastly, the ambitious type, who regarded 
 it merely as a matter of policy and power. To this lat- 
 ter class undoubtedly belonged the first recognized Whig 
 leader of the Abolition forces, Hon. Wm. H. Seward of 
 New York. An exceedingly able man, a very shrewd 
 politician, in some respects a statesman, Mr. Seward was 
 yet regarded by many of his contemporaries* as un- 
 scrupulous in politics and tortuous in methods. The 
 type of his Abolitionism is best illustrated by a remark 
 he made to my husband one day at a dinner party, in 
 1854, and which Mr, Dixon repeated to me when he 
 came home. As usual the negro was under discussion, 
 and Mr. Seward said to Mr. Dixon, "Your lands down 
 there are too fine to be given over to such an inferior 
 and degraded race as the negroes. There are too many 
 poor white men in the North who want them, and we 
 mean to have them." Said Mr. Dixon, "What then 
 will you do with the negroes?" he replied, "We will 
 drive them into the Gulf of Mexico as we are driving the 
 Indians into the Pacific Ocean. Set them free, and in 
 fifty years there will not be a negro left." Mr. Dixon 
 exclaimed, "God! man, you ought to be hung!" The 
 cruelty of the proposition shocked him, and his amaze- 
 ment was equal to his horror at hearing such a sugges- 
 tion from a man whom he had supposed to be actuated, 
 however mistakenly, by sentiments of humanity towards 
 the negro. I can never forget Mr. Dixon's expression 
 as he told me of the remark, and I could easily imagine 
 
 ^ See Welles in Galaxy of July, 1873. 
 
240 The True History of 
 
 the vehemence of feeling conveyed in his reply to Mr. 
 Seward. 
 
 Slavery in the Southern States was, to a degree, an emi- 
 nently patriarchal institution ; the owners of the slaves re- 
 garding themselves as the protectors,' as well as masters, 
 
 ^ "Archibald Dixon and his Slaves. 
 
 " The slaves of the South were the happiest class of laboring people 
 the world has ever known. 
 
 "Self-interest, to say nothing of the better side of human nature, 
 prompted their owners to treat them with kindness and with care. 
 
 " Cruelty to them was the exception and not the rule, and the master 
 who was guilty of it was sure to receive the opprobrium of the com- 
 munity. 
 
 " They were well fed, well clothed and well housed. 
 
 " When sick, physicians were called to see them, and the prescribed 
 medicines provided, and when old, they remained until their deaths 
 pensioners upon the bounty of their owners. 
 
 " There can be found to-day, in a night's journey through any of the 
 larger cities of the world, more misery, wretchedness and want among 
 the people of that city than could have been found among the slaves of 
 the South in a year's travel. 
 
 " It was the yearly custom throughout the greater part of the South 
 
 for masters to give their slaves the use of small tracts of land for 
 
 producing crops of corn, tobacco, cotton, potatoes, etc., and the money 
 
 arising from such crops belonged to the slaves for their exclusive 
 
 benefit. 
 
 " No planter in the South adhered to this custom with more kindness 
 
 and justice to his slaves than did Mr. Dixon. 
 
 " The late Hon. W. R. Kinney, of Louisville, one of the leading law- 
 yers of Kentucky, told me that he once rode wfth Mr. Dixon to one of 
 his plantations where they were cntting tobacco for fear of the frost. 
 
 " Mr. Dixon asked the overseer if the negroes' tobacco had been cut. 
 
 " The overseer replied, no. ' Then,' said Mr. Dixon, ' cut their 
 tobacco first, I can afibrd to lose mine, but they can't afford to lose 
 theirs.' 
 
 "Some oi his slaves I have known to realize in one year nearly five 
 hundred dollars on such crops. 
 
 "Mr. Dixon, in all his life, never sold a slave, but he bought num- 
 bers of them in order to keep husband and wife and parent and child 
 together. 
 
 "The relations between him and his slaves were of the kindest char- 
 acter—he was just and kind to them, and they were faithful and de- 
 voted to him. 
 
 " He died in 1876, years after they had been freed, but numbers of 
 them attested to the affection they had borne for him as slaves by at- 
 tending his funeral and dropping to his memory the tears of genuine 
 grief." (Hon. Henry C. Dixon's Lecture.) 
 
The Missouri Compromise and its Repeal 241 
 
 of their servants. It was then a revolting as well as 
 novel idea to a Southern man, that an Abolitionist 
 should design the freedom of the negro for his destruc- 
 tion as a race; pity for the "poor oppressed negro" 
 having been the key-note of all Abolition declarations, 
 the text of their sermons, and indeed the pivot upon 
 which, professedly, they turned the wheel of all their 
 solemn and sentimental objurgations against slavery 
 and slave-holders. 
 
 I have not found that Mr. Seward ever proclaimed the 
 above policy in any of his speeches before the Senate ; 
 but he may have done so in his campaign speeches, and 
 most probably did in some of them. It will be seen, 
 however, from his statement to Mr. Dixon that his idea 
 in freeing the negroes was, distinctly, to take away the 
 lands from both the negroes and their owners, that they 
 might be given over to "the poor white men in the North 
 who want them. ' ' By what process Mr. Seward proposed 
 to accomplish this end does not appear, further than the 
 depriving the Southern people of their property in their 
 slaves (a property to which they were entitled under the 
 Constitution) , and ousting the negroes from their homes 
 in order to make way for the "poor white men of the 
 North." But it is evident that he intended that they, 
 these men of the North, should have the lands of the 
 South. Now, to have land, is to own it ; and as two 
 j)arties can not own land at one and the same time, the 
 Southern owners must be dispossessed before the North- 
 ern men could own it. The men of the North, of whom 
 he spoke, would not have gone to Southern lands except 
 as settlers on them, as owners of them. They would 
 not have gone as serfs or hirelings. It does not appear 
 that Mr. Seward proposed to purchase these fine lands 
 for the "poor white men in the North who want them." 
 How, then, were they to be obtained? Was it a part of 
 his plan to simply so cripple the Southern country by 
 the destruction of its labor system as to cheapen its 
 lands and thus put them within reach of the class of 
 
242 The True History of 
 
 men for whom he meant to "have them?" However 
 this may have been, the morality of the purpose which 
 involved the wholesale confiscation of the property of 
 the white race of the South in their slaves, and possibly 
 the prospective practical confiscation of their lands, to- 
 gether with the destruction of the blacks under guise of 
 kindness, is not discernible to the ordinary mind ; and 
 the reader may decide for himself whether most to ad- 
 mire the comprehensive sagacity which could devise 
 such a solution of the Malthusian problem for both the 
 North and South, or the even more comprehensive 
 statesmanship which could so far overreach itself as to 
 bring about results precisely the opposite of those de- 
 sired, and which have proven exactly opposite to Mr, 
 Seward's expectations, the negroes having multiplied so 
 rapidly in thirty-two years of freedom as to have 
 reached the point of crowding upon the "poor white 
 man of the North," and the Southern land mostly re- 
 maining in the possession and ownership of Southern 
 men. 
 
 Mr. Seward's statement to Mr. Dixon is given as 
 being an exposition of the real sentiments of the most 
 able and prominent leader of the Abolition party. The 
 remark was made publicly (or, openly?) in the presence 
 of all the company assembled, so there can be no viola- 
 tion of privacy in its publication ; and as a matter of 
 historical interest, it ought to be recorded. For nothing 
 more assists the truth of history than the unvailing of 
 the real motives which actuate public men. 
 
 As early as in 1850, every thing was tending to that 
 grand Abolition crusade against slavery, the like of 
 which was never seen in any civilized country, for un- 
 reason, for enthusiasm, for universality of feeling, for 
 oneness of purpose, and which reminds one of the 
 Crusade of the children in the Dark Ages. All parties 
 in the North were already leaning toward it, and it re- 
 quired the united genius and patriotism of Clay and 
 Douglas, Webster and Foote, upheld by other patriotic 
 
The Missouri Compromise and its Repeal. 243 
 
 spirits, to stem the torrent and keep it back even tempo- 
 rarily. 
 
 It seems now a marvelous thing that not one of those 
 great men ever proposed — as did that truly good and 
 great man, Mr. Meigs, of New York, in 1820, in regard 
 to the Louisiana Territory — to devote the proceeds of 
 the sale of lands in the new Territories to the purchase 
 and deportation of the negroes of the South. The nearest 
 approach to such a proposition was made by Mr. Webster, 
 who stated in his great speech of March 7, 1850 : 
 
 "I will say, however, though I have nothing to pro- 
 pose on that subject, because I do not deem myself com- 
 petent as other gentlemen to consider it, that if any gen- 
 tleman from the South shall propose a scheme of colo- 
 nization, to be carried on by this Government upon a 
 large scale, for the transportation of free colored people 
 to any colony or any place in the world, I should be 
 quite disposed to incur almost any degree of expense to 
 accomplish that object. Nay, sir, following an example 
 set here more than twenty years ago by a great man, 
 then a Senator from New York, I would return to Vir- 
 ginia, and through her for the benefit of the whole South, 
 the money received from the lands and territories ceded 
 by her to this Government, for any such purpose as to 
 relieve, in whole or in part, or in any way, to diminish 
 or deal beneficially with the free colored population of 
 the Southern States. I have said that I honor Virginia 
 for her cession of this territory. There have been re- 
 ceived into the Treasury of the United States eighty 
 millions of dollars, the proceeds of the sale of the public 
 lands ceded by Virginia. If the residue should be sold 
 at the same rate, the whole aggregate will exceed two 
 hundred millions of dollars. If Virginia and the South 
 see fit to adopt any proposition to relieve themselves 
 from the free people of color among them, they have my 
 free consent that the Government shall pay them any 
 
244 The True History of 
 
 sum of money out of its proceeds which may be adequate 
 to the purpose."' 
 
 It may have been they knew it could not be done — 
 the South may have been making too much money 
 from her cotton, and sugar, and tobacco, to have been 
 willing to part with her slaves for any amount — and 
 the North may have been more unwilling to pay the 
 South any thing for them than even in 1820 ; but such 
 an arrangement, including all the slaves of the South, 
 Avould certainly have cost much less than the war, and 
 would have left the country in a far better condition. 
 The South would have been rid of the vexing negro 
 problem, and the North would have had all the fertile 
 lands of the South for the overflow of her own surplus 
 population. But this view of it seems not to have oc- 
 curred to either side ; the Abolitionists had been opposed 
 always to colonization of the negroes, and had, indeed, 
 been the main influence that defeated the efforts of the 
 Liberian Colonization Society for the freedom and de- 
 portation of that race. In fact, hatred and bitterness 
 seemed so to rule the hour that the moderate men, the 
 patriots, were most concerned to concoct some measures 
 that might conciliate all parties, rather than to adopt 
 measures that would remove the cause of dissension. 
 The seeds sown in 1836 by Mr. Adams and the Abolition 
 societies were bearing the fruit of hatred to the South in 
 the North, and of angry and bitter feelings toward the 
 North in the South. The North believed, mistakenly, 
 to a great extent, that the South had denied them 
 right of petition, that the Southern people had a con- 
 tempt for the white workingmen of the North, and that 
 the whites of the South had a greater voting power in 
 the government than the freemen of the North — and their 
 whole religious and humane feelings were in arms for 
 the "poor negro" whom such a leader as Mr. Seward 
 proposed to doom to destruction by means of his free- 
 
 ' App. Cong. Globe, Vol. 22, p. 276. 
 
The Missouri Compromise and its Repeal. 245 
 
 dom. So that we see every motive acted upon to bring 
 about hatred of the South in the breasts of the Northern 
 people. Their love of liberty, their pride as freemen, 
 their jealousy of power, their enthusiasm as Christians, 
 their pity as people of kind feelings, their cupidity as 
 they were avaricious, every feeling and impulse were 
 played upon by their orators and writers, until this 
 "harp of a thousand strings" finally sounded one grand 
 diapason of mad hate and destruction to those who had 
 been their friends and brothers in times past. 
 
 Was it wonderful, then, that the South should have 
 become angered and embittered, and should have, at 
 last, felt like shaking off the partnership? Was it not, 
 rather, wonderful that, in spite of all this open warfare 
 of word and pen upon her people, there should yet have 
 remained so many whom nothing could shake in their 
 love for the Union of the States? So many who yet, 
 and always, believed its destruction to be worse than 
 any loss of property, worse than the setting free of the 
 slaves, worse than any thing except the destruction of 
 the Constitution itself — and who saw in the destruction 
 of the Union the utter and hopeless destruction of the 
 Constitution — who saw in secession no remedy for any 
 evil whatever, but only anarchy and worse evil to come. 
 There were thousands of such men all over the South, even 
 in 1860-61, some of whom never yielded to either secession 
 or coercion, and others, who only yielded as Gen. Lee and 
 Jubal Early did, at the last moment, to the fiat of their 
 States. In 1850, this was still the prevailing sentiment 
 of the Southern people. They looked on Abolition as a 
 madness which should be contended against, but which 
 they believed the better classes of the Northerners took 
 no part in. They knew that they were not responsible 
 for the existence of slavery in the country — they found 
 it here when they were born, and knew of no way by 
 which to rid themselves of it. They had attempted to 
 colonize their slaves in Liberia, but had failed. As to 
 setting them free in their midst, it was not to be thought 
 
246 The True History of 
 
 of — and the Northern States had themselves all (or 
 nearly all) closed their borders to the entrance of free 
 negroes, because they were the most utterly worthless of 
 all populations, and were a nuisance in every neighbor- 
 hood where they had found a lodgment. The executor of 
 Mr. Randolph's estate had paid nine thousand dollars 
 ($9,000) for a farm in Ohio on which to settle the ne- 
 groes freed by Mr. Randolph's will, and, when they 
 went to take possession, they were met by citizens of 
 Ohio with pistols and guns, and were never permitted to 
 settle upon the land that had been purchased for them. 
 The free States were open to runaway slaves, but not to 
 those legally freed, and there was no country where the 
 Southerners could sell their slaves, and so get rid of 
 them, as the North had, so fortunately for herself, done, 
 by selling her slaves to the South. 
 
 Knowing all these facts, the South naturally felt in- 
 dignant at the proposition to exclude her from the com- 
 mon territory, and so deprive her of any place of exodus 
 for the increase of her slave population ; and also at the 
 threats against the property in them which had been 
 hers before the Constitution and the Union were formed, 
 and which was fully protected by that Constitution. 
 When a violation of the Constitution was threatened by 
 steps preliminary to the freeing of her slaves, as she was 
 convinced, it was a question of policy with her as to how 
 it should best be met and prevented. And those gentle- 
 men, who believed secession to be the only way to pro- 
 tect those rights which belonged to them before the 
 formation of any Union whatever, should certainly not 
 be characterized either as ambitious statesmen, disap- 
 pointed of office, and seeking, in a separate government, 
 those honors and emoluments denied them in this — 
 which was George D. Prentice's favorite way of putting 
 it — or as traitors, as they were so largely entitled after 
 secession materialized into an active principle rather 
 than a mere shadowy idea. Mistaken in policy, as they 
 assuredly were, it was yet an honest mistake, and one 
 
The Missouri Compromise and its Repeal. 247 
 
 on which they risked life and all that life holds most 
 dear, and they should be credited with the uprightness 
 of their motives, albeit they were led away by a madness, 
 as it were, of the most fatal character. 
 
 There has been a prevailing idea that Mr. Calhoun 
 and other Southern men were anxious for secession ; and 
 it has been a cherished and favorite feeling and opinion 
 among Northern writers and speakers that the Southern 
 slave-holders were the aggressors in all the difficulties 
 that preceded and brought on the war between the 
 States. On the contrary, the careful reader of the leg- 
 islation of 1850 can not avoid the deliberate conviction 
 that, however mistaken in their policy, as to the manner 
 of doing it, they may have been, Mr. Calhoun and those 
 who shared his views were impelled, not by any love of 
 secession, but solely by the instinct of self-preservation, 
 to the protection of all they held most dear — their coun- 
 try, their families, and their liberty. The extreme and 
 aggressive ground taken by the Abolitionists satisfied 
 them of the danger to all their interests in the success of 
 that party ; and they acted only on the defensive, in re- 
 garding the choice of secession as a less evil than that 
 one which they regarded as paramount, but which the 
 great and powerful sectional party of the North, in its 
 daily growing strength and bitterness, seemed resolved 
 to force upon them, viz : the setting free of their slaves 
 in their midst. 
 
 It was their aversion, not only to the anticipated 
 wrong to their property rights, their rights as individ- 
 uals and citizens to control their own domestic affairs, 
 but also to the radicalism, agrarianism, anarchy and li- 
 cense, of which Abolitionism and "higher law" were but 
 forms of expression ; it was their inherited love for con- 
 stitutional liberty, constitutional justice, constitutional 
 equality, and constitutional government, as opposed to 
 those anarchical elements, that turned to thought of se- 
 cession, as seemingly their only practicable mode of de- 
 fense, the most loyal hearts of the most loyal men who 
 
248 The True History of 
 
 ever lived under any government ; that afterward raised 
 armies to fight their battles, and united them so solidly 
 in opposition to the Abolition power, when it gained 
 possession of the Government in 1861. The men of the 
 South felt, in the struggle that followed, that they were 
 fighting for the last hope of constitutional liberty on this 
 continent as against anarchy, tyranny and despotic 
 power, conjoined to a spirit of enmity and hatred 
 towards the people of their section on the part of the 
 Abolitionists. Even in 1850 this enmity and hatred 
 were so apparent as to cause the gravest p^pprehensions 
 in the minds of Northern patriots as well as Southern. 
 But Mr. Calhoun resented being called a disunionist, 
 and declared his love for the Union almost with his 
 latest breath ; and in the beginning of the session of 
 1849-50, Mr. Meade, of Virginia, resented so fiercely 
 the application of "disunionist," applied to him by Mr. 
 Duer, of New York, as to require the interposition of 
 friends to prevent a personal difficulty. In truth there 
 were then no unconditional secessionists or disunionists 
 at the South, and comparatively very few who contem- 
 plated secession with any favor as a remedy for the com- 
 ing evil ; whilst at the North every Abolitionist advo- 
 cated separation from the South, declaring that they 
 held it as a sin and a contamination to be connected in 
 any way with a people so wicked, so cruel, and so crim- 
 inal as they believed the Southern slave-holders to be. 
 
 Up to 1850, however, we find nowhere, at any time, 
 any proposition from any of the Southern people to dis- 
 solve the Union — the only proposals to that effect having 
 been those held and presented some years before by Mr. 
 Adams, and proceeding from parties in various of the 
 Northern States. Nor, so far as the writer has been able 
 to discern, was any Southern statesman inspired by dis- 
 appointed ambition with feelings of sectional liate, or 
 influenced thereby to a course of sectional policy. 
 
 Kentucky never believed in secession. She thought 
 
The Missouri Compromise and its Repeal. 249 
 
 that as a principle it meant disintegration, as a policy it 
 meant defeat. 
 
 Neither did she believe in coercion. She thought that 
 no rightful power existed any where to coerce a sover- 
 eign State. 
 
 But whilst, abstractly, secession might be an un- 
 questionable right, it was one of such questionable value 
 that she could never see the wisdom of exercising it. 
 Her people were never willing to give up their rights 
 under the Constitution, in the Union, the Flag, the 
 Capitol — the army, the navy, the treasury, the territory 
 — in their common heritage of glory as American citi- 
 zens, a glory which they had contributed so largely to 
 create ! To turn over all these rights to others who 
 were inimical, to yield up all these advantages to others, 
 for the one right to give them up, seemed to Kentuckians 
 absolutely suicidal. It would have suited their ideas 
 much better to have protected both Constitution and 
 Union from the violent onslaughts of Abolition seceders 
 and disunionists ; to have held on to the Government 
 with all its treasures of past glories and future hopes, 
 defending it from all enemies, and especially from the 
 Abolitionists who were openly declaring their purpose to 
 destroy the Union of the States, and to violate the Con- 
 stitution. Had the South taken this view ; had she, 
 instead of handing over her government to these enemies 
 of law and order, fought to preserve the integrity of the 
 Constitution and the Union of the States ; had she made 
 the fight for her just rights within the Union, and under 
 the Flag of our country ; she would certainly have had 
 a large proportion of the Northern people with her, and 
 the results would without doubt have been very different, 
 and far more favorable to her prosperity. 
 
 Various resolutions to organize governments for Cali- 
 fornia, Deseret and New Mexico, were offered in both 
 Houses. Notably, Mr. Benton, now a Free Soiler, 
 attempted to turn over a large portion of Texas, a slave 
 
250 The True History of 
 
 State, to New Mexico, in order to gain that much more 
 free territory. 
 
 On the 29th of January, 1850, Mr. Clay offered a 
 series of resolutions, which were as follows : 
 
 "It being desirable for the peace, concord and har- 
 mony of the Union of these States, to settle and adjust 
 amicably all existing questions of controversy between 
 them, arising out of the institution of slavery, upon a 
 fair, equitable and just basis : Therefore — 
 
 "1. Resolved, That California, with suitable bound- 
 aries, ought upon her application to be admitted as one 
 of the States of this Union, without the imposition by 
 Congress of any restriction in respect to the exclusion or 
 introduction of slavery within these boundaries. 
 
 "2. Resolved, That as slavery does not exist by law, 
 and is not likely to be introduced into any of the Terri- 
 tory acquired by the United States from the Republic of 
 Mexico, it is inexpedient for Congress to provide by law 
 either for its introduction into or exclusion from any 
 part of the said Territory ; and that appropriate Terri- 
 torial governments ought to be established by Congress 
 in all of the said Territory, not assigned as the bound- 
 aries of the proposed State of California, without the 
 adoption of any restriction or condition on the subject 
 of slavery. 
 
 "3. Resolved, That the Western boundary of the State 
 of Texas ought to be fixed on the Rio Del Norte, com- 
 mencing one marine league from its mouth, and running 
 up that river to the southern line of New Mexico ; thence 
 with that line eastwardly ; and so continuing in the same 
 direction to the line as established between the United 
 States and Spain, excluding any portion of New Mexico, 
 whether lying on the east or west of that river. 
 
 "4. Resolved, That it be proposed to the State of Texas 
 that the United States will provide for the payment of 
 all that portion of the legitimate and bona fide public 
 debt of that State contracted prior to its annexation to 
 the United States, and for which the duties on foreign 
 
The Missouri Compromise and its Repeal. 251 
 
 imports were pledged by the said State to its creditors, 
 
 not exceeding the sum of $ , in consideration of the 
 
 said duties so pledged having been no longer applicable 
 to that object after the said annexation, but having 
 henceforward become payable to the United States ; and 
 upon the condition also that the said State of Texas 
 shall, by some solemn and authentic act of her legisla- 
 ture, or of a convention, relinquish to the United States 
 any claim which it has to any part of New Mexico, 
 
 "5. Resolved, That it is inexpedient to abolish slavery 
 in the District of Columbia, whilst that institution con- 
 tinues to exist in the State of Maryland, without the 
 consent of the people of the District, and without just 
 compensation to the owners of slaves within the Dis- 
 trict. 
 
 "6. Resolved, That it is expedient to prohibit within 
 the District the slave-trade, in slaves brought into it 
 from States or places beyond the limits of the District, 
 either to be sold therein as merchandise, or to be 
 transported to other markets without the District of 
 Columbia. 
 
 "7. Resolved, That more effectual provision ought to 
 be made by law, according to the requirement of the 
 Constitution, for the restitution and delivery of persons 
 bound to service or labor in any State, who may escape 
 into any other State or Territory in the Union. 
 
 "And 8, Resolved, That Congress has no power to pro- 
 hibit or obstruct the trade in slaves between the slave- 
 holding States ; but that the admission or exclusion of 
 slaves brought from one into another of them, depends ex- 
 clusively upon their own particular laws."^ 
 
 The resolutions of Mr. Clay had been looked for with 
 great anxiety by the public — as it was understood that 
 he was preparing a compromise which it was hoped 
 would settle all the vexing problems of the hour. 
 
 Upon their presentation, he made some remarks 
 
 1 Cong. Globe, Vol. 1, p. 246. 
 
262 The True History of 
 
 recommending them to all parties — and to which the 
 author wishes to call special attention : 
 
 "Sir, I might, I think — although I believe this pro- 
 ject contains about an equal amount of concession and 
 forbearance on both sides — have asked from the free 
 States of the North a more liberal and extensive conces- 
 sion than should be asked from the slave States. And 
 why, sir? With you gentlemen Senators from the free 
 States, what is it? An abstraction, a sentiment when 
 directed rightly, with no sinister or party purposes ; an 
 atrocious sentiment — a detestable sentiment — or rather 
 the abuse of it — when directed to the accomplishment 
 of unworthy purposes. I said that I might ask from you 
 larger and more expansive concessions than from the 
 slave States. Not that there is any difference — for upon 
 that subject I can not go along with the ardent expres- 
 sion of feeling by some of my friends coming from the 
 same class of States from which I come — not that there 
 is any difference in valor, in prowess, in noble and 
 patriotic daring, between the people of one class of 
 States and those of another. You are in point of num- 
 bers, however, greater ; and greatness and magnanimity 
 should be allied together. 
 
 "But there are other reasons why concession upon such 
 a subject as this should be more liberal, more expansive, 
 coming from the free than from the slave States. It is, 
 as I remarked, a sentiment, a sentiment of humanity 
 and philanthropy on your side. Aye, sir, and when a 
 sentiment of that kind is honestly and earnestly 
 cherished, with a disposition to make sacrifices to en- 
 force it, it is a noble and beautiful sentiment ; but, sir, 
 when the sacrifice is not to be made by those who 
 cherish that sentiment and inculcate it, but by another 
 people, in whose situation it is impossible, from their 
 position, to sympathize and to share all and every thing 
 that belongs to them, I must say to you Senators from 
 the free States, it is a totally different question. On 
 your side it is a sentiment without sacrifice, a senti- 
 
The Missouri Compromise and its Repeal. 253 
 
 ment without danger, a sentiment without hazard, with- 
 out peril, without loss. But how is it on the other side, 
 to which, as I have said, a greater amount of concession 
 ought to be made in any scheme of compromise? 
 
 "In the first place, sir, there is a vast and incalculable 
 amount of property to be sacrificed, and to be sacrificed, 
 not by your sharing in the common burdens, but ex- 
 clusive of you. And this is not all. The social inter- 
 course, habit, safety, property, life, every thing is at 
 hazard in a greater or less degree in the slave States. 
 
 "Sir, look at that storm which is now raging before 
 you, beating in all its rage pitilessly on your family. 
 They are in the South. But where are your families, 
 where are ^/owr* people. Senators from the free States? 
 They are safely housed, enjoying all the blessings of 
 domestic comfort, peace, and quiet in the bosom of their 
 own families. 
 
 "Behold, Mr. President, that dwelling-house now 
 wrapped in flames. Listen, sir, to the rafters and 
 beams which fall in succession, amid the crash, and the 
 flames ascending higher and higher as they tumble 
 down. Behold these women and children who are flying 
 from the calamitous scene, and with their shrieks and 
 lamentations imploring the aid of high Heaven, Whose 
 house is that? Whose wives and children are they? 
 Yours in the free States? No. You are looking on in 
 safety and security, whilst the conflagration which I 
 have described is raging in the slave States, and pro- 
 duced, not intentionally by you, but produced from the 
 inevitable tendency of the measures which you have 
 adopted, and which others have carried far beyond what 
 you have wished, 
 
 "In the one scale, then, we behold sentiment, senti- 
 ment alone ; in the other property, the social fabric, 
 life, and all that makes life desirable and happy. "^ 
 
 Southern Senators could not see any compromise in 
 
 1 Cong. Globe, Vol. 1, p. 246. 
 
254 The True History of 
 
 Mr. Clay's resolutions, and objected to them accord- 
 ingly. They could not see where any concession was 
 made to their interests. They admitted his intentions 
 to be pure and patriotic, but said not (ftie of the resolu- 
 tions gave the South any thing, whilst they practically 
 gave the North, California, New Mexico, and Deseret — 
 proposed to interfere with the boundary of Texas, which 
 the United States had no more right to do than to inter- 
 fere with the boundary of the State of Kentucky — that 
 it conceded the abolition of the slave trade in the Dis- 
 trict of Columbia, that the resolution as to the fugitive 
 slave law was all very well, but there was already a pro- 
 vision in the Constitution regarding that matter which 
 could not be carried into effect, and his resolution, even 
 backed by his powerful influence, could be hardly ex- 
 pected to have better success. 
 
 The usual allusion to Mr. Clay's authorship of the 
 Missouri Compromise was made, by Mr. Jefferson Davis 
 this time, and further on he asserts : "I here assert that I 
 never will take less than the Missouri Compromise line 
 extended to the Pacific Ocean, with the specific recogni- 
 tion of the right to hold slaves in the Territory below 
 that line ; and that, before such Territories are admitted 
 into the Union as States, slaves may be taken there 
 from any of the United States at the option of their 
 owners."' 
 
 It was in reply to this assertion that Mr. Clay said : 
 "No earthly power could induce me to vote for a specific 
 measure for the introduction of slavery where it had not 
 before existed, either north or south of that line, 
 the proposition which I make of leaving the subject un- 
 acted upon with regard to slavery, ... is a much 
 better proposition, as far as the interests of the South 
 are concerned, than that of extending tlie Missouri line 
 to the Pacific, unless you should couple with it that 
 which the Senator from Mississippi knows to be impos- 
 
 1 Cong. Globe, Vol. 1, p. 249. 
 
 fl 
 
The Missouri Compromise and its Repeal. 255 
 
 sible, a declaration or provision for the introduction of 
 slavery south of that line." 
 
 Mr. Davis: "The Senator from Mississippi knows 
 that."^ 
 
 It was on the 5th of February that Mr. Clay made his 
 great speech in the Senate of the United States in sup- 
 port of these resolutions by which he had hoped to give 
 peace to his country. The reader has doubtless seen the 
 engraving taken of him and of the Senate upon that 
 grand and thrilling occasion. But, fine as it is, the en- 
 graving conveys no idea of that matchless grandeur 
 of presence which marked Henry Clay as a king among 
 men,^ and no description could carry with it any concep- 
 tion of that wonderful voice, which could only be likened 
 to the music of the rolling thunder. Nor, in the present 
 day, may it be easy to appreciate in its fullness that 
 passionate devotion to the National Union which was the 
 political religion, that intense belief in the equal rights 
 of the States which was the political faith, and that high 
 respect for Constitutional law which was the political 
 creed, of that early Kentucky patriotism of which Mr. 
 Clay was the incarnation. Nor was this great man less 
 distinguished for his common sense than for the more 
 striking characteristics of his genius. It will be re- 
 marked of him that, when he could not carry the meas- 
 ure he wished to carry, he would take what he could ob- 
 tain that was nearest the point. So that, when these reso- 
 lutions failed, as they did, he united with other patriots 
 
 1 Cong. Globe, p. 249. 
 
 "^ In Carl Schurz's Life of Henry Clay, he speaks of his " involuntary 
 showiness." It would be quite as appropriate to speak of the "invol- 
 untary showiness " of Mont Blanc. Had Mr. Schurz kno^wn Mr. Clay 
 personally, he could, with his ability, have written a book that might 
 have done his subject justice. Major Throckmorton, proprietor of the 
 Gait House, in Louisville, for so many years, and one of " Old Hal's" 
 familiars, came much nearer the truth when he said, in his forcible 
 Kentucky vernacular, " Take Henry Clay at the bar, on the stump, in 
 the Senate, as a diplomat in Europe, as a visitor in the proudest courts 
 in Europe, and, by G — , he's captain in every crowd he gets in.' 
 
256 The True History of 
 
 in support of other resolutions wliicli were carried and 
 became known as the "Compromise of 1850." 
 
 The extracts from this speech of February 5, 1850, 
 are given mainly to illustrate Mr. Clay's position, as re- 
 gards the Missouri Compromise, by his own statement. 
 For the rest, he claimed that the Constitution could no 
 more carry instanter the institution of slavery with it 
 into the new Territories than it could carry the principle 
 of freedom with it, which the free States have chosen, 
 from policy, to adopt — that Congress had the power to 
 introduce it or abolish it as to the Territories — and it was 
 as regarded the Territories, a debatable question — but, as 
 to the States, it was not a debatable question. That the 
 power to exclude slavery from the Territories included 
 the power to introduce it. He tells the North they have 
 what is worth a thousand Wilmot provisos — they have 
 nature on their side, facts upon their side, and the truth 
 staring you in the face that there is no slavery in those 
 Territories. "If you are not infuriated, if you can ele- 
 vate yourselves from the mud and mire of party conten- 
 tions to the purer regions of patriotism, you will look at 
 the fact as it exists." ^ 
 
 Speaking of the fugitive slave law, he says : 
 "Upon this subject I do think we have just and 
 serious cause of complaint against the free States. I 
 think they have failed in fulfilling a great obligation, 
 and the failure is precisely upon one of those subjects 
 which in its nature is most irritating and inflammatory 
 to those who live in slave States. Why, sir, I think it 
 is a mark of no good brotherhood, of no kindness, of no 
 courtesy, that a man from a slave State can not now, in 
 any degree of safety, travel in a free State with his serv- 
 ant, although he has no purpose of stopping there any 
 longer than a short time. Upon this subject the Legis- 
 latures of the free States have altered for the worse in 
 the course of the last twenty or thirty years. Most of 
 
 1 App. Cong. Globe, Vol. 22, p. 119. 
 
The Missouri Compromise and its Repeal. 257 
 
 these States, until during the period of the last twenty or 
 thirty years, had laws for the benefit of "sojourners," as 
 they were called, passing through or abiding for a time 
 in the free States with their servants." ^ 
 
 Mr. Clay evidently felt a personal hurt in the taking 
 away of his servant, Levi. 
 
 Of the Missouri Compromise, he says : 
 
 "Sir, while I was engaged in anxious consideration 
 upon this subject, the idea of the Missouri Compromise, 
 as it has been termed, came under my review, was con- 
 sidered by me, and finally rejected, as, in my judgment, 
 less worthy of the common acceptance of both parties 
 of this Union than the project which I offer to your 
 consideration."^ 
 
 "Mr. President, before I enter into a particular ex- 
 amination, however, of that Missouri Compromise, I beg 
 to be allowed to correct a great error, not merely in the 
 Senate, but throughout the whole country, in respect to 
 my agency in regard to the Missouri Compromise, or 
 rather the line of 36° 30', established by the agency of 
 Congress. I do not know whether any thing has excited 
 more surprise in my mind as to the rapidity with which 
 important historical transactions are obliterated and 
 pass out of memory, than has the knowledge of the 
 fact that I was every-where considered the author 
 of the line of 36° 30', which was established upon the 
 occasion of the admission of Missouri into the Union.' 
 
 » Cong. Globe, Vol. 22, p. 123. 
 
 ' Judge Douglas states that he and Mr. Clay had taken means to find 
 out whether it was possible to get the Missouri Compromise line through 
 both Houses of Congress — they had become satisfied it could not be 
 carried — and, after conferring on the matter, had decided not to ofi'er it, 
 in view of its certain defeat. 
 
 ' The following letter, kindly furnished the writer by Hon. Micajah 
 Woods, of Charlottesville, Ya., and hitherto unpublished, will interest 
 the reader, as it proves conclusively that Mr. Clay did not at any time 
 claim to be the author of the line of 36° 30^, as was so largely claimed 
 for him, and so extensively believed. It is to be noted that he makes 
 no allusion even to it — as a compromise or otherwise — but only speaks 
 
 17 
 
258 The True History of 
 
 "It would take up too much time to go over the 
 whole of that important era in the public affairs of this 
 
 of the " Taylor restriction "—which was " defeated "—and then goes on 
 to tell of his own part in the legislation of 1821.— Author. 
 
 "Ashland, 16th July, 1835. 
 " Dear Sir: I have duly received your favor of the 8th inst. and feel 
 greatly obliged by the friendly sentiments and the constancy with which 
 you have adhered towards me. I regret extremely that I can supply 
 you with no copy of any speech that I ever made on the Missouri ques- 
 tion. The debate was long, arduous, and during the last agitation of the 
 question, I spoke almost every day for two or three weeks, on the main 
 or collateral questions. The set prepared speech which 1 made, of three 
 or four hours duration, was never published. Of my share of the de- 
 bate, there is therefore only a meager amount to be gleaned from the 
 papers of the day. 
 
 " The question first arose in the session 1819-1820. When the bill for 
 admitting Missouri into the Union was on its passage, Mr. Taylor, of 
 New York, proposed to insist on it as a condition on which the State 
 was to become a member of the Confederacy, that it should never toler- 
 ate slavery or involuntary servitude. The argument by which that 
 proposition was naaintained, by himself and others, was that slavery is 
 contrary to the divine law and to the acknowledged rights of men ; that 
 it ought not to exist ; that it is an admitted evil ; that if the General 
 Government can not extirpate it in the old States, it can prevent its ex- 
 tension in the new ; that being restricted within a limited sphere it will 
 be less pernicious and more controlable ; that Congress having the 
 power to admit new States may prescribe the conditions of their admis- 
 sion ; and that in all preceding instances of the admission of new 
 States, some conditions were annexed. 
 
 " To all this we replied, that the General Government had nothing to 
 do with the subject of slavery, which belonged exclusively to the several 
 States ; that they alone were to judge of the evil and remedy ; that every 
 State had such entire control over the matter that those which tolerated 
 slavery might abolish it or admit it, without any interference from the 
 General Government; that altho' Congress had the power to admit new 
 States, when admitted, by the express terms of the Constitution, they 
 were on the same footing, in every respect whatever, with the senior 
 States, and consequently had a right to judge for themselves on the 
 question of slavery ; that if Congress could exercise the power of an- 
 nexing a condition respecting slavery, they might annex any other con- 
 dition and thus it might come to pass that instead of a Confederacy of 
 States with equal power, we should exhibit a mongrel association ; that 
 in the case of other new States they were not conditions upon their 
 Sovereignity, but voluntary Compacts, relating chiefly to the Public 
 Lands, and mutually beneficial; that the extension of slavery was 
 
The Missouri Compromise and its Repeal. 259 
 
 country. I shall not attempt it ; although I have 
 ample materials before me, derived from a careful and 
 
 favorable to the comfort of the slave and to the security of the White 
 Kace, etc. 
 
 " The proposition by Mr. Taylor (which I think had been made at the 
 previous session) was defeated by a small majority, and the bill passed 
 without the obnoxious condition. 
 
 " Missouri assembled her convention, formed a Constitution and 
 transmitted it to Congress. In that Constitution, she unfortunately in- 
 serted a clause against free Blacks. And when at the session 1820-1821, 
 it was proposed to admit her into the Union, the same party who had 
 made the condition, taking advantage of that exceptionable clause, now 
 opposed her admission. I did not reach Washington until in January, 
 and when I got there, I found the members from the Slave States, and 
 some from others in despair. All efforts had been tried and failed to 
 reconcile the parties. Mr. Lowndes had exhausted all his great re- 
 sources in vain. Both parties appealed to me ; and after surveying 
 their condition I went to work. I saw that each was so committed and 
 wedded to its opinion that nothing could be effected, without a com- 
 promise ; and the point with me was to propose some compromise which 
 should involve no sacrifice of opinion or principle. I got a Committee 
 of Thirteen appointed by the House, and furnished to the Speaker (Mr. 
 Taylor) a list of such members as I wished, embracing enough of the 
 Restrictionists to carry any measure, if they would agree with me. In 
 that Committee I proposed and, with its assent, reported to the House 
 a clause, by way of condition, to be annexed to the act admitting her, 
 substantially like that which was finally adopted. It was defeated in 
 the House by Mr. Randolph, and Messrs. Edwards and Burton, of North 
 Carolina voting against it. 
 
 " ]\Iy next movement was to get a joint Committee of twenty-four ap- 
 pointed by the two Houses. That on the part of the House was chosen 
 by ballot and a list which I made out was appointed with a few excep- 
 tions. They reported the resolution, now to be found in the Statute 
 Book, which was finally passed 2d March, 1821, and settled the question. 
 
 " Never did a party put so much at hazard as the Restrictionists did 
 on so small a question, as that was which arose on the second occasion 
 growing out of the Constitution of Missouri. Never have I seen the 
 Union in such danger. Mr. King, of New York, was understood to con- 
 cur in all the measures of the Restrictionists. He was a member of the 
 Senate, spoke largely on the subject, and was most triumphantly re- 
 futed, in one of the ablest speeches of Mr. Pinckney, of Maryland, that 
 I ever heard. 
 
 " Besides the topics employed in the first instance, on this second oc- 
 casion, the main effort of our opponents was procrastination, they 
 urging that the matter should be put off till the new Congress. We 
 believed that their real purpose was to consolidate their party and to 
 
260 The True History of 
 
 particular examination of the journals of both Houses. 
 I will not occupy your time by going into any detailed 
 account of the whole transaction ; but I will content my- 
 self with stating that, so far from my having presented as 
 a proposition the line of 36° 30', upon the occasion of con- 
 sidering whether Missouri ought to be admitted into the 
 Union or not, it did not originate in the House of which 
 I was a member. It originated in this body, 
 a clause was proposed by Mr. Thomas, of Illinois, in 
 the Senate, restricting the admission of slavery north of 
 36° 30', and leaving the question open south of 36° 30', 
 either to admit or not admit slavery. The bill was 
 finally passed. 
 
 "So the matter ended in 1820. During that year, 
 Missouri held a Convention, adopted a Constitution, 
 
 influence the presidential election then approaching. I never was in 
 better health and spirits, and never worried my opponents more. 
 
 •' I coaxed, soothed, scorned, defied them, as I thought the best effect 
 was to be produced. Towards those, of whom there were many from the 
 free States, anxious for the settlement of the controversy, I employed 
 all the persuasion and conciliation in my power. 
 
 "At the conclusion of the business, I was exhausted, and I am per- 
 fectly satisfied that I could not have borne three weeks of such excite- 
 ment and exertion. 
 
 " The account of that memorable question is written for your own 
 satisfaction, and not for publication. It is the first draft and I retain no 
 copy. 
 
 " You ask, can the Whigs consistently support Judge White ? Those, in 
 favor of the policy for which I have contended, can not, except as the last 
 and only alternative. My opinion is, that the way to defeat Mr. Van Buren 
 is to have two Whig candidates, one of which shall represent the feel- 
 ings and instincts of each of the two great divisions of the party. Be- 
 tween them there is no common bond of sufiicient force, to call out all 
 their energies, zeal and animation in support of any one candidate ; or 
 rather the influence of the opinions and principles which are common 
 to them, is too much impaired by their differences on certain questions 
 of National policy. The consequence would be that, if Mr. White were 
 run alone against Mr. Van Buren, he would be defeated for the want of 
 Northern or Western support; and if Mr. Webster, General Harrison 
 or Judge McLean were to run, he would be defeated for waut of South- 
 ern support. Two candidates are necessary to absorb all the votes of 
 those who are more or less inclinad against Mr. Van Buren. 
 
 " Your letter has brought on you a great infliction in this long epistle. 
 
The Missouri Compromise and its Repeal. 261 
 
 sent her Constitution by her members to Congress, to 
 be admitted into the Union ; but she had inadvertently- 
 inserted into that Constitution a provision to prevent 
 the migration of free people of color into that State. 
 She came here with the Constitution containing that 
 provision, and immediately Northern members took ex- 
 ception to it. The flame which had been repressed at 
 the previous session now burst out with redoubled vio- 
 lence throughout the whole Union, Legislative bodies 
 all got in motion to keep out Missouri from the Union, 
 in consequence of her interdiction of the admission of 
 free people of color within her limits. 
 
 You must ascribe it to the friendly feelings excited by your's. I rarely 
 commit this sort of offense. With great respect, 
 
 " W. S. Woods, Esq. I am yours faithfully, 
 
 "H. Clay. 
 
 " P. S. — You will see in the public prints what I have said, on a late 
 occasion, respecting the preference for Mr. Van Buren, imputed to me. 
 
 "H. C." 
 
 LETTER FROM HON. MICAJAH WOODS TO THE AUTHOR. 
 
 " Charlottesville, Va., March 10, 1898. 
 "Mrs. Archibald Dixon, Mendham, New Jersey. 
 
 "Dear Madam: — I send you herewith the original letter of Henry 
 Clay to my uncle, Wm. S. Woods, dated 16th July, 1835. It gives most 
 interesting and unpublished details as to the passage of the Missouri 
 Compromise, and is, perhaps, the longest account from the hand of Mr. 
 Clay ever given in private correspondence of his connection with that 
 measure. 
 
 " My uncle was a great friend and admirer of Mr. Clay. When a 
 young man, he, with my father, Dr. John R. Woods, of Holkham, in 
 this State, visited Mr. Clay at Ashland. Mr. Clay took a great fancy to 
 my uncle, and said of him that he was the most accomplished young 
 man he had ever met, and he predicted for him a brilliant future ; and 
 a regular correspondence was kept up between them. 
 
 My uncle, to whom said letter was written, after leaving the Univer- 
 sity of Virginia, settled at Helena, in Arkansas, where he died of ma- 
 larial fever in 1836, in the twenty-fifth year of his age. 
 
 " You are at liberty to use said letter in your forthcoming work on 
 ' The Missouri Compromise.' 
 
 " With great respect, very truly yours, 
 
 " Micajah Woods." * 
 
 * Mr. Clay's letter would have been lithographed but that it had become so faded 
 as to render its reproduction in fac simile impossible. 
 
262 The True History of 
 
 "I did not arrive at Washington at that session until 
 January ; and when I got here I found both bodies com- 
 pletely paralyzed by the excitement which had been pro- 
 duced in the struggle to admit or exclude Missouri from 
 the Union in consequence of that prohibition." 
 
 Mr. Clay then proceeds to give an account of the 
 passage of that Act of 1821, by which Missouri was 
 finally admitted into the Union of the States, 
 
 His statement of the facts of the Missouri Compro- 
 mise Act of 1820, and also of the Act of 1821, accords 
 precisely with the historical account given in the pre- 
 ceding chapters, except that he does not mention the pro- 
 posal of his colleague, Mr. William Brown, for the re- 
 peal of the Act of 1820. 
 
 Of the Act of 1821, he says : 
 
 "Now, sir, I want to call your attention to this period 
 of our history and to the transactions during the progress 
 of this discussion in Congress. During the discussion 
 in the House from day to day, and from night to night — 
 for they frequently ran into the night — we, who were 
 for admitting Missouri into the Union, said to our 
 brethren from the North, 'Why, gentlemen, if there be 
 any provision in that Constitution of Missouri which is 
 repugnant to the Constitution of the United States, it is 
 a nullity. The Constitution of the United States, by 
 virtue of its own operation, vindicates itself. There is 
 not a tribunal upon earth, if the question should be 
 brought before them, but would pronounce the Consti- 
 tution of the United States paramount, and must pro- 
 nounce as invalid any repugnant provision of the Con- 
 stitution of Missouri.' Sir, that argument was turned 
 and twisted, and used in every possible variety of form, 
 but all was in vain. An inflexible majority stuck out 
 to the last against the admission of Missouri until the 
 resolution was offered and passed. 
 
 "But I wish to contrast the plan of accommodation 
 which is proposed by me with that which is offered by 
 the Missouri line, to be extended to the Pacific Ocean, 
 
The Missouri Compromise and its Repeal. 263 
 
 and to ask gentlemen from the South and from the 
 North, too, which is most proper, which most just, to 
 which is there the least cause of objection? What was 
 done, sir, by the Missouri line? Slavery was positively 
 interdicted north of that line. The question of the ad- 
 mission or exclusion of slavery south of that line was 
 not settled. There was no provision that slavery should 
 be admitted south of that line. In point of fact, it ex- 
 isted there. In all the territory south of 36° 30', em- 
 braced in Arkansas and Louisiana, slavery was then 
 existing. It was not necessary, it is true, to insert a 
 clause admitting slavery at that time. But, if there is 
 a power to interdict, there is a power to admit ; and I 
 put it to gentlemen from the South, are they prepared 
 to be satisfied with the line of 36° 30', interdictinsr 
 slavery north of that line, and giving them no security 
 for the admission of slavery south of that line? The 
 Senator from Mississippi, Mr. Davis, told us the other 
 day that he was not prepared to be satisfied with any 
 thing short of the positive introduction of slavery. 
 
 "A Senator : Recognition. 
 
 "Mr. Clay: A positive recognition of slavery south 
 of the line of 36° 30'. Is there any body that believes 
 that you can get twenty votes in this body, or a propor- 
 tionate number in the other House, to declare in favor 
 of the recognition of slavery south of the line of 
 36° 30'? It is impossible. All that you can get — all 
 that you can expect to get — all that was proposed at the 
 last session — is action north of that line, and non-action 
 as regards slavery south of that line. It is interdiction 
 upon tlie one side, with no corresponding provision for 
 its admission on the other side of the line of 36° 30'. 
 
 "When I came to consider the subject, and to compare 
 the provisions of the line of 36° 30' — the Missouri Com- 
 promise line — witli the plan which I have proposed for 
 the accommodation of this question, said I to myself, if 
 I offer the line of 36° 30', to interdict the question of 
 slavery north of it, and to leave it unsettled and open 
 
264 The True History of 
 
 south of it, I offer that which is ilkisory to the South— 
 I offer that which will deceive them, if they suppose 
 that slavery will be received south of that line. It is 
 better for them, I said to myself, it is better for the 
 South that there should be non-action as to slavery both 
 north and south of the line— far better that there should 
 be non-action both sides of the line, than that there 
 should be action by the interdiction on the one side, 
 without action for admission upon the other side of the 
 line. Is it not so? What is there gained by the South, 
 if the Missouri line is extended to the Pacific, with the 
 interdiction of slavery north of it? Why, the very ar- 
 gument which has been so often and most seriously 
 urged by the South has been this : we do not want Con- 
 gress to legislate upon the subject of slavery at all ; you 
 ought not to touch it ; you have no power over it. I do 
 not concur, as it is well known from what I have said 
 upon that question, in this view of the subject ; but that 
 is the Southern argument. We do not want you, say 
 they, to legislate upon the subject of slavery. But, if 
 you adopt the Missouri line and thus interdict slavery 
 north of that line, you do legislate upon the subject of 
 slavery, and you legislate for its restriction without a 
 corresponding equivalent of legislation south of that line 
 for its admission ; for I insist, if there be legislation in- 
 terdicting slavery north of the line, then the principles 
 of equality would require that there should be legislation 
 admitting slavery south of the line. 
 
 "I have said that I never could vote for it myself, and 
 I repeat that I never can, and never will vote, and no 
 earthly power ever can make me vote, to spread slavery 
 over territory where it does not exist. Still, if there be 
 a majority who are for interdicting slavery north of the 
 line, there ought to be a majority, if justice is done to 
 the South, to admit slavery south of the hne. And, if 
 there be a majority to accomplish both of these purposes, 
 although I can not concur in their action, yet I shall 
 be one of the last to create any disturbance ; I shall be 
 
The Missouri Compromise and its Repeal. 265 
 
 one of the first to acquiesce in that legislation, although 
 it is contrary to my own judgment and to my own 
 conscience. 
 
 "I hope, then, to keep the whole of these matters un- 
 touched by any legislation of Congress upon the subject 
 of slavery, leaving it open and undecided. Non-action 
 by Congress is best for the South, and best for all the 
 views which the South have disclosed to us from time to 
 time as corresponding to their wishes. I know it has 
 been said with regard to the Territories, and especially 
 has it been said with regard to California, that non- 
 legislation upon the part of Congress implies the same 
 thing as the exclusion of slavery. That we can not help. 
 That, Congress is not responsible for. If nature has 
 pronounced the doom of slavery in these Territories — if 
 she has declared, by her immutable laws, that slavery 
 can not and shall not be introduced there — who can you 
 reproach but nature and nature's God? Congress you 
 can not. Congress abstains. Congress is passive. Con- 
 gress is non-acting, south and north of the line ; or, 
 rather, if Congress agrees to the plan which I propose, 
 extending no line, it leaves the entire theater of the 
 whole of these Territories untouched by legislative en- 
 actments, either to exclude or admit slavery. Well, I 
 ask again, if you will listen to the voice of calm and 
 dispassionate reason — I ask of any man of the South to 
 rise and tell me if it is not better for that section of the 
 Union that Congress should remain passive upon both 
 sides of the ideal line, rather than that we should inter- 
 dict slavery upon the one side of that line and be passive 
 upon the other side of that line? 
 
 "If the Union is to be dissolved for any existing 
 causes, it will be dissolved because slavery is inter- 
 dicted or not allowed to be introduced into the ceded 
 Territories, because slavery is threatened to be abolished 
 in the District of Columbia, and because fugitive slaves 
 are not returned, as in my opinion they ought to be, re- 
 stored to their masters. These I believe will be the 
 
266 The True History of 
 
 causes, if there be any causes which can lead to the dire- 
 ful event to "which I have referred. 
 
 "Well, now, let us suppose that the Union has been 
 dissolved. What remedy does it furnish for the griev- 
 ances complained of in its united condition? Will you 
 be able to push slavery into the ceded Territories? How 
 are you to do it, supposing the North — all the States 
 north of the Potomac, and which are opposed to it — in 
 possession of the navy and army of the United States ? 
 Can you expect, if there is a dissolution of the Union, 
 that you can carry slavery into California and New 
 Mexico? You can not dream of such a purpose. If it 
 were abolished in the District of Columbia, and the 
 Union was dissolved, would the dissolution of the Union 
 restore slavery in the District of Columbia? Are you 
 safer in the recovery of your fugitive slaves in a State 
 of dissolution or of severance of the Union than you are 
 in the Union itself? Why, what is the state of the fact 
 in the Union? You lose some slaves. You recover 
 some others. Let me advert to a fact which I ought to 
 have introduced before, because it is highly creditable 
 to the courts and juries of the free States. In every 
 case, so far as my information extends, where an appeal 
 has been made in the courts of justice for the recovery 
 of fugitives, or for the recovery of penalties inflicted 
 upon persons who have assisted in decoying slaves from 
 their masters, as far as I am informed, the courts have 
 asserted the rights of the owner, and the juries have 
 promptly returned adequate verdicts in favor of the 
 owner. Well, this is some remedy. What would you 
 have if the Union were dissolved? Why, sir, then the 
 severed parts would be independent of each other — for- 
 eign countries ! Slaves taken from the one into the 
 other would be like slaves now escaping from the United 
 States into Canada. There would be no right of extra- 
 dition, no right to demand your slaves, no right to ap- 
 peal to the courts of justice to demand your slaves which 
 escape, or the penalties for decoying them. Where one 
 
The Missouri Compromise and its Repeal. 267 
 
 slave escapes now by running away from his owner, 
 hundreds and thousands would escape if the Union 
 were severed in parts — I care not where nor how you 
 run the line — if independent sovereignties were estab- 
 lished. 
 
 "Well, finally, will you in a state of dissolution of the 
 Union be safer with your slaves within the bosom of the 
 States than you are now? Mr. President, that they will 
 escape much more frequently from the border States, no 
 one will doubt. 
 
 "But I must take the occasion to say that, in my opinion, 
 there is no right on the part of one or more of the States 
 to secede from the Union. War and the dissolution of the 
 Union are identical and inseparable. There can be no 
 dissolution of the Union, except by consent or by war. 
 No one can expect, in the existing state of things, that 
 that consent would be given, and war is the only alterna- 
 tive by which a dissolution could be accomplished. 
 And, Mr. President, if consent were given, if possibly 
 we were to separate by mutual agreement and by a given 
 line, in less than sixty days after such an agreement had 
 been executed, war would break out between the free 
 and slave-holding portions of this Union, between the 
 two independent portions into which it would be erected 
 in virtue of the act of separation. Yes, sir, sixty days, 
 in less time than sixty days, I believe our slaves from 
 Kentucky would be fleeing over in numbers to the other 
 side of the river, supposing it then to be the line of 
 separation. They would pursue their slaves ; they 
 would be repelled, and war would break out; in less 
 than sixty days, war would be blazing forth in every 
 part of this now happy and peaceable land. 
 
 "But how are you going to separate them? In my 
 humble opinion, Mr. President, we should begin at 
 least with three Confederacies — the Confederacy of the 
 North, the Confederacy of the Atlantic Southern States 
 (the slave-holding States) , and the Confederacy of the 
 Valley of the Mississippi. My life upon it, sir, that 
 
268 The True History of 
 
 vast population that has already concentrated, and will 
 concentrate, upon the head-waters and tributaries of the 
 Mississippi, will never consent that the mouth of that 
 river shall be held subject to the power of any foreign 
 State whatever. Such would, I believe, be the conse- 
 quences of a dissolution of the Union. But other Con- 
 federacies would spring up, from time to time, as dis- 
 satisfaction and discontent were disseminated over the 
 country. There would be the Confederacy of New 
 England and of the Middle States. 
 
 "But, sir, the veil which covers these sad and disas- 
 trous events that lie beyond a possible rupture of this 
 Union, is too thick to be penetrated or lifted by any 
 mortal eye or hand. 
 
 "Mr. President, I am directly opposed to any purpose 
 of secession, of separation. I am for staying within 
 the Union, and defying any portion of this Union to ex- 
 pel or drive me out of the Union. I am for staying 
 within the Union, and fighting for my rights — if neces- 
 sary with the sword — within the bounds and under the 
 safeguard of the Union. I am for vindicating these 
 rights ; and not by being driven out of the Union rashly 
 and unceremoniously by any portion of this Confederacy. 
 Here I am within it, and here I mean to stand and die 
 — as far as my individual purposes or wishes can go — 
 within it to protect myself, and to defy all power upon 
 earth to expel me or drive me from the situation in 
 which I am placed. Will there not be more safety in 
 fighting within the Union than without it? 
 
 "Suppose your rights to be violated ; suppose wrongs 
 to be done you, aggressions to be perpetrated upon you, 
 can not you better fight and vindicate them, if you have 
 occasion to resort to that last necessity of the sword, 
 within the Union, and with the sympathies of a large 
 portion of the population of the Union of these States 
 differently constituted from you, than you can fight and 
 vindicate your rights, expelled from the Union, and 
 
The Missouri Compromise and its Repeal. 269 
 
 driven from it without ceremony and without au- 
 thor-ity? 
 
 "I said that I thought that there was no right on the 
 part of one or more of the States to secede from this 
 Union. I think that the Constitution of the thirteen 
 States w^as made, not merely for the generation which 
 then existed, but for posterity, undefined, unlimited, 
 permanent and perpetual — for their posterity, and for 
 every subsequent State which might come into the 
 Union, binding themselves by that indissoluble bond. 
 It is to remain for that posterity now and forever. Like 
 another of the great relations of private life, it was a 
 marriage that no human authority can dissolve or 
 divorce the parties from ; and, if I may be allowed to 
 refer to this same example in private life, let us say 
 what man and wife say to each other : 'We have mutual 
 faults ; nothing in the form of human beings can be per- 
 fect ; let us, then, be kind to each other, forbearing, 
 conceding, ; let us live in happiness and peace.' 
 
 "Mr. President, I have said what I solemnly believe 
 — that the dissolution of the Union and war are identical 
 and inseparable ; that they are convertible terms. 
 
 "Such a war, too, as that would be, following the dis- 
 solution of the Union ! . . . I conjure, gentlemen — 
 whether from the South or the North, by all they hold 
 dear in this world — by all their love of liberty — by all 
 their veneration for their ancestors — by all their regard 
 for posterity — by all their gratitude to Him who has be- 
 stowed upon them such unnumbered blessings — by all 
 the duties which they owe to mankind, and all the duties 
 they owe to themselves — by all these considerations I 
 implore them to pause — solemnly, to pause — at the edge 
 of the precipice, before the fearful and disastrous leap is 
 taken into the yawning abyss below, which will inevi- 
 tably lead to certain and irretrievable destruction. 
 
 "And finally, Mr. President, I implore, as the best 
 blessing which Heaven can bestow upon me upon earth. 
 
270 The True History of 
 
 that if the direful and sad event of the dissolution of the 
 Union shall happen, I may not survive to behold the 
 sad and heart-rendering spectacle."^ 
 
 On the 7th of February, the very next day after this 
 most eloquent appeal for the Union, which seemed to 
 thrill the whole nation, and whilst the magic tones of 
 Mr. Clay's voice still seemed to vibrate on the air and 
 through every patriot heart, Mr. Hale, of New Hamp- 
 shire, presented a petition for tlie immediate and peace- 
 ful dissolution of the Union, which professed to be from 
 inhabitants of Pennsylvania and Delaware.^ 
 
 Every member of the Senate, North as well as South, 
 appeared to be shocked at such a petition, and voted 
 against its reception, excepting Mr. Seward, Mr. Chase, 
 and Mr, Hale himself, all avowed Abolitionists and Free 
 Soilers. The debate on it was very lively, and exceed- 
 ingly interesting. Mr. Davis, of Massachusetts, objected 
 to being called on "to destroy that instrument we had 
 sworn to support."^ 
 
 Mr. Davis, of Mississippi said: "Congress has no 
 power to legislate upon that which will be the destruc- 
 tion of the whole foundation upon which their authority 
 rests."* 
 
 Mr. Webster said : 
 
 "I think the substance of this petition is such that, 
 to be appropriate, it should have a preamble in these 
 words : 
 
 " 'Gentlemen members of Congress, whereas at the 
 commencement of this session you and each of you took 
 your solemn oaths in the presence of God, and on the 
 Holy Evangelists, that you would support the Constitu- 
 tion of the United States ; now, therefore, we pray you 
 to take immediate steps to break up the Union, and 
 overthrow the Constitution of the United States as soon 
 
 1 App. to Cong. Globe, Vol. 22, Part 1, pp. 123-127. 
 
 « Idem, Vol. 21, Part 1, p. 311. » Idem, p. 321. * Idem, 322. 
 
The Missouri Compromise and its Repeal. 271 
 
 as you can. And, as in duty bound, we will ever 
 pray.' 
 
 "Mr. Cass : That's first rate. 
 
 "Mr. Butler (of South Carolina) : I will make but a 
 single remark. It seems to me that this is a petition 
 praying for the right of suicide ; presented, I will not 
 say by madmen, but presented by those who, with a 
 torch in their hands, would burn down the temple of the 
 Union, and then preach sermons over it and throw the 
 blame upon others."^ 
 
 Cass and Douglas, Underwood and Dawson, and 
 others, spoke against its reception. Mr. Foots very 
 wittily scored Mr. Hale on his admission that the "anti- 
 slavery agitation was kept up at the North chiefly by 
 political aspirants, in order to secure their own advance- 
 ment to high places." 
 
 Mr. Seward was in favor of receiving the petition. 
 He said : "I have no fear of a dissolution of the Union. 
 I believe that it was not made by madmen, nor can mad- 
 men destroy it ; and I believe that none but madmen 
 would petition for its dissolution ; and my rule always 
 is, with regard to madmen, never to have any contro- 
 versy with them. 
 
 "Mr. Foote : I will offer a single remark. I lament 
 that the honorable Senator from Hampshire, in addition 
 to all the animadversions to which he has been subjected 
 this morning, should have been fated to receive so severe 
 a rebuke as that just administered to him by the honorable 
 Senator from New York (Mr. Seward) , between whom 
 and himself such tender ties of affiliation and kindness 
 have heretofore subsisted. The honorable Senator from 
 New York solemnly declares that he regards all such pe- 
 titioners as those represented on this occasion by the 
 honorable Senator from New Hampshire as madmen. 
 So that, after all, the honorable Senator from New 
 
 1 App. Cong. Globe, Vol. 21, Part 1, p. 331. 
 
272 The True History of 
 
 Hampshire is to be recognized as the organ, upon this 
 floor, of madmen, for purposes of mischief ! A severer 
 reprimand, coming from such a quarter, could not well he 
 imagined y ^ 
 
 Mr. Webster and Mr. Davis (of Massachusetts) gave 
 their views and votes, regardless of a large convention 
 of New England abolitionists at Faneuil Hall, a few 
 days previous, when a solemn resolution was adopted, 
 providing for the dissolution of the Union in order to put 
 down slavery. 
 
 Gen. Cass said in respect to receiving the petition : "It 
 has been said, sir, and it has been said in reproach, that 
 if we ought not to receive petitions asking us to do an 
 unconstitutional act, we ought not to receive petitions or 
 remonstrances against such an act. I do not so under- 
 stand our own duties or the rights of the people. There 
 is a great difference between a proposition to do what we 
 have no right to do, and a remonstrance against doing it 
 when there is reason to apprehend it maybe done. The 
 one asks us to violate our oaths and the Constitution, the 
 other to recollect the obligations of both. This petition 
 asks us to dissolve the Union. I shall vote for rejecting 
 it ; and if there were any other mode by which our in- 
 dignation at such a wicked and foolish proposition could 
 be more powerfully expressed, I should adopt it with 
 pleasure." ^ 
 
 Mr. Hale presented another petition on the 12th of 
 February from the women of Dover, New Hampshire, 
 asking "that slavery may not be extended into the Ter- 
 ritories of New Mexico and California," which caused a 
 heated discussion as to its reception. 
 
 Mr. Douglas thought it ought to be received, and said : 
 "I have always held, and hold now, that if the people of 
 California want slavery they have a right to it, and if 
 they do not, it should not be forced upon them. They 
 have as much right as the people of Illinois or any other 
 
 1 App. Cong. Globe, Vol. 21, Part 1, p. 323. * Idem, p. 331. 
 
The 3Iissouri Compromise and its Repeal. 273 
 
 State to settle the question for themselves. I go further, 
 and I hold that to prohibit slavery in the Territories, 
 whilst it is a violation of the great fundamental princi- 
 ples of self-government, is no violation of the rights of 
 the Southern States. I go further, that to recognize the 
 institution of slavery in the Territories is no violation of 
 the rights of the Northern States. In that sense, neither 
 have a right there, in my opinion, to do either. Either 
 to prohibit or establish slavery, by an act of Congress, 
 over a people not represented here, is a violation of the 
 rights of the people of California. Their rights are to 
 be affected, their rights are to be violated by an act of 
 Congress, when they are not represented here. Talk to 
 me about the rights of the North, or the rights of the 
 South ! Neither has any rights there, as far as the in- 
 stitution of slavery is concerned. Why, sir, the prin- 
 ciple of self-government is that each community shall 
 settle this question for itself ; and I hold that the people 
 of California have the right either to prohibit or estab- 
 lish slavery, and we have no right to complain, either in 
 the North or the South, whichever they do. I hold 
 that, till they do establish it, the prohibition of slavery, 
 in the Territories which we acquired by treaty, attached 
 to the soil and remained in force. ] hold it as a legal 
 proposition. I am ready to maintain it, either on the 
 fundamental principles of law or the authority of the 
 Supreme Court of the United States ; as a principle of 
 law and a principle, sir, that, while it may be contro- 
 verted, can never be overturned. Hence I say that, 
 whilst this petition only asks Congress that slavery 
 shall not be extended to New Mexico and California, the 
 fair interpretation of the petition is that Congress shall 
 pass no law to extend it there, or recognize its existence 
 there. This is a petition for non-action as much as the 
 petition which came from North Carolina the other 
 day, which prayed that the Wilmot proviso should 
 18 
 
274 The True History of 
 
 not be extended there. If one is received, the other 
 should be."' 
 
 Mr. Davis, of Mississippi, in reply to Douglas' refer- 
 ence to his position taken in a previous speech as to the 
 "extension of the Missouri Compromise line to the Pa- 
 cific with an express recognition" of slavery south of 
 that line, said: "Our position was from the beginning 
 that the South had a right to go into any Territories 
 belonging to the United States with their slave property. 
 This is a right dependent on their joint ownership ; 
 and I then stated — in the spirit of compromise, a desire 
 not to present any extreme claim — that that pretension 
 would be continued, but not insisted on beyond the line 
 of 36° 30', thus narrowing down the claim which the 
 South had made. 
 
 "Nor, sir, was my language susceptible of any such 
 misconstruction as an assertion that it was an irreversi- 
 ble perpetuation of slavery any-where ; for every sane 
 man knows that in whatever longitude or latitude in 
 these United States a State may be situated, such sov- 
 ereign State can decide the matter for itself. A com- 
 munity dependent upon the United States — and of these 
 many such have existed in our history — may not have 
 power to legislate for itself. It is a sovereign State to 
 which I concede that power. The very fact of depend- 
 ence is against the supposition of such power as is 
 claimed by the Senator from Illinois for territorial com- 
 munities ; while no sane man can deny that it exists in 
 Massachusetts, in Maine, and in hyperborean regions, if 
 we had States there." ^ 
 
 We see here the premonition of that division of the 
 Democratic party into North and South, which culmi- 
 nated ten years later in the election of a Republican 
 President and the defeat of the Union Democracy — the 
 surest support of the Constitutional rights of the South- 
 ern people. This division arose mainly on the point of 
 
 1 App. Cong. Globe, Vol. 21, p. 343. * Idem. 
 
The Missouri Compromise and its Repeal. 275 
 
 the power of the Territories to make laws for themselves 
 before they became States, This point was elaborated 
 by Mr. Davis, in a speech on Mr. Clay's resolutions, 
 February 14th. 
 
 "Mr. Davis : . . . I claim, sir, that slavery being 
 property in the United States, and so recognized by the 
 Constitution, a slave-holder has the right to go with that 
 property into any part of the United States where some 
 sovereign power has not forbidden it. I deny, sir, that 
 this Government has the sovereign power to prohibit it 
 from the Territories. I deny that any territorial com- 
 munity, being a dependence of the United States, has 
 that power, or can prohibit it ; and, therefore, my claim 
 presented is this, that the slave-holder has a right to go 
 with his slave into any portion of the United States, 
 except in a State w^here the fundamental law has for- 
 bidden it." 
 
 Mr. Davis opposed Mr. Clay's resolutions, but it was 
 done with a courtesy which seems to have been part 
 of his character, and, doubtless, also, of his soldierly 
 training. His colleague, Mr. Foote, did not, however, 
 show the same respectful gentleness which had charac- 
 terized Mr. Davis' opposition to Mr. Clay's position, and 
 which may, indeed, have resulted, especially from the 
 very kindly personal relations existing between "Old 
 Hal" and the future President of the Southern Con- 
 federacy. 
 
 In a debate on the reference of the President's mes- 
 sage, in regard to California, to the Committee on Ter- 
 ritories, and which Mr. Clay advocated, Mr. Foote de- 
 clares Mr. Clay to be inconsistent, because he had, a 
 few weeks before, offered "a general scheme of pacifica- 
 tion and compromise" — and now he proposed that "the 
 admission of California ought to be kept separate and 
 distinct." His reproaches brought Mr. Clay to his feet, 
 in indignant disclaimer. 
 
 "Mr. Foote. . . . How is it that he, a Senator 
 from the State of Kentucky, within whose limits the 
 
276 The True History of 
 
 system of domestic slavery exists, can reconcile it to his 
 own sense of justice to the vital interests of his constit- 
 uents, at such a moment as this, in view of all the dan- 
 gers which menace the Southern section of the Confed- 
 eracy, to increase the number of adversary votes against 
 us on all the pending questions, without first receiving 
 some compensation therefor? 
 
 "Mr. Clay. It is totally unnecessary for the gentle- 
 man to remind me of my coming from a slave-holding 
 State. I know whence I come, and I know my duty, 
 and I am ready to submit to any responsibility which 
 belongs to me as a Senator from a slave-holding State. 
 
 "Sir, I have heard something said on this and on a 
 former occasion about allegiance to the South. I know 
 no South, no North, no East, no West, to which I owe 
 my allegiance. I owe allegiance to two sovereignties, 
 and only two ; one is the sovereignty of this Union, and 
 the other is to the sovereignty of the State of Kentucky. 
 My allegiance is to this Union and to my State ; but if 
 gentlemen suppose they can exact from me an acknowl- 
 edgment of allegiance to any ideal or future contem- 
 plated confederacy of the South, I here declare that I 
 owe no allegiance to it ; nor will I, for one, come under 
 any such allegiance if I can avoid it. I know what my 
 duties are, and gentlemen may cease to remind me of 
 the fact that I come from a slave-holding State. 
 
 "Sir, if I choose to avail myself of the opinions of 
 my own State, I can show a resolution from the State 
 Legislature, received last night, reported after due con- 
 sideration by a committee. 
 
 "This resolution declares its cordial sanction to the 
 whole of the series of resolutions which I have offered. 
 And I must say that the preparation of that resolution 
 was unprompted by me ; for I have neither written to, 
 nor have I received a single letter from, any member of 
 the Legislature of Kentucky during this session on pub- 
 lic affairs. I beg pardon for this digression. These are 
 the sentiments I entertain, and I am neither to be terri- 
 
The Missouri Compromise and its Repeal. 277 
 
 fied nor frightened, by any language. I hope gentlemen 
 will not transcend the limits of legitimate parliamentary 
 debate in using any language towards me ; because I 
 fear I could not even trust myself if they were to do it. 
 I shall use no such language towards them, and I hope 
 on this floor for a reciprocity of parliamentary dignity 
 and propriety. I ask it, because I do not know how far 
 I could trust myself if language of a personal character 
 were applied to me, I care not by whom. 
 
 "But, sir, I have been showing, and I rose chiefly for 
 the purpose of showing, that there is no inconsistency 
 between any thing I have said heretofore, and what I 
 repeat now is, that all these questions ought to be set- 
 tled. 
 
 "Mr. Foote, . . . The honorable Senator, I con- 
 ceive, has gone a little out of his way to complain of the 
 severity of the language used by me in the course of this 
 debate. I am sure that I was not aware of being dis- 
 courteous ; I thought, indeed, that I had been quite 
 lavish in commendation. My case is rather a hard one. 
 The honorable Senator from Kentucky complains that I 
 am not sufiiciently polite and complaisant ; whilst cer- 
 tain much respected Democratic friends of mine have 
 not hesitated to accuse me of being even too deferential 
 to that honorable gentleman, as well as too laudatory of 
 him."^ 
 
 Other Southern men accused Mr. Clay of catering to 
 Northern sentiment, and there were not wanting those, 
 a little later on, who openly declared that he was bidding 
 for the Democratic nomination to the Presidency in 1852. 
 Whilst the Abolitionists abused him without stint, de- 
 nouncing his resolutions as pro-slavery, and as so unjust 
 to the North that "they could not be accepted by that 
 section of the Union as a compromise." 
 
 Mr. Dodge, of Iowa, said of this : 
 
 " . . . I confess, Mr. President, when I read 
 
 1 Cong. Globe, Vol. 21, p. 368. 
 
278 The True History of 
 
 these bitter animadversions from the North and East 
 upon what I regard as the patriotic exertions of the ven- 
 erable Senator from Kentucky to pour oil upon the 
 troubled waters, and listen here to the merciless denun- 
 ciations which both he and his resolutions receive from 
 my friend from Mississippi, I could not but feel for the 
 Senator from Kentucky a sympathy which nothing in 
 his past history had awakened in me." ^ 
 
 Mr. Foote assented to the injustice done in this in- 
 stance, but insisted on the evil consequences to the South 
 of Mr. Clay's position on the subject of slavery. 
 
 "Mr. Clay : . . . Now I really should be much 
 indebted to the honorable Senator for the sympathy 
 which he felt for me, in respect to the recent attack, 
 which I believe has been in the newspaper which I 
 think has been laid on the tables of all of us. But, sir, 
 I desire the sympathy of no man, the forbearance of no 
 man ; I desire to escape from no responsibility of my 
 public conduct on account of my age or for any other 
 cause. I ask for none. I am in a peculiar situation, 
 Mr, President, if you will allow me to say so, without 
 any earthly object before me, standing, as it were, on 
 the brink of eternity, separated to a great extent from 
 all the earthly ties which connect a mortal with his 
 being during this transitory state. I am here expecting 
 soon to go hence, and owing no responsibility but that 
 which I owe to my own conscience and to God. Ready 
 to express my opinions upon all and every subject, I am 
 determined to do so, and no imputation, no threat, no 
 menace, no application of awe or terror to me will be 
 availing in restraining me from expressing them. 
 None, none whatever. The honorable Senator, if he 
 chooses, may deem me an Abolitionist. Be it so. Sir, 
 if there is a well-abused man in this country, if I were 
 to endeavor to find out the man above all others abused 
 by Abolitionists, it is the humble individual now ad- 
 
 » Cong. Globe, Vol. 21, p. 404. 
 
The Missouri Compromise and its Repeal. 279 
 
 dressing you. The honorable Senator from Mississippi 
 does not perhaps see these papers as I do ; but they all 
 pour out from their vials of wrath bitterness which is 
 perfectly indescribable, and they put epithets into their 
 papers, accompanied with all the billingsgate which 
 they can employ, and, lest I should not see them, they 
 invariably take occasion in these precious instances of 
 traduction to send their papers to me. I wish the honor- 
 able Senator from Mississippi, Mr. Foote, could have an 
 opportunity of seeing some of them. 
 
 "Mr. Cass: I can give the honorable Senator from 
 Mississippi a bushel of them if he will take the pains to 
 read them ; and I must say that the honorable Senator 
 from Kentucky is about the best abused man in all this 
 Union, with perhaps one exception. (Laughter.) 
 
 "Mr. Clay: Now, sir, when I brought forth this 
 proposition of mine, which is embraced in these resolu- 
 tions, I intended, so help me God, to propose a plan of 
 doing equal and impartial justice to the South and to 
 the North so far as I could comprehend it, and I think 
 it does yet. But how has this effort been received by 
 the ultraists? Why, at the North they cry out — and it 
 is not that paper alone to which the honorable Senator 
 from Iowa, Mr. Dodge, refers, but many other papers 
 also — they all cry out, 'It is all concession to the South.' 
 And, sir, what is the language in the South? They say, 
 'It is all concession to the North.' And I assure you, 
 Mr. President, it has reconciled me very much to my 
 poor efforts, to find that the ultraists on the one hand 
 and on the other equally traduce the scheme I propose, 
 for conceding every thing to their opponents. 
 But, sir, I would ask the honorable Senator from Missis- 
 sippi if he is conscious of the language which he used? 
 He said, if I understand him aright, that when I ad- 
 dressed the Senate on a former occasion, instead of ad- 
 hering to the interests of the South, I had gone over to 
 the ranks of the enemy. Enemies ! Where have we 
 enemies in this happy and glorious Confederacy? . . . 
 
280 The True History of 
 
 "I consider us all as one family, all as friends, all as 
 brethren. I consider us all as united in one common 
 destiny ; and those efforts which I shall continue to em- 
 ploy will be to keep us together as one family, in con- 
 cord and harmony, and above all, to avoid that direful 
 day when one part of the Union can speak of the other 
 as an enemy. 
 
 "Mr. Foote : I must honestly declare that I will hold 
 no alliance with Abolitionists, with the men who meet 
 at Faneuil Hall and adopt resolutions for the purpose of 
 setting Southern slaves at liberty. I do not recognize 
 them as my brethren or as fellow-citizens. I look upon 
 them as incendiaries, as unprincipled men, and as being 
 only worthy of our reproach. While I am on the floor, 
 I will say that I have no doubt the honorable Senator 
 from Kentucky has been denounced by the Northern 
 press ; but, with the exception of the Garrison presses, 
 and those of a similar character, I think the denuncia- 
 tions chiefly come from the sound Democratic press of 
 the North on account of his yielding too much to our 
 Abolition enemies. The organ of the honorable Senator 
 from New York is full of plaudits and commendations. 
 I said that the moral influence used by the honorable 
 Senator from Kentucky was operating against the inter- 
 ests of the South without his intending to produce the 
 mischievous eff'ects which are now arising from it. Sir, 
 it is a fact with the honorable Senator from Kentucky, 
 that when the emancipationists of his State commenced 
 their severe struggle, which was not unmarked with 
 scenes of blood — I repeat it, sir, not unmarked with 
 scenes of blood — they sent out a large number of printed 
 documents for the purpose of upholding their cause, and 
 among them was a speech from the honorable Senator 
 from Kentucky, which was circulated in large numbers 
 throughout the country free of all charge. 
 
 "Mr. Butler: ... I must be permitted to say, 
 that while the honorable Senator from Kentucky may 
 not have intended his proposition to have been a com- 
 
The Missouri Compromise and its Repeal. 281 
 
 promise, with a view to accommodate Northern senti- 
 ment, it has had that effect and has been adopted at the 
 North, with remarkable unanimity, as the basis of the 
 final settlement of the slavery question, and well it may. 
 His resolutions assert what can not be denied to the 
 South, and recognize all that the North ever contended 
 for. . . . The resolutions referred to are not adapted 
 to the danger of the crisis."^ 
 
 During these entire discussions, Mr. Hale and Mr. 
 Foote indulged in sallies of wit at each other's expense, 
 amusing their brother Senators greatly, and, doubtless, 
 enlivening the dull hours, and lightening the dark clouds 
 of discord that hung so heavy above the political 
 horizon. 
 
 ' Cong. Globe, pp. 404, 405. 
 
282 The True History of 
 
 CHAPTER XII. 
 
 1850 — Bell's Resolutions — Foote's Committee of Thirteen — Extract from 
 Mr. Calhoun's last Speech — From Mr. AVebster's Eloquent and 
 Celebrated Speech of March 7th — Cass — Douglas — Foote — Mr. Cal- 
 houn's Death. 
 
 President Taylor was a most superior soldier, and a 
 plain, blunt, honest man ; but with no faculty for 
 statesmanship whatever, he found himself between the 
 upper and nether mill-stones of the two sections of his 
 party, and hampered on every side by the opposite 
 pledges that had been made for him by advocates of his 
 election in the two different sections of the country. 
 He appears, however, to have succumbed to some strong 
 influence in favor of the sectional party of the North ; 
 and it was this, doubtless, that deprived his administra- 
 tion of much of the support which would, otherwise, 
 have surely been given it. 
 
 He was severely catechized by Congress, and in a way 
 which would seem to have been rather disrespectful. 
 He was asked if he had appointed any governor to 
 California — if he had sent any agent there to organize, 
 or advise in organizing a State Government — how the 
 delegates to the Convention, recently held there, were 
 elected — if any census had been taken, and under what 
 law, and by what authority? New Mexico, the same — 
 and also what ground he had for the opinion that New 
 Mexico would soon present herself for admission to the 
 Union. 
 
 The President replied January 21, 1850 — That he had 
 left the department of California in the hands of the 
 military commander (General Riley) appointed by his 
 predecessor (Mr. Polk) ; that he had not authorized any 
 agent to interfere with any elections — that while he re- 
 
 I 
 
The Missouri Compromise and its Repeal. 283 
 
 garded it as his duty to protect the people of the Terri- 
 tories in the formation of their government, yet its plan 
 must be their own choice. That "to assert that they 
 (the people of California) are a conquered people, and 
 must as a State, submit to the will of their conquerors, 
 in this regard (referring to her domestic institutions 
 and meaning slavery), Avill meet with no cordial re- 
 sponse among American freemen." That the territories 
 were to be expected to settle all questions of domestic 
 policy to suit themselves, when they came in as States 
 of the Union — and "no language of menace to restrain 
 them in the exercise of an undoubted right, substantially 
 guaranteed to them by the treaty of cession itself, shall 
 ever be uttered by me. . . . I did not hesitate to 
 express to the people of these Territories my desire that 
 each Territory should form a plan of a State Constitu- 
 tion, and submit the same to Congress with a prayer of 
 admission into the Union as a State," etc. 
 
 His opinion as to New Mexico was founded "on un- 
 official information, which I suppose is common to all 
 who have cared to make inquiries on the subject." So 
 the President, "Old Rough and Ready," as he was 
 called, distinctly announced himself in favor of the prin- 
 ciple of non-intervention by Congress as to the States to 
 be formed from the new acquisitions, and also in favor 
 of their being admitted as such, at once, and without 
 any intermediate Territorial organization or pupilage ; 
 which admission would, under the circumstances, be 
 equivalent to the utter exclusion of the Southern people 
 from them. 
 
 This message of the President, an able and very 
 warily designed paper, of course never originated with 
 him. It would seem, however, very distinctly to bear the 
 mark of that fine "Italian hand" and Machiavelian policy, 
 which, a decade later, sought to govern, and did govern, 
 for a short period, the Administration of 1861. But Mr. 
 Seward was not so well known, in 1850, as he was after- 
 wards, and the authorship of General Taylor's various 
 
284 The True History of 
 
 State papers was never settled ; except that no one be- 
 lieved so much chicanery ever emanated from the straight- 
 forward, bold simplicity of the soldier-President. 
 
 The message was severely criticized by the opponents 
 of the Anministration ; who regarded it as a device to 
 relieve the President from the awkward dilemma in 
 which his election had placed him. They said that it 
 was in order "to avoid the responsibility of deciding 
 the Wilmot Proviso that 'the people of California have 
 been stimulated to form for themselves a State Constitu- 
 tion and are now asking admission into the Union.' " 
 This Constitution prohibited slavery, and the Southern 
 men thought the "California proviso even worse than 
 the 'Wilmot Proviso,' " and declared that the Abolition- 
 ists had "deposed their old leaders, Hale, Seward and 
 Giddings," and rallied under the banner of "the hero 
 that never surrenders."^ 
 
 The President, nevertheless, on the 13th of February, 
 sent to the House the "Constitution of the State of Cali- 
 fornia," transmitted to him by Gen. Riley. His op- 
 posers, and they were many, insisted that he had 
 "usurped the judicial power and proclaimed the Wilmot 
 Proviso in force in California ; and he has again usurped 
 the legislative power to procure its incorporation in the 
 pronunciamento of a revolutionary movement." 
 
 About this time, or a little later, the presentation by 
 the Whigs of New York to the President, through Mr. 
 Seward, of a silver curry comb, which was to be used 
 on "old Whitey," the horse ridden by Gen. Taylor 
 through the Mexican war, was made the occasion of 
 many jests and gibes at the expense of the President, 
 both in Congress and out of it. 
 
 It was proposed to refer the President's Message and 
 the California Constitution to the Committee on Terri- 
 tories, but Mr. Foote proposed instead a Committee of 
 Thirteen, to consider all questions relating to the subject 
 
 1 Cong. Globe, Vol. 21, p. 339. 
 
The Missouri Compromise and its Repeal. 285 
 
 "in counection with the subject of domestic slavery," 
 and to report a plan, "if they could do so," for the set- 
 tlement of the controversy, "and rescue from impending 
 perils the sacred Union itself." ' 
 
 So the message was not referred, but its reference was 
 discussed in the most critical manner. The great objec- 
 tions made to the President's plan of immediate ad- 
 mission being that no law authorizing California to form 
 a State Constitution had ever been passed by Congress ; 
 that no Territorial Government had ever been established 
 there • that the people who framed the Constitution were 
 not inhabitants in the legal meaning of the word, but 
 Indians, Mexicans, and adventurers from every quarter 
 of the globe ; that the whole thing was a plain violation 
 of the Constitution of the United States. The Admin- 
 istration was accused of double dealing, of shunning re- 
 sponsibility, of using concealment, of pursuing a tortu- 
 ous policy, of trying to dodge the Wilmot Proviso by a 
 course that was even worse because indirect and under- 
 handed. And almost its only supporters were the aboli- 
 tionized Whigs of the North, into whose toils the Presi- 
 dent appeared to have fallen, and by whom he had been 
 led into a position which was certainly untenable on any 
 constitutional ground, however it might have been justi- 
 fied by the crying necessity of a government for Cali- 
 fornia, and the failure of Congress to provide it. 
 
 February 18th, Hon. John Bell, of Tennessee, a Whig 
 leader of fine character and great ability, offered a series 
 of resolutions, which, after going into the Texas question 
 at some length, resolved : 
 
 "6. Resolved, That the Constitution recently formed by 
 the people of the western portion of California, and pre- 
 sented to Congress by the President on the 13th of Feb- 
 ruary, 1850, be accepted, and that they be admitted into 
 the Union as a State upon an equal footing in all respects 
 with the original States. 
 
 1 Cong. Globe, Vol. 21, p. 356. 
 
286 The True History of 
 
 "7. Resolved, That in the future the formation of State 
 Constitutions bj the inhabitants of the Territories of the 
 United States be regulated by law, and that no such 
 Constitution be hereafter formed or adopted by the in- 
 habitants of any Territory belonging to the United 
 States without the consent and authority of Congress. 
 
 "8. Resolved, That the inhabitants of any Territory of 
 the United States, when they shall be authorized by 
 Congress to form a State Constitution, shall have the 
 sole and exclusive power to regulate and adjust all ques- 
 tions of internal State policy, of whatever nature they 
 may be, controlled only by the restrictions expressly im- 
 posed by the Constitution of the United States. 
 
 "9. Resolved, That the Committee on Territories be 
 instructed to rejDort a bill in conformity with the spirit 
 and principles of the foregoing resolutions."^ 
 
 There were now before Congress, then, these three 
 plans which claimed their attention — Mr. Bell's, the 
 President's, and Mr. Clay's. There were many other 
 resolutions offered, and every man, nearly, had his plan 
 for settling the difficulty ; but these three were the main 
 ones. It is to be observed that they all agreed on one 
 point, California's entrance into the Union without any 
 restriction upon her as to the admission or exclusion of 
 slavery. Thus, with all the differences of opinion in 
 other respects, non-intervention by Congress with slavery 
 was the policy advocated by these prominent Whig 
 leaders of Kentucky and Tennessee, and by the Admin- 
 istration as well 
 
 Mr. Clay's resolutions were discussed in the Senate 
 day by day, pro and con, for weeks and months ; and 
 amendments to them offered by one and another with no 
 result. 
 
 The most memorable speeches of the session, outside 
 of Mr. Clay's, were those of Mr. Calhoun and Webster. 
 Mr. Calhoun was so feeble from illness that he could not 
 
 ' Cong. Globe, Vol. 21, p. 430. 
 
Tlie Missouri Compromise and its Repeal. 287 
 
 deliver his speech, and it was read for him by Mr. 
 Mason, of Virginia, on the fourth day of March, 1850. 
 
 After citing statistics to show that the equilibrium be- 
 tween the Northern and Southern sections had been de- 
 stroyed, after referring fully and at length to the Aboli- 
 tionists and their organization in 1835, and saying, 
 "eulogies can not save the Union, nor professions of de- 
 votion, however sincere," he goes on — in opposition to 
 the admission of California as a State, on constitutional 
 grounds, and then says : 
 
 "Having now, Senators, explained what it is that 
 endangers the Union, and traced it to its cause, and 
 explained its nature and character, the question again 
 recurs. How can the Union be saved? This I answer: 
 There is but one way by which it can be, and that is by 
 adopting such measures as will satisfy the States belong- 
 ing to the Southern section that they can remain in the 
 Union consistently with their honor and their safety." 
 He concludes thus : 
 
 "It is time. Senators, that there should be an open 
 and manly avowal on all sides as to what is intended to 
 be done. If the question is not now settled, it is un- 
 certain whether it can ever hereafter be ; and we, as the 
 representatives of the States of this Union, regarded as 
 governments, should come to a distinct understanding as 
 to our respective views, in order to ascertain whether the 
 great questions at issue can be settled or not. If you, 
 who represent the stronger portion, can not agree to 
 settle them on the broad principle of justice and duty, 
 say so ; and let the States we both represent agree to 
 separate and part in peace. If you are unwilling we 
 should part in peace, tell us so, and we shall know what 
 to do, when you reduce the question to submission or re- 
 sistance. If you remain silent, you will compel us to 
 infer by your acts what you intend. In that case, 
 California will become the test question. If you admit 
 her, under all the difficulties that oppose her admission, 
 you compel us to infer that you intend to exclude us 
 
288 The True History of 
 
 from the whole of the acquired Territories, with the in- 
 tention of destroying irretrievably the equilibrium be- 
 tween the two sections. "We would be blind not to 
 perceive, in that case, that your real objects are power 
 and aggrandizement, and infatuated not to act accord- 
 ingly.'" 
 
 Mr. Calhoun's speech was listened to with the deepest 
 interest, not only as expressing the views of the then 
 acknowledged leader of the Southern section, but as 
 coming from one whose splendid intellect and grand 
 character were already within the shadow of that phys- 
 ical change which we call death ; as probably the last 
 utterance of one of our greatest men, and whom all 
 recognized as entirely upright in nature, sincere in con- 
 duct, and utterly without fear in whatever action he 
 regarded as just and upright — a man who spoke the 
 truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, as it 
 appeared to him. 
 
 In appearance Mr. Calhoun reminded one of the ideal 
 Roman Senator. Tall, spare, majestic in form, his 
 features noble and intellectual, with singular strength 
 of contour ; the mouth and chin stern and grim when in 
 repose, but a smile so bright as to change the whole ex- 
 pression of his countenance ; whilst his eyes, when he 
 lifted their somber lids, flashed from his dark brows like 
 lightning from a thunder-cloud. 
 
 Upon the conclusion of his speech, Mr. Webster, after 
 expressing his gratification at seeing Mr, Calhoun again 
 in his place, and hoping that he would soon be restored 
 to health, gave notice that he would be glad to address 
 the Senate upon the question ; and on the 7th of March 
 he made the speech which has been so much quoted, 
 which was so praised and so denounced at the time, and 
 which was one of the* most able and powerful appeals 
 for the Union the Senate had ever listened to. It could 
 have been prompted only by a love for country, for jus- 
 
 » Cong. Globe, Vol. 21, pp. 453, 454. 
 
The Missouri Compromise and its Repeal. 289 
 
 tice, for the Union ; by a desire to avert the danger of 
 the conflict, which even then appeared to be almost in- 
 evitable ; and was inspired with an eloquence which 
 could only have proceeded from the honest sentiments of 
 the speaker's soul. Extracts from it are given liberally — 
 as the great triumvirate, Clay, Calhoun, and Webster, 
 represented the patriotism of the country as well as its 
 genius — and there needs no apology for the presentation 
 of their utterances. They contain the spirit of the 
 times, and will convey far more of their true history 
 than any mere statements of the writer could possi- 
 bly do. 
 
 "Mr. Webster, . . . Mr. President, I wish to 
 speak to-day, not as a Massachusetts man, nor as a 
 Northern man, but as an American, and a member of 
 the Senate of the United States. It is fortunate that 
 there is a Senate of the United States ; a body not yet 
 removed from its propriety, not lost to a just sense of 
 its own dignity and its own responsibilities, and a body 
 to which the country looks with confidence, for wise, 
 moderate, patriotic and healing counsels. It is not to 
 be denied that we live in the midst of strong agitations, 
 and are surrounded by very considerable dangers to our 
 institutions of government. The imprisoned winds are 
 let loose. The East, the West, the North, and the 
 stormy South all combine to throw the whole ocean into 
 commotion, to toss its billows to the skies, and to dis- 
 close its profoundest depths. I do not affect to regard 
 myself, Mr. President, as holding, or as fit to hold, the 
 helm in this combat of the political elements ; but I have 
 a duty to perform, and I mean to perform it with fidelity 
 — not without a sense of surrounding dangers, but not 
 without hope. I have a part to act, not for my own se- 
 curity or safety, for I am looking out for no fragment 
 upon whicli to float away from the wreck, if wreck there 
 must be, but for the good of the whole, and the preser- 
 vation of the whole ; and there is that, which will keep 
 19 
 
290 The True History of 
 
 me to my duty during this struggle, whether the sun 
 and the stars shall appear, or shall not appear, for many 
 days. I speak to-day for the preservation of the Union. 
 Hear me for my cause. I speak to-day, out of a solicit- 
 ous and anxious heart, for the restoration to the country 
 of that quiet and that harmony which make the bless- 
 inss of this Union so rich and so dear to us all. 
 These are the topics that I propose to myself to discuss ; 
 these are the motives, and the sole motives, that influ- 
 ence me in the wish to communicate my opinions to the 
 Senate and the country ; and if I can do any thing, 
 however little, for the promotion of these ends, I shall 
 have accomplished all that I desire." 
 
 After reviewing the events of the Mexican War, the 
 settlement of California, the failure to establish any 
 territorial government for it, the Constitution now pre- 
 sented, and the early sentiment against slavery in the 
 Colonies, etc., speaking of Texas, he said : 
 
 "Sir, there is not so remarkable a chapter in our his- 
 tory of political events, political parties and political 
 men, as is afforded by this measure for the admission of 
 Texas, with this immense territory over which a bird 
 can not fly in a week. (Laughter.) Sir, New England, 
 with some of her votes supported this measure. Three- 
 fourths of the votes of liberty-loving Connecticut went 
 for it in the other House, and one-half here. 
 Sir, that body of Northern and Eastern men, who gave 
 those votes at that time, are now seen taking upon them- 
 selves, in the nomenclature of politics, the appellation 
 of the Northern Democracy. They undertook to wield 
 the destinies of this empire — if I may call a republic an 
 empire — and their policy was, and they persisted in it, 
 to bring into this country all the territory they could. 
 They did it under pledges — absolute pledges to the slave 
 interest in the case of Texas, and afterwards they lent 
 their aid in bringing in these new conquests. My hon- 
 orable friend from Georgia, in March. 1847, moved the 
 
The Missouri Compromise and its Repeal. 291 
 
 Senate to declare that the war ought not to be prosecuted 
 for acquisition, for conquest, for the dismemberment 
 of Mexico. The same Northern Democracy entirely- 
 voted against it. He did not get a vote from them. It 
 suited the views, the patriotism, the elevated sentiments 
 of the Northern Democracy, to bring in a world here, 
 among the mountains and valleys of California and New 
 Mexico, and then quarrel about it — to bring it in and 
 then endeavor to put upon it the saving grace of the 
 "Wilmot Proviso. 
 
 "Now, as to California and New Mexico, I hold 
 slavery to be excluded from those territories by a law 
 even superior to that which admits and sanctions it in 
 Texas — I mean the law of nature — of physical geography 
 — the law of the formation of the earth. That law settles 
 forever, with a strength beyond all terms of human en- 
 actment, that slavery can not exist in California or New 
 Mexico. . . . California and New Mexico are Asiatic, 
 in their formation and scenery. They are composed of 
 vast ridges and deep valleys. The sides of these mount- 
 ains are barren — entirely barren — their tops capped by 
 perpetual snow. There may be in California, now made 
 free by its Constitution — and no doubt there are — some 
 tracts of valuable land. But it is not so in New 
 Mexico. Pray, what is the evidence which every gen- 
 tleman must have obtained on this subject, from infor- 
 mation sought by himself, or communicated by others? 
 I have inquired, and read all I could find, in order to 
 obtain information on this important question. What 
 is there in New Mexico that could by any possibility in- 
 duce anybody to go there with slaves? There are some 
 narrow strips of tillable land on the borders of the 
 rivers ; but the rivers themselves dry up before mid- 
 summer is gone. All that people can do, is to raise 
 some little article — some little wheat for their tortillas 
 — and all that by irrigation. And who expects to see a 
 hundred black men cultivating tobacco, corn, cotton, 
 rice, or any thing else, on lands in New Mexico made 
 
292 The True History of 
 
 fertile only by irrigation? I look upon it therefore as a 
 fixed fact, to use an expression current at this day, that 
 both California and New Mexico are destined to be free 
 — so far as they are settled at all, which I believe, es- 
 pecially in regard to New Mexico, will be very little for 
 a great length of time — free by the arrangement of 
 things by the power above us. 
 
 "I have therefore to say, in this respect also, that this 
 country is fixed for freedom, to as many persons as shall 
 ever live there, by as irrepealable, and a more irrepeal- 
 able, law than the law which attaches to the right of 
 holding slaves in Texas ; and I will say further, that if 
 a resolution, or a law, were now before us, to provide a 
 territorial government for New Mexico, I would not vote 
 to put any prohibition into it whatever. The use of such 
 a prohibition would be idle, as it respects any effect it 
 would have upon the Territory ; and I would not take 
 pains to re-affirm an ordinance of nature, nor to re-enact 
 the will of God. And I would put in no Wilmot Pro- 
 viso, for the purpose of a taunt or a reproach. 
 
 "Mr. President, in the excited times in which we 
 live, there is found to exist a state of crimination and 
 recrimination between the North and the South. There 
 are lists of grievances produced by each ; and those 
 grievances, real or supposed, alienate the minds of one 
 portion of the country from the other, exasperate the 
 feelings, subdue the sense of fraternal connection and 
 patriotic love and mutual regard. I shall bestow a little 
 attention, sir, upon these various grievances, produced 
 on the one side and on the other. . . . But I will 
 state these complaints, especially one complaint of the 
 South, which has, in my opinion, just foundation ; and 
 that is, that there has been found at the North a disin- 
 clination to perform fully their constitutional duties in 
 regard to the return of persons bound to service, who 
 have escaped into the free States. In that respect, it is 
 my judgment that the South is right and the North is 
 wrong. Every member of every Northern Legislature is 
 
Tlie Missouri Compromise and its Repeal. 293 
 
 bound by oath, like every other officer in the country, to 
 support the Constitution of the United States ; and this 
 article of the Constitution, which says to these States, 
 they shall deliver up fugitives from service, is as binding 
 in honor and conscience as any other article. No man 
 fulfills his duty in any Legislature who sets liimself to 
 find excuses, evasions, escapes from his constitutional 
 obligations. I have always thought that the Constitu- 
 tion addressed itself to the Legislatures of the States 
 themselves, or to the States themselves. It says, that 
 those persons escaping to other States shall be delivered 
 up, and I confess that I have always been of the opinion 
 that it was an injunction upon the States themselves. 
 When it is said that a person escaping into another 
 State, and becoming therefore within the jurisdiction of 
 that State, shall be delivered up, it seems to me that the 
 import of the passage is, that the State itself, in obe- 
 dience to the Constitution, shall cause him to be deliv- 
 ered up. That is my judgment. I have always enter- 
 tained that opinion, and I entertain it now. But when 
 the subject, some years ago, was before the Supreme 
 Court of the United States, the majority of the judges 
 held that the power to cause fugitives from service to be 
 delivered up, was a power to be exercised under the au- 
 thority of this Government. I do not know, on the 
 whole, that it may not have been a fortunate decision. 
 My habit is to respect the result of judicial deliberations 
 and the solemnity of judicial decisions. But, as it now 
 stands, the business of seeing that these fugitives are 
 delivered up resides in the power of Congress and the 
 national judicature, and my friend at the head of the 
 Judiciary Committee has a bill on the subject, now be- 
 fore the Senate, with some amendments to it, which I 
 propose to support, with all its provisions, to the fullest 
 extent. And I desire to call the attention of all. sober- 
 minded men, of all conscientious men, in the North, of 
 all men who are not carried away by any fanatical idea, 
 or by any false idea whatever, to their constitutional 
 
294 The True History of 
 
 obligations. I put it to all the sober and sound minds 
 at the North, as a question of morals and a question of 
 conscience. What right have they, in all their legis- 
 lative capacity, or any other, to endeavor to get around 
 this Constitution, to embarrass the free exercise of the 
 rights secured by the Constitution to the persons whose 
 slaves escape from them? None at all; none at all. 
 Neither in the forum of conscience, nor before the face 
 of the Constitution, are they justified, in my opinion. 
 . . . Therefore I repeat, sir, that here is a ground of 
 complaint against the North, well founded, which ought 
 to be removed — which it is now in the power of the dif- 
 ferent departments of this Government to remove — 
 which calls for the enactment of proper laws, authoriz- 
 ing the judicature of this Government, in the several 
 States, to do all that is necessary for the recapture of 
 fugitive slaves, and for the restoration of them to those 
 who claim them. Wherever I go, and whenever I speak 
 on this subject and when I speak here, I desire to speak 
 to the whole North — I say that the South has been in- 
 jured in this respect, and has a right to complain ; and 
 the North has been too careless of what I think the Con- 
 stitution peremptorily and emphatically enjoins upon it 
 as a duty. 
 
 "Then, sir, there are those Abolition societies, of 
 which I am unwilling to speak, but in regard to which 
 I have very clear notions and opinions, I do not think 
 them useful. . . . Sir, as I have said, I know many 
 Abolitionists in my own neighborhood, very honest, good 
 people, misled, as I think, by strange enthusiasm ; but 
 they wish to do something, and they are called on to 
 contribute : and it is my firm opinion this day, that 
 within the last twenty years as much money has been 
 collected and paid to the Abolition societies as would 
 purchase the freedom of every slave, man, woman, and 
 child in the State of Maryland, and send them all to Li- 
 beria. I have no doubt of it. But I have yet to learn 
 
The Missouri Compromise and its Repeal. 295 
 
 that the benevolence of these Abolition societies has taken 
 that particular turn. (Laughter.) 
 
 "Again, sir, the violence of the press is complained 
 of. The press violent ! Why, sir, the press is violent 
 every- where. There are outrageous reproaches in the 
 North against the South, and there are reproaches in not 
 much better taste in the South against the North. Sir, 
 the extremists of both parts of this country are violent ; 
 they mistake loud and violent talk for eloquence and for 
 reason. They think that he who talks loudest, reasons 
 the best. And this we must expect, when the press is 
 free, as it is here — and I trust will always be — for, with 
 all its licentiousness, and all its evil, the entire and ab- 
 solute freedom of the press is essential to the preserva- 
 tion of the Government, on the basis of a free constitu- 
 tion. Wherever it exists, there will be foolish para- 
 graphs in the press, as I am sorry to say, foolish 
 speeches and violent speeches in both Houses of Con- 
 gress. In truth, sir, I must say that, in my opinion, 
 the vernacular tongue of the country has become greatly 
 vitiated, depraved, and corrupted, by the style of our 
 congressional debates. (Laughter.) And if it were 
 possible for our debates in Congress to vitiate the prin- 
 ciples of the people as much as they have depraved their 
 taste, I should cry out, 'God save the Republic' . . . 
 
 "There are also complaints of the North against the 
 South. . . . Well, then, passing from that, every 
 body in the North reads, and every body reads what- 
 soever the newspapers contain ; and the newspapers, 
 some of them — especially those presses to which I have 
 alluded — are careful to spread about among the people 
 every reproachful sentiment uttered by any Southern 
 man bearing at all against the North — every thing that 
 is calculated to exasperate, to alienate ; and there are 
 many such things, as every body will admit from the 
 South, or some portion of it, which are spread abroad 
 among the reading people ; and they do exasperate, and 
 alienate, and produce a most mischievous effect upon 
 
296 The True History of 
 
 the public mind at the North. Sir, I would not notice 
 things of this sort appearing in obscure quarters ; but 
 one thing has occurred in this debate which struck me 
 very forcibly. An honorable member from Louisiana 
 addressed us the other day on this subject. I suppose 
 there is not a more amiable and worthy gentleman, nor 
 a gentleman who would be more slow to give offense. 
 But what did he say? Why, sir, he took pains to run a 
 contrast between the slaves of the South and the labor- 
 ing people of the North, giving the preference in all 
 points of condition, and comfort, and happiness, to the 
 slaves of the South, The honorable member doubtless 
 did not suppose that he gave any offense, or did any in- 
 justice. But does he know how remarks of that sort 
 will be received by laboring people of the North? Why, 
 who are the laboring people of the North? They are the 
 North. They are the people who cultivate their own 
 farms with their own hands — freeholders, educated men, 
 independent men. Let me say, sir, that five-sixths of 
 the whole property of the North is in the hands of la- 
 borers of the North, they cultivate their farms, they ed- 
 ucate their children, they provide the means of inde- 
 pendence : if they are not freeholders, they earn wages ; 
 these wages accumulate, are turned into capital, into 
 new freeholds ; and small capitalists are created. That 
 is the case, and such the course of things, with us, 
 among the industrial and frugal. And what can these 
 people think when so respectable and worthy a gentle- 
 man as the member from Louisiana undertakes to prove 
 that the absolute ignorance, and the abject slavery of the 
 South, is more in conformity with the high purposes 
 and destinies of immortal, rational human beings, than 
 the educated, the independent free laborers of the North? 
 "There is a more tangible and irritating cause of 
 grievance at the North. Free blacks are constantly em- 
 ployed in the vessels of the North generally as cooks or 
 stewards. When the vessel arrives, these free colored 
 men are taken on shore by the police or municipal au- 
 
The Missouri Compromise and its Repeal. 297 
 
 thority, imprisoned, and kept in prison till the vessel is 
 again ready to sail. This is not only irritating, but ex- 
 ceedingly inconvenient in practice, and seems altogether 
 unjustifiable and oppressive. 
 
 "Mr. President, I should much prefer to have heard 
 from every member on this floor declarations of opinion 
 that this Union should never be dissolved, than the 
 declaration of opinion that in any case, under the 
 pressure of any circumstances, such a dissolution was 
 possible. I hear with pain, and anguish, and distress, 
 the word secession, especially when it falls from the lips 
 of those who are eminently patriotic, and known to the 
 country, and known all over the world, for their political 
 services. Secession ! Peaceable secession ! Sir, your 
 eyes and mine are never destined to see that miracle. 
 The dismemberment of this vast country without con- 
 vulsion ! The breaking up of the fountains of the great 
 deep without ruffling the surface ! Who is so foolish — 
 I beg every body's pardon — as to expect to see any such 
 thing? Sir, he who sees these States, now revolving in 
 harmony around a common center, and expects to see 
 them quit their places and fly off without convulsion, 
 may look the next hour to see the heavenly bodies rush 
 from their spheres and jostle against each other in the 
 realms of space without producing the crash of the uni- 
 verse. There can be no such thing as peaceable seces- 
 sion. Peaceable secession is an utter impossibility. Is 
 the great Constitution under which we live here, cover- 
 ing this whole country, is it to be thawed and melted 
 away by secession as -the snows on the mountain melt 
 under the influence of a vernal sun, disappear almost 
 unobserved, and die off? No, sir ! No, sir ! I will not 
 state what might produce the disruption of the States ; 
 but, sir, I see it as plainly as I see the sun in heaven — 
 I see that disruption must produce such a war as I will 
 not describe in its two-fold characters. 
 
 "Peaceable secession! Peaceable secession! The 
 concurrent agreement of all the members of this great 
 
298 The True History of 
 
 Republic to be separate ! A voluntary separation, with 
 alimony on one side and on the other. Why, what 
 would be the result? Where is the line to be drawn ! 
 What States are to secede? What is to remain Ameri- 
 can? What am I to be, an American no longer? 
 Where is the flag of the Republic to remain? Where is 
 the eagle still to tower? Or is he to cower, and shrink, 
 and fall to the ground? Why, sir, our ancestors, our 
 fathers and our grandfathers, those of them that are yet 
 living among us with prolonged lives, would rebuke and 
 reproach us, and our children and our grandchildren 
 would cry out. Shame upon us ! if we, of this genera- 
 tion, should dishonor these ensigns of the power of the 
 Government and the harmony of the Union, which is 
 every day felt among us with so much joy and gratitude. 
 What is to become of the army? What is to become of 
 the navy? What is to become of the public lands? 
 How is each of the thirty States to defend itself? I 
 know, although the idea has not been stated distinctly, 
 there is to be a Southern Confederacy. I do not mean, 
 when I allude to this statement, that any one seriously 
 contemplates such a state of things. I do not mean to 
 say that it is true, but I have heard it suggested else- 
 where that that idea has originated in a design to sepa- 
 rate. I am sorry, sir, that it has ever been thought of, 
 talked of, or dreamed of, in the wildest flights of human 
 imagination. But the idea must be of a separation, in- 
 cluding the slave States upon one side, and the free 
 States on the other. Sir, there is not — I may express 
 myself too strongly, perhaps — but some things, some 
 moral things, are almost as impossible as other natural 
 or physical things ; and I hold the idea of a separation 
 of these States — those that are free to form one govern- 
 ment and those that are slave-holding to form another — 
 as a moral impossibility. We could not separate the 
 States by any such line if we were to draw it. We 
 could not' sit down here to-day and draw a line of a sepa- 
 ration that would satisfy any five men in the country. 
 
Tlie Missouri Compromise and its Repeal. 299 
 
 There are natural causes that would keep and tie us to- 
 gether, and there are social and domestic relations which 
 we could not break, if we would, and which we should 
 not, if we could. Sir, nobody can look over the face of 
 this country at the present moment — nobody can see 
 where its population is the most dense and growing — 
 without being ready to admit, and compelled to admit, 
 that ere long America will be in the valley of the Mis- 
 sissippi. 
 
 "Well, now, sir, I beg to inquire what the wildest enthu- 
 siast has to say, on the possibility of cutting off that river, 
 and leaving free States at its source and its branches, 
 and slave States down near its mouth? Pray, sir — pray, 
 sir, let me say to the people of this country, that these 
 things are worthy of their pondering and of their con- 
 sideration. Here, sir, are five millions of freemen in 
 the free States north of the river Ohio ; can any body 
 suppose that this population can be severed by a line 
 that divides them from the territory of a foreign and an 
 alien government, down somewhere, the Lord knows 
 where, upon the lower banks of the Mississippi? What 
 will become of Missouri? Will she join the arrondisse- 
 ment of the slave States? Shall the man from the 
 Yellowstone and the Platte be connected in the new 
 Republic with the man who lives on the southern ex- 
 tremity of the Cape of Florida? Sir, I am ashamed to 
 pursue this line of remark. I dislike it — I have an 
 utter disgust for it. I would rather hear of natural 
 blasts and mildews, war, pestilence, and famine, than to 
 hear gentlemen talk of secession. To break up ! to 
 break up this great government ! to dismember this 
 great country ! to astonish Europe with an act of folly, 
 such as Europe for two centuries has never beheld in 
 any government ! No, sir ! no, sir ! There will be no 
 secession. Gentlemen are not serious when they talk of 
 secession. 
 
 "And now, Mr. President, instead of speaking of the 
 possibility or utility of secession, instead of dwelling in 
 
300 The True History of 
 
 these caverns of darkness, instead of groping with those 
 ideas so full of all that is horrid and horrible, let us 
 come out into the light of the day ; let us enjoy the fresh 
 air of liberty and union ; let us cherish those hopes 
 which belong to us ; let us devote ourselves to those 
 great objects that are fit for our consideration and our 
 action ; let us raise our conceptions to the magnitude 
 and the importance of the duties that devolve upon us ; 
 let our comprehension be as broad as the country for 
 which we act, our aspirations as high as its certain des- 
 tiny ; let us not be pigmies in a case that calls for men. 
 Never did there devolve, on any generation of men, 
 higher trusts than now devolve upon us for the preserva- 
 tion of this Constitution, and the harmony and peace of 
 all who are destined to live under it. Let us make our 
 generation one of the strongest, and the brightest link, 
 in that golden chain which is destined, I fully believe, 
 to grapple the people of all the States to this Constitu- 
 tion, for ages to come. It is a great popular Constitu- 
 tional Government, guarded by legislation, by law, by 
 judicature, and defended by the whole affections of the 
 people. No monarchical throne presses these States to- 
 gether ; no iron chain of despotic power encircles them ; 
 they live and stand upon a government popular in its 
 form, representative in its character, founded upon prin- 
 ciples of equality, and calculated, we hope, to last for- 
 ever. In all its history it has been beneficent ; it has 
 trodden down no man's liberty ; it has crushed no State. 
 Its daily respiration is liberty and patriotism ; its yet 
 youthful veins are full of enterprise, courage, and hon- 
 orable love of glory and renown. It has received a vast 
 addition of territory. Large before, the country has 
 now, by recent events, become vastly larger. This Re- 
 public now extends, with a vast breadth, across the 
 whole continent. The two great seas of the world wash 
 the one and the other shore. "We realize, on a mighty 
 scale, the beautiful description of the ornamental edging 
 of the buckler of Achilles : 
 
The Missouri Compromise and its Repeal. 301 
 
 " ' Now the broad shield complete, the artiet crowned 
 With his last hand, and poured the ocean round ; 
 In living silver seemed the waves to roll, 
 And beat the buckler's verge, and bound the whole.' " ^ 
 
 On the 11th, Mr. Seward addressed the Senate in be- 
 half of the President's message, and some extracts from 
 his speech are given as germane to the history of the 
 period : 
 
 "But there is a higher law than the Constitution, 
 which regulates our authority over the domain, and de- 
 votes it to the same noble purposes. The territory is a 
 part — no inconsiderable part — of the common heritage 
 of mankind, bestowed upon them by the Creator of the 
 universe. We are his stewards, and must so discharge 
 our trust as to secure, in the highest attainable degree, 
 their happiness. 
 
 "And now, the simple, bold and even awful question 
 which presents itself to us, is this : shall we, who are 
 founding institutions, social and political, for countless 
 millions — shall we, who know by experience the wise 
 and the just, and are free to choose them, and to reject 
 the erroneous and unjust — shall we establish human 
 bondage, or permit it by our sufferance, to be estab- 
 lished? . . . 
 
 "Sir, the slave States have no reason to fear that this 
 inevitable change will go too far or too fast for their 
 safety or welfare. It can not well go too fast, or too far, 
 if the only alternative is a war of races. 
 
 "But it can not go too fast. Slavery has a reliable 
 and accommodating ally in a party in the free States, 
 which, though it claims to be and doubtless is, in many 
 respects, a party of progress, finds its sole security for 
 its political power in the support and aid of slavery in 
 the slave States. 
 
 "There remains one more guaranty, one that has 
 seldom failed you, and will seldom fail you hereafter. 
 
 1 App. Cong. Globe, Vol. 22, pp. 269-276. 
 
302 The True History of 
 
 New States cling in closer alliance than older ones, to 
 the federal power. The concentration of the slave 
 power enables you, for long periods, to control the 
 Federal Government, with the aid of the new States. I 
 do not know the sentiments of the Representatives of 
 California, but my word for it, if they should be admit- 
 ted on this floor to-day, against your most obstinate op- 
 position, they would, on all questions really affecting 
 your interests, be found at your side. 
 
 "With these alliances to break the force of emancipa- 
 tion, there will be no disunion and no secession. . . . 
 
 "Let, then, those who distrust the Union make com- 
 promises to save it. I shall not impeach their wisdom, 
 as I certainly can not their patriotism ; but indulging in 
 no such apprehensions myself, I shall vote for the ad- 
 mission of California directly, without conditions, with- 
 out qualifications and without compromise."^ 
 
 March 13th, Mr. Foote proposed to refer Mr. Bell's 
 resolution to a select Committee of Thirteen, as a basis 
 of adjustment of all the pending questions. While this 
 was under consideration. General Cass said : 
 
 "On this subject, sir, I agree precisely with what was 
 said by the distinguished Senator from Kentucky (Mr. 
 Clay) . I shall vote for the reference. I should vote for 
 almost any proposition that had the appearance of 
 bringing this country into harmony upon this perplexing 
 question — almost any proposition that may be submitted, 
 that has even the appearance of such a result. 
 
 "But, however this proposition may terminate, I 
 think the country is under lasting obligations to the 
 Senator from Mississippi for his efforts to terminate the 
 existing difficulties. While he has proved himself true 
 to his own section of the country, he has proved himself 
 true to the whole country. He has stood up manfully 
 for the rights of the South, but he has stood up, also, for 
 the obligations of the Constitution. ... 
 
 ^ App. Cong. Globe, Vol. 22, pp. 265, 268. 
 
The Missouri Compromise and its Repeal. 303 
 
 "I listened, Mr. President, with great regret, to the 
 speech of the distinguished Senator from South Carolina 
 (Mr, Calhoun) . I am not going to criticize it — my 
 great respect for that gentleman will prevent me from 
 doing so. I will merely say that there was a strange 
 collection of facts, as well as a strange collocation of 
 them, and that these were followed by strange conclu- 
 sions, I think, Mr. President, I may say, and I imagine 
 this feeling is general in the Senate, that a somber hue 
 pervaded his whole speech, in consequence of its being 
 prepared in the recesses of a sick chamber. Had he 
 been able to walk abroad in the light of Heaven, and 
 felt the breezes blowing upon him, I am sure his re- 
 marks would not have been as gloomy, nor the results 
 as desponding. We have all felt this, sir, and know how 
 to sympathize with him. 
 
 "We have been three months here, and what have we 
 done? Nothing. We have not passed a single law of 
 the least national importance. We have occupied the 
 whole time by the discussion of this question, and no 
 practical result has been attained ; and present appear- 
 ances do not indicate that such a result is near. But, 
 though we have done nothing, we have ascertained that 
 some things can not be done. We have ascertained (I 
 think I may say with certainty) that no Wilmot Proviso 
 can be passed through this Congress. That measure is 
 dead. It is the latest, and I hope it is the last, attempt 
 that will be made to interfere with the right of self-gov- 
 ernment within the limits of this Republic. I think we 
 may also say, that no Missouri Compromise line can jDass, 
 and that no one expects or desires that it should pass. 
 
 "Mr. President, what was the compromise line? 
 Allow me to read the law which established it : 
 
 " 'Sec, 8. And be it further enacted. That in all that 
 territory ceded by France to the United States, under 
 the name of Louisiana, which lies north of thirty-six 
 degrees and thirty minutes north latitude, not included 
 within the limits of the State contemplated by this act, 
 
304 The True History of 
 
 slavery and involuntary servitude, otherwise than in the 
 punishment of crimes, whereof the parties shall have 
 been duly convicted, shall be, and is hereby, forever 
 prohibited.' 
 
 "Now, sir, what is that provision? It is intervention 
 north of the line of 36° 30', and non-intervention south 
 of that line. Why, sir, there is not one Southern Sen- 
 ator on this floor, and not one Southern member of the 
 other House, nor indeed a Southern man who under- 
 stands the subject, who would accept that line as a 
 proper settlement of this question. 
 
 "Mr. Foote (in his seat) : I would not. 
 
 "Mr. Cass: Why, sir, the whole doctrine of equal 
 rights and of non-intervention is taken away by it at 
 once. Why, sir, putting out of view the constitutional 
 objections to such an arrangement, it gives the South 
 nothing, while it prohibits the people north of 36° 30' 
 from exercising their own will upon the subject. The 
 true doctrine of non-intervention leaves the whole ques- 
 tion to the people, and does not divide their right of de- 
 cision by a parallel of latitude. If they choose to have 
 slavery north of that line, they can have it. 
 
 "Mr. Foote : Permit me freely to say, that I would 
 no sooner vote for a Southern Wilmot Proviso than I 
 would for a Northern one. I rely, and am content to 
 rely, upon the Constitution. I was not convinced by 
 the argument of the Senator from South Carolina, of 
 the necessity or expediency of going further than that. 
 I rely, with entire confidence, upon our rights under the 
 Constitution and the treaty by which the Territories 
 were acquired. I ask for no legislation upon the sub- 
 ject, but simply that the whole matter be let alone. I 
 ask nothing but the doctrine of non-intervention. 
 
 "Mr. Cass: If I understood the Senator from New 
 York (Mr. Seward), he intimated his belief that it w^as 
 immoral to carry into effect the provision of the Consti- 
 tution for the recapture of fugitive slaves. That, sir, is 
 a very strange view of the duties of a Senator in this 
 
The Missouri Compromise and its Repeal. 305 
 
 body. No man should come here who believes ours is 
 an immoral Constitution ; no man should come here, 
 and, by the solemn sanction of an oath, promise to sup- 
 port an immoral Constitution. No man is compelled to 
 take an oath to support it. He may live in this country 
 and believe what he chooses in regard to the Constitu- 
 tion ; but he has no right, as an honest man, to seek 
 ofRce, and obtain it, and then talk about its being so im- 
 moral that he can not fulfill its obligations. It is the 
 duty of every man, who has sworn to support the Con- 
 stitution, fairly to carry its provisions into effect ; and 
 no man can stand up before his fellow-citizens and main- 
 tain any other doctrine, whatever reasons he may urge 
 in his vindication. . . ."^ 
 
 Later in the day, Mr. Foote and Mr. Calhoun were en- 
 gaged in a sort of conversational controversy. 
 
 "Mr. Calhoun: The Senator complains that I did 
 not consult him upon my speech. Well, sir, I never 
 did consult any man upon any speech I ever made. I 
 make my speeches for myself. When my friends called 
 upon me in my room, I would propose some interroga- 
 tories to them ; but I did not suppose that I could not 
 come up here to express my individual feelings without 
 the consent of the Senator from Mississippi. . . , 
 Well, sir, I think the Senator from Mississippi is the last 
 man to complain of not being consulted. 
 
 "Mr. Foote (in his seat) : Never, sir; never. 
 
 "Mr. Calhoun: He makes movements in which he, 
 does not ask the assistance of all his friends. He says 
 he knows the opinions of all the Senators upon this floor, 
 except two or three. But I say to him that I know, on 
 the contrary, five or six who differ from him. 
 
 "Mr. Foote (in his seat) : I said that I knew the 
 opinions of most of them ; but I know that they do 
 not all agree with me — twenty-two voted against me 
 
 ^ Cong. Globe, Vol. 21, pp. 217, 218. 
 20 
 
306 The True History of 
 
 yesterday, and I knew from that they did not agree 
 with me. 
 
 "Mr. Calhoun : He is far more familiar in his social 
 intercourse with the Senators, in his habit of consulting 
 them, than I am. 
 
 "Mr. Foote (in his seat) : I am on good terms with 
 every body. 
 
 "Mr. Calhoun: I am not. I will not be on good 
 terms with those who wish to cut my throat. The hon- 
 orable Senator from New York justifies the North in 
 treachery. I am not the man to hold social intercourse 
 with such as these. 
 
 "Mr. Foote (in his seat) : I think he (Mr. Seward) 
 will have to be given up. 
 
 "Mr. Calhoun: I recognize them as Senators — say 
 good morning and shake hands with them — but that is 
 the extent of my intercourse with those who I think are 
 endangering the Union. "^ 
 
 And these were the last words recorded as being 
 spoken by John C. Calhoun on the floor of the Senate, 
 an indignant disclaimer of any social or friendly inter- 
 course with those who were, in his opinion, "endanger- 
 ing the Union." 
 
 On the same day, Mr. Douglas spoke on the admission 
 of California as recommended in the message of the 
 President. His speech also throws a good deal of light 
 on the inner history of the times, on the motives of the 
 actors. Of the Whigs, he says: ". . . They were 
 in a woful, pitiful minority. Having rendered them- 
 selves odious to the people, by taking sides with the 
 enemy in a state of war, they were anxious to retrieve 
 their political fortunes and to be returned to power. 
 This could not be done by open and direct means. It 
 required equivocation and indirection. The first step 
 was to select a man who had endeared himself to the 
 people by his services in prosecuting the war, as the 
 
 ' Cong. Globe, Vol. 21, p. 520. 
 
The Missouri Compromise and its Repeal. 307 
 
 presidential candidate of the anti-war party, . . . 
 Then the slavery agitation was to be kept up, and 
 fomented and stimulated to the highest pitch of 
 phrensied excitement. Gen. Taylor was to withhold 
 his opinions and to maintain a death-like silence upon 
 it, whilst his partisans were to represent him to the 
 people, in each section of the Union, as holding opinions 
 in accordance with the prevailing sentiment in that sec- 
 tion. At the North, he was represented as being suffi- 
 ciently orthodox upon free soilism, being ready, cheer- 
 fully and cordially, to give his approval to the Wilmot 
 Proviso, while at the South he was represented as being 
 devotedly attached to their peculiar institutions by all 
 the ties of nativit}^ of habit, association, and interest. 
 Thus the friends of Gen. Taylor succeeded in making 
 the people believe in each section that his opinions and 
 pinciples harmonized with their own. 
 
 "And here I will note a remark of the Senator from 
 New York, Mr. Seward, in his speech delivered a few 
 days since. He went out of his way to get an oppor- 
 tunity of bearing his individual testimony to the fidelity 
 of the Northern Democracy to what he and his friends 
 are pleased to call the slave interest. He assured the 
 Southern Senators that the Democracy of the North 
 were, and ever had been, the faithful and reliable allies 
 of the slave power under all circumstances and in every 
 emergency. His kindness in this respect is fully ap- 
 preciated. His motive is not difficult to comprehend. 
 It was necessary for him to say thus much, in order 
 that his speech might appear to be consistent with his 
 representations to the people during the presidential can- 
 vass. Did he not support the election of Gen. Tay- 
 lor? I will now ask the Senator from New York if the 
 people of that State could ever have been induced to 
 vote for Gen. Taylor if they had not been made to be- 
 lieve that he would have approved the proviso? 
 
 "Mr. Seward : I think not. I think, undoubtedly, 
 the result would have been otherwise. 
 
308 The True History of 
 
 "Mr. Douglas: . . . The members of the Legis- 
 lature were elected on the same day, and the same in- 
 fluences which secured the electoral vote to Gen. Taylor 
 gave the Whigs a majority in the Legislature, and that 
 majority elected the gentleman (Mr. Seward) a member 
 of this body. He, too, therefore, is now enjoying the 
 substantial results of that system of double-dealing and 
 deception which was practiced upon the people of New 
 York, with the view of placing Gen. Taylor in the Pres- 
 idential chair, and himself in the Senate of the United 
 States. Under these circumstances, I submit whether it 
 would not have been more becoming in that Senator to 
 have vindicated himself against the injurious inferences 
 that are likely to be drawn from these facts than to have 
 attempted to fix odium and prejudice upon the Northern 
 Democracy, by representing them as the faithful ally of 
 the slave power? It looks as if this unfounded charge 
 against the Democratic party was got up for the purpose 
 of diverting public attention from his own conduct. He 
 may have peculiar reasons for wishing to avoid too rigid 
 a scrutiny into the terms of the alliance between him 
 and the administration, and especially the means by 
 which both were elected to power, and the mode in 
 which patronage and spoils have been distributed." * 
 . . . Of California : 
 
 "The question is already settled, so far as slavery is 
 concerned. The country is now free by law and in fact — 
 it is free according to those laws of nature and of God, 
 to which the Senator from Massachusetts alluded, and 
 must forever remain free. It will be free under any bill 
 you may pass, or without any bill at all. It would have 
 been free under all or either of the bills that have ever 
 been proposed — under a territorial bill with or without 
 the prohibition ; under the Clayton bill, or the State 
 bill, or even under the no bill at all recommended by the 
 administration, which is the worst of all, because it con- 
 
 1 Cong. Globe, Vol. 21, p. 367. 
 
The Missouri Compromise and its Repeal. 309 
 
 tains all the elements of miscliief, without one of the 
 advantages of either of the other propositions. I can 
 not conceive that there is a man in the Senate who be- 
 lieves that the result would not be precisely the same, 
 so far as it relates to slavery under each, either, or 
 neither of these various propositions. Why, then, can 
 we not settle the question? For the most difficult of all 
 reasons — pride of opinion is involved. It requires but 
 little moral courage to act firmly and resolutely in the 
 support of previously-expressed opinions. Pride of char- 
 acter, self-love, the strongest passions of the human 
 heart, all impel a man forward and onward. But, when 
 he is called upon to review his former opinions, to con- 
 fess and abandon his errors, to sacrifice his pride to his 
 conscience, it requires the exercise of the highest quali- 
 ties of our nature — the exertion of a moral courage 
 which elevates a man almost above humanity itself. A 
 brilliant example of this may be found in the recent 
 speech of the distinguished Senator from Massachusetts, 
 always excepting that portion relating to the Northern 
 Democracy. This pride of opinion is all that stands in 
 the way of a speedy, harmonious, and satisfactory ad- 
 justment of this vexed question. 
 
 " . . . But I assert it as an incontrovertible axiom in 
 political science, that all men are entitled to a govern- 
 ment of some kind. If any one of the crowned heads 
 of Europe chooses to withdraw for a time his authority 
 and protection from any one of his provinces or depend- 
 encies, the very act of such withdrawal authorizes his 
 subjects, thus deprived of government, to institute one 
 for themselves, to continue in operation until he shall 
 resume his authority, and again extend his protection to 
 them. If this principle is acknowledged in all arbitrary 
 and despotic governments, who is prepared to resist its 
 application to a country whose institutions are all predi- 
 cated upon the maxim that the people are the legitimate 
 source of all political power? 
 
 "Mr. President, it was my desire to have said some- 
 
310 The True History of 
 
 thing of the resolutions introduced by the distinguished 
 and venerable Senator from Kentucky (Mr. Clay) ; but 
 I find I have trespassed to long upon your kindness. I 
 can not do less, however, in justice to my own feelings, 
 than to declare that this nation owes him a debt of 
 gratitude for his services to the cause of the Union on 
 this occasion. I care not whether you agree with him 
 in all that he has proposed and said, you can not doubt 
 the purity of the motives, and the self-sacrificing spirit 
 which prompted him to exhibit the matchless moral 
 courage of standing undaunted between the two great 
 hostile factions, and rebuking the violence and excesses 
 of each, and pointing out their respective errors, in a 
 spirit of kindness, moderation and firmness, which made 
 them conscious that he was right ; and all this with an 
 impartiality so exact, that you could not have told to 
 which section of the Union he belonged. He set the 
 ball in motion which is to restore peace and harmony to 
 the Union. He was the pioneer in the glorious cause, 
 and set a noble example, which many others are nobly 
 imitating. The tide has already been checked and turned 
 back. The excitement is subsiding, and reason resum- 
 ing its supremacy. The question is rapidly settling its- 
 self, in spite of the efforts of the extremes at both ends 
 of the Union to keep up the agitation. The people of 
 the whole country. North and South, are beginning to 
 see that there is nothing in this controversy, which seri- 
 ously affects the interests, invades the rights, or impugns 
 the honor of any section or State of the Confederacy. 
 They will not consent that this question shall be kept 
 open for the benefit of politicians, who are endeavoring 
 to organize parties on geographical lines. The people 
 will not sanction any such movement. They know its 
 tendencies and its danger. The Union will not be put 
 in peril ; California will be admitted ; governments for 
 the Territories must be established ; and thus the con- 
 troversy will end, and I trust forever." ^ 
 
 1 Cong. Globe, Vol. 21, pages 372-5. 
 
The Missouri Compromise and its Repeal. 311 
 
 On the 31st of March, Mr. Calhoun passed away from 
 the scenes in which he had borne such an active part 
 for so many years.^ 
 
 Many tributes were paid to the virtues and talents of 
 this great man, but none more just than that of his great 
 contemporary, Daniel Webster. 
 
 "Mr. Webster: Mr. President, he had the basis, the 
 indispensable basis, of all high character ; and that was 
 unspotted integrity — unimpeached honor and character. 
 If he had aspirations, they were high and honorable and 
 noble. There was nothing groveling, or low, or meanly 
 selfish, that came near the head or the heart of Mr. Cal- 
 houn. . . . We shall hereafter, I am sure, indulge 
 in a grateful recollection that we have lived in his age ; 
 that we have been his contemporaries ; that we have 
 seen him and heard him and known him. We shall de- 
 light to speak of him to those who are rising up to fill 
 our places. And, when the time shall come that we 
 ourselves shall go, one after another, in succession, to 
 our graves, we shall carry with us a deep sense of his 
 genius and character, his honor and integrity, his ami- 
 able deportment in private life, and the purity of his 
 exalted patriotism." * 
 
 1 Con. Globe, p. 6220. » Cong. Globe, p. 625. 
 
312 • The True History of 
 
 CHAPTER XIII. 
 
 1850 — Petition to arm slaves presented by Mr. Seward — Rejected by- 
 Senate — Identity of position of Clay and Douglas on Non-interven- 
 tion — Douglas author of the bills known as the "Compromise of 
 1850," advocated by Mr. Clay, and commonly attributed to him 
 — Mr. Clay's arraignment of the President — Mr. Bell's defense of 
 him — Death of President Taylor. 
 
 The first of April had come and gone, and yet nothing 
 had been effected towards giving government to the 
 newly acquired Mexican territories. The Northern ex- 
 tremists would listen to nothing short of an absolute 
 prohibition of slavery in them by Congress. The South- 
 ern extremists would agree to nothing less than a 
 guarantee of protection for their slave property by 
 Congress, should they choose to carry it into these terri- 
 tories. Whilst the moderate men of both parties, Whigs 
 and Democrats alike, contended that it was best to 
 leave the whole matter to the decision of the people of 
 the Territories themselves, and to the Supreme Court 
 for adjudication. 
 
 But neither Mr. Clay's resolution, nor the President's 
 proposition, nor yet Mr. Bell's resolutions, could carry 
 a majority in the Senate ; and still graver apprehensions 
 were felt as to the House. 
 
 Human nature, as usual, had the best of it — crimina- 
 tion and recrimination without end. It is a singular 
 thing, however, that, in all these discussions, every 
 Northern man who alluded to the subject at all, entirely 
 ignored the fact that the three New England States had 
 entered into a "bargain" — (General Washington's own 
 word) — with the two Southern ones, by which the slave 
 trade was permitted for twenty years ; through which con- 
 tinuance the number of slaves had so greatly increased 
 as to render their removal almost an impossibility, and 
 
The Missouri Compromise and its Repeal. ' 313 
 
 their restoration to freedom a most fearful disaster to 
 the Southern country in its immediate effects. The 
 Northern men chiimed that South Carolina and Georgia 
 had declined to enter the Union unless they might con- 
 tinue to import slaves, and therefore there was a compro- 
 mise made by which they were given that permission ; 
 but never was a word said of the fact, that, but for the 
 bargain aforesaid, by which New England gained her 
 point as to the two-thirds vote, and for which considera- 
 tion she gave her votes and influence in favor of the 
 slave trade, the "compromise" could never have been 
 accomplished. 
 
 On the 8th of April, Mr. Seward presented a petition 
 from the citizens of Ontario, New York, asking "the 
 passage of a law for the enrollment of the militia of 
 all the States, which shall include all classes of persons, 
 without any distinction of color or condition. "^ 
 
 This open proposition to arm the slaves of the South 
 called forth the most indignant remonstrance from Mr. 
 Clay — as also from Messrs. Butler, Rusk and Foote : 
 
 "Mr. Clay: I can not allow this occasion to pass 
 without calling to the attention of the Senate a fact con- 
 nected with most of these petitions. Sir, the moment 
 a prospect opens in this unhappy country of settling our 
 differences, these disturbers of the peace, these abolition- 
 ists, put themselves in motion — the Jays, the Phillipses, 
 and others in other quarters — and they establish a con- 
 centrated and ramified plan of operations. 
 
 "I will move then to take up the petition on the sub- 
 ject of the enrollment of the slaves of this country in the 
 militia, for the purpose of making a motion, and with- 
 out further argument upon the subject invite the Senate 
 to act upon it ; expressing a hope, and I shall call for 
 the yeas and nays for that purpose, that this petition 
 will be rejected by the decisive, and indignant, and 
 unanimous vote of the whole body. I move you, sir, 
 
 1 Cong. Globe, Vol. 21, p. 655. 
 
314 The True History of 
 
 to take up the petition, and I will then move to reject 
 the prayer of the petition, and call for the yeas and 
 nays. 
 
 "Mr. Seward: . . . The fact of the presentation 
 of this petition by myself has drawn down upon me 
 severe censure. ... I shall not shrink from the 
 performance of what is my duty, under any circum- 
 stances of censure. . . . I am in favor, as I have said, 
 of the emancipation of the slaves of this country, and in 
 all countries ; but, as I have said before, I am in favor 
 of obtaining that object only by peaceful, lawful and 
 constitutional means ; and where the Constitution inter- 
 dicts, there I stop. 
 
 "And now, whatever may be intended for me, here or 
 elsewhere, I beg honorable Senators to understand this 
 as the rule of my conduct for the future. I shall never 
 assail the motives of any member of this body. I shall 
 never defend myself against any imputation of motives 
 made against me. If such imputations are made, in 
 whatever shape they may come, as they have done in 
 various shapes here, I shall pass them by in silence. 
 . I have never retorted or retaliated ; I never 
 shall. 
 
 " Mr. Clay: I rise to say a single word, and that is 
 to express a hope that there will be no further discussion, 
 but that the vote will be taken in the manner I have 
 suggested, with a solemnity and unanimity which I am 
 sure will have a good effect. The petition, be it remem- 
 bered, has been received. There can, therefore, be no 
 reproach against the Senate for not receiving it. The 
 question now is, shall its prayer be granted ? And that 
 prayer is to do what no man can conceive or dream of 
 without horror or dismay. The proposition is to embody 
 every slave in the United States in the militia of the 
 United States. Sir, I trust honorable Senators are pre- 
 pared to vote upon this question. The Senator who sits 
 near me (Mr. Seward) has in a very calm, orderly man- 
 ner, expressed his views. Though we may not agree 
 
The Missouri Compromise and its Repeal. 315 
 
 with him, let us say nothing more, but go to the vote, 
 and vote, by a singular instance of unanimity and de- 
 cision, against the abominable prayer of the petition. 
 
 "The motion was put from the chair, and the yeas 
 and nays having been taken, resulted as follows : Yeas, 
 48 ; nays, none. 
 
 "So the motion was unanimously adopted." ' 
 
 Mr. Seward's declaration here of his views as to the 
 Constitution are decidedly inconsistent with his higher 
 law doctrine, so openly and loudly proclaimed at other 
 times ; but his assumption of the martyr's role, in his 
 declared purpose to listen without reply to the re- 
 proaches and condemnation that might be heaped upon 
 him by his justly incensed countrymen, was kept up by 
 him through all the years until the breaking out of the 
 civil war, which gave him ample opportunity to "retal- 
 iate" for all the "imputation of motives" made against 
 him ; nor did he neglect the opportunity. The ringing 
 of his "little bell" became notorious as his boasted in- 
 strument in the arrest of American citizens, some of 
 them certainly most devoted to the Union, and guilty of 
 no offense known to the law ^ — their only crime consisting 
 in "imputations" made against Mr. Seward, who be- 
 came, for the time being, an "alien and sedition" law 
 unto himself. 
 
 Mr. Clay's resolutions were opposed by the Abolition 
 Whigs and Democratic Free Soilers as granting too much 
 to the South — by the Southern ultraists as yielding every 
 thing to the North — by the Democracy, because Mr. 
 Clay was a Whig — and by the Administration party, be- 
 cause of Mr. Clay's well-known hostility to the Admin- 
 istration, and because the Administration was equally 
 hostile to Mr. Clay. 
 
 1 Cong. Globe, Vol. 21, pp. 684-6. 
 
 ' Notably Gov. Morehead, of Kentucky, whose most unjustifiable ar- 
 rest and imprisonment alienated some of the warmest Union men of 
 the State from their support of Mr. Lincoln's administration, which they 
 had hitherto sustained. — Author. 
 
316 The True History of 
 
 Gen. Taylor's plan was held up to public derision by 
 Mr. Clay ; the majority of both Houses was against it ; 
 it had very few advocates among the Southern members, 
 either Whig or Democratic ; the Northern Democracy 
 went solidly against it, whilst the conservative Northern 
 Whigs were all in favor of Mr. Clay's resolutions — as 
 were the majority of the Whigs of his own State. So 
 the Administration had only a very scattered individual 
 support outside of the Abolitionized Whigs of the North, 
 and it was probably the hostility of these Abolition 
 Whigs to Mr. Clay that first drew the President into 
 sympathy with them — as there is no principle in human 
 nature better established than this — that a mutual dis- 
 like for the same thing or person will bring together, as 
 friends, even the most bitter enemies — and the antago- 
 nism between the President and Mr. Clay was well known 
 to exist, and to have arisen out of the contest for nomi- 
 nation to the Presidency in 1848 — the result of which 
 Mr. Clay never forgave ; whilst Gen. Taylor resented 
 most deeply Mr. Clay's open criticism on his lack of 
 statesmanship. 
 
 Mr. Foote's Committee of Thirteen had not yet mate- 
 rialized. 
 
 Judge Douglas, Chairman of the Committee on Terri- 
 tories, had reported several bills relating to the estab- 
 lishment of government in the Territories, and the ad- 
 mission of California. But the Senate had declined to 
 refer the subject to the Committee on Territories, the 
 Chairman, Douglas, himself, voting nay ; and, on April 
 17th, proceeded to consider the reference of both Mr. 
 Bell's and Mr. Clay's resolutions to a select committee 
 of thirteen, with instructions to exert themselves for the 
 purpose of "a scheme of compromise for the adjustment 
 of all pending questions growing out of the institution 
 of slavery, with power to report by bill, or other- 
 wise. ^ 
 
 I Cong. Globe, p. 662. 
 
 M 
 
The Missouri Compromise and its Repeal. 317 
 
 Mr. Benton offered a series of amendments to this 
 resolution of Mr. Foote in shape of instructions to the 
 committee and favoring abolition — they were seventeen 
 in number and were all voted down. Mr. Clay wanted 
 tio restrictive instructions eiven, and it was decided to 
 give none. 
 
 Mr. Hale proposed that "all petitions and remon- 
 strances received this session on the subjects mentioned 
 in the resolutions of the Senator from Kentucky (Mr, 
 Clay) and the Senator from Tennessee (Mr. Bell) , re- 
 ferred to a select Committee of Thirteen, be taken from 
 the table and referred to the same committee." ^ 
 
 Mr. Clay advocated the reference of these petitions. 
 
 "Mr. Clay: ... I want no man to go home 
 and endeavor to excite the people by using such language 
 as this ; 
 
 " 'Your petitions were treated with the utmost indig- 
 nity. They were laid on the table, unread, unconsidered ; 
 and when I proposed to refer them to the committee to 
 which all the subject-matter of the petitions were refer- 
 red, and with which, therefore they had a necessary 
 connection, even that was opposed.' 
 
 "I am no great hand at making a stump speech, but I 
 think I could take up that theme in such a way as to ex- 
 asperate and excite the populace. . . ." 
 
 The chair, however, decided that Mr. Hale's motion 
 was out of order. And the Senate then decided to adopt 
 the resolution to refer Mr. Clay's and Mr. Bell's resolu- 
 tions to a select Committee of Thirteen, but ignoring 
 any reference to the President's message. 
 
 The Committee was chosen by ballot, and was com- 
 posed of six members from the North — Messrs, Bright, 
 Cass, Cooper, Dickinson, Phelps and Webster ; and six 
 from the South — Messrs. Bell, Berrien, Downs, King, 
 Mason and Mangum ; with Henry Clay as chairman.^ 
 
 Mr. Clay and Mr. Douglas agreed that Douglas's bill 
 
 ' Cong. Globe, p. 773. « Cong. Globe, Vol. 21, p. 780. 
 
318 The True History of 
 
 for the admission of California might be taken up and 
 discussed, but not urged to a vote, in the absence of 
 members of the Committee who had been appointed 
 to accompany "the remains of our late lamented col- 
 league," Mr. Calhoun. 
 
 On the 22d, the bill for the admission of California, 
 as reported by Judge Douglas, was the special order of 
 the day. Attention is called to the statements made by 
 Mr. Clay in the extracts from the proceedings herewith 
 given. 
 
 "Mr. Butler : Mr. President, I do not rise to discuss 
 the subject, but I do rise to express my surprise that the 
 California bill is to be taken up and discussed in the 
 Senate, whilst all other matters in relation to slavery, 
 and the admission of California herself, have been re- 
 ferred to a Committee of Thirteen. The great end of 
 that Committee w^ill be defeated if this course of pro- 
 ceeding shall be taken, I acquiesced in the raising of 
 that Committee, and would carry out every pledge 
 which was implied in my support of it. But I under- 
 take to say that, if this course of proceeding be taken, 
 those who are running the race for California will find 
 themselves mistaken, and I say to California, ''sat cito si 
 sat tuto.'' 
 
 "Mr. Clay: Mr. President, the Senator from Illinois 
 has moved to take up the California bill, but my friend 
 from South Carolina is mistaken if he supposed that 
 that bill, standing by itself and alone, is to pass this 
 Senate without a struggle, and, I trust, a successful one. 
 I have got amendments now in my hand, attaching to it 
 the territorial bills, whenever the proper time may arise 
 to present them. I have also prepared amendments 
 providing for the settlement of the Texas boundary 
 question, which I may, or may not, think proper to 
 offer. But, beyond all doubt, I shall move to amend 
 the bill by adding to it the territorial bills. And I hope, 
 from all the demonstrations that have been made, that 
 
The Missouri Compromise and its Repeal. 319 
 
 there can be little doubt that the majority of the Senate 
 favor such a proposition. 
 
 "Mr. Benton: The Senator from Kentucky has 
 amendments in his hand to offer to the bill, and I have 
 got the parliamentary law in my hands, to show that he 
 will undertake to do a thing which is flagrantly illegal, 
 and violative of parliamentary law. 
 
 "Mr. Clay: One word, sir. I know the character 
 and eminence of the Senator from Missouri for dwelling 
 on parliamentary law ; but I will take issue with him on 
 his parliamentary law, and I will show that no such 
 parliamentary law exists in any parliament on earth. 
 
 "Mr. Benton : I will meet the Senator on that point, 
 then. And I can show him four good, large volumes. 
 I will show him that there is such a law, and I will 
 make it a case of profert in open court. He is to go on 
 denying the laws when four quarto volumes which con- 
 tain it are produced and read. We will see about it. 
 
 "Mr. Douglas: I would ask the attention of the 
 Senate to this point. Let the motion to postpone be 
 withdrawn, and the amendments be submitted simply 
 that they be printed. I do not make that motion, but 
 simply make the suggestion. 
 
 "Several Senators : No, no. 
 
 "Mr. Clay: I trust the Senator will agree with me 
 that it is unnecessary to print them. The amendments 
 which I shall move are, in fact, the bills reported by the 
 Senator from Illinois, and which have already been 
 printed. But he has it in contemplation to offer an 
 amendment which is yet in manuscript, and which 
 ought to be printed. It is unnecessary to print the bills 
 which I shall offer as amendments, because they have 
 already been printed. 
 
 "Mr. Douglas : I concur with the Senator from Ken- 
 tucky that it is unnecessary to print the amendments, as 
 it seems they have already been printed. After the 
 question on the motion to postpone shall be taken, I 
 shall move to print the ordinance alluded to by the 
 
320 The True History of 
 
 Senator from Kentucky, together with my own amend- 
 ment to the bill.'" 
 
 Here is the proof positive of the identity of Clay's and 
 Douglas's position on the question of non-intervention 
 in 1850. Mr. Clay states, just as Judge Douglas stated 
 later on, that he had adopted, in place of his own or 
 Mr, Bell's resolutions, "the bills reported by the Sen- 
 ator from Illinois, and which have already been 
 printed." 
 
 On May 8th, Mr. Clay reported from the Committee 
 of Thirteen. 
 
 After reciting that : 
 
 "The Committee entered on the discharge of their 
 duties with a deep sense of their great importance, and 
 with earnest and anxious solicitude to arrive at such 
 conclusions as might be satisfactory to the Senate and 
 to the country." 
 
 "The views and recommendations contained in this 
 report may be recapitulated in a few words : 
 
 "1. The admission of any new State or States formed 
 out of Texas to be postponed until they shall hereafter 
 present themselves to be received into the Union, when 
 it will be the duty of Congress fairly and faithfully to 
 execute the compact with Texas by admitting such new 
 State or States. 
 
 "2. The admission forthwith of California into the 
 Union with the boundaries which she has proposed. 
 
 "3. The establishment of territorial governments 
 without the "Wilmot Proviso for New Mexico and Utah, 
 embracing all the territory recently acquired by the 
 United States from Mexico not contained in the bounda- 
 ries of California. 
 
 "4. The combination of these two last-mentioned 
 measures in the same bill. 
 
 "5. The establishment of the western and northern 
 boundary of Texas, and the exclusion from her jurisdic- 
 
 1 Cong. Globe, Vol. 21, p. 782. 
 
The Missouri Compromise and its Repeal. 321 
 
 tion of all New Mexico, with the grant to Texas of a 
 pecuniary equivalent ; and the section for that purpose 
 to be incorporated in the bill admitting California and 
 establishing territorial governments for Utah and New 
 Mexico. 
 
 "6. More effectual enactments of law to secure the 
 prompt delivery of persons bound to service or labor in 
 one State, under the laws thereof, who escape into an- 
 other State. 
 
 "And, 7. Abstaining from abolishing slavery; but, 
 under a heavy penalty, prohibiting the slave trade in 
 the District of Columbia. 
 
 "The Committee have endeavored to present to the 
 Senate a comprehensive plan of adjustment, which, re- 
 moving all causes of existing excitement and agitation, 
 leaves none open to divide the country and disturb the 
 general harmony. The nation has been greatly con- 
 vulsed, not by measures of general policy, but by ques- 
 tions of a sectional character, and, therefore, more dan- 
 gerous and more to be deprecated. It wants repose. It 
 loves and cherishes the Union. And it is most cheering 
 and gratifying to witness the outbursts of deep and 
 abiding attachment to it which have been exhibited in 
 all parts of it, amidst all the trials through which we 
 have passed and are passing. A people so patriotic as 
 those of the United States will rejoice in an accommoda- 
 tion of all troubles and difficulties by which the safety 
 of that Union might have been brought into the least 
 danger. And, under the blessings of that Providence 
 Avho, amidst all vicissitudes, has never ceased to extend 
 to them His protecting care. His smiles, and His bless- 
 ings, they will continue to advance in population, power, 
 and prosperity, and work out triumphantly the glorious 
 problem of man's capacity for self-government." 
 
 Under the provisions of the bills reported by the Com- 
 mittee, California would be admitted to the Union with 
 the Constitution already submitted to Congress by the 
 21 
 
322 The True History of 
 
 President, and which prohibited slavery. Utah and 
 New Mexico were given territorial governments ; and it 
 was further provided : . . .^ 
 
 ". . . That the legislative power of the Territory 
 shall extend to all rightful subjects of legislation, con- 
 sistent with the Constitution of the United States and 
 the provisions of this act ; but no law shall be passed 
 interfering with the primary disposal of the soil, nor in 
 respect to African slavery .' '' . . } 
 
 This provision was to apply equally to both Terri- 
 tories. 
 
 And now was to come the real tug of war. Cali- 
 fornia lay about half-north and half-south of the line of 
 36° 30' ; yet it was proposed, as a compromise, to permit 
 her to come into the Union at once, as a State, without 
 any previous territorial organization, with a constitution 
 prohibiting slavery ; and so shutting off by her laws 
 all of the Southern men from settling there with their 
 slaves — their laboring class — without whom they would 
 not undertake to settle up any new country, any more 
 than a manufacturer would undertake to run a factory 
 without hands, or a contractor to build a railroad with- 
 out the necessary labor to carry on the work. To pre- 
 clude their labor was to preclude themselves from all 
 share in the new State, to whose lands they felt they 
 should have the right of entrance. They had paid their 
 full proportion for them in blood as well as in treasure ; 
 and they felt it an infinite wrong that any legal means 
 should be adopted to keep them out. If nature were 
 against them, why, they could submit to nature without 
 dishonor. But it was repugnant to all their ideas of 
 equality between the States that they should be thus 
 excluded, by the laws of man, from lands that belonged 
 to them equally with all other citizens ; and to which 
 were admitted men of all other countries. 
 
 1 Cong. Globe, Sec. 10, p. 947. ^ Idem, pp. 946, 947. 
 
The Missouri Compromise and its Repeal. 323 
 
 Mr. Clemens at once save notice that he would offer 
 an amendment to the California bill : 
 
 "Be it further enacted, That the line of 36° 30' north 
 latitude shall be, and the same is hereby declared to be, 
 the Southern boundary line of the said State of Cali- 
 fornia."^ 
 
 Mr. Berrien and Mr. Mangum, Southern members of 
 the Committee, stated that whilst they could not agree 
 to every point in the report, yet they felt that it would 
 "tend to prevent any outbreak." That by carrying this 
 measure, "the agitators, wherever they may live — in 
 whatever part of the Union — will be unhorsed, de- 
 feated, and fall into disrepute." That the proposition 
 presented contains "the broad principle of equity and 
 justice."^ 
 
 Mr. Dickinson called attention to the fact that "there 
 is an essential difference between this report and these 
 bills and the resolutions introduced early in the session 
 by the Senator from Kentucky. They are not similar, 
 as has been supposed and asserted. I will not now 
 enter upon the discussion and the merits or demerits of 
 either, but simply state that one of the leading princi- 
 ples of the resolutions of the Senator from Kentucky, 
 and the one which drew out the most opposition, was 
 the declaration as to what was the existing law in the 
 Territories. Now, there is an utter absence of any 
 thing of the kind in either the report or the bills. No 
 reference to this point is to be found in either, but 
 the whole question is left where the Constitution 
 leaves it." 
 
 "Mr. Davis: . . . The object of the report is to 
 support the bills introduced into the Senate by the Ter- 
 ritorial Committee, and then referred to this Select Com- 
 mittee. Now, I have no hesitation in saying that I am 
 against those bills as reported by the Territorial Com- 
 mittee, and was prepared to act against them when 
 
 1 Cong. Globe, Vol. 21, p. 948. » Idem, p. 950. 
 
324 The True History of 
 
 they came before the Senate, and their sanction by the 
 Select Committee will not commend them any more to 
 my attention."* 
 
 Mr. Clay, on May 13th, spoke in support of the re- 
 port of the Committee, and the bills as reported by the 
 Chairman of the Territorial Committee and adopted by 
 the Select Committee, and criticised the President and 
 his plan quite severely. 
 
 Of the Wilmot Proviso, Mr. Clay asks : 
 
 "... Why do you of the North press it? You 
 say because it is in obedience to certain sentiments in 
 behalf of human freedom and human rights which you 
 entertain. . . , You may retort, why is it opposed 
 at the South? It is opposed at the South because the 
 South feels that, when once legislation on the subject 
 of slavery begins, there is no seeing where it is to 
 end. . . . Sir, the South has felt that her security 
 lies in denying at the threshold your right to touch the 
 subject of slavery. . . . The cases, then, gentlemen 
 of the North and gentlemen of the South, do not stand 
 upon an equal footing. When you, on the one hand, 
 unnecessarily press an offensive and alarming measure 
 on the South, the South repels it from the highest of all 
 human motives of action, the security of property and 
 life, and of every thing else interesting and valuable in 
 life.''^* 
 
 On the 15th, Mr. Davis, of Mississippi, offered the 
 following amendment : 
 
 "To strike out in the sixth line of the tenth section 
 the words 'in respect to African slavery,' and insert the 
 words 'with those rights of property growing out of the 
 institution of African slavery as it exists in any of the 
 States of this Union.' The object of the amendment is 
 to prevent the Territorial Legislature from legislating 
 against the rights of property growing out of the insti- 
 tution of slavery." 
 
 1 Cong. Globe, Vol. 21, pp. 953-956. = Idem, p. 573. 
 
The Missouri Compromise and its Repeal. 325 
 
 "Mr. Clay : If the object of the Senator is to provide 
 that slaves may be introduced into the Territory 
 contrary to the lex loci, and, being introduced, noth- 
 ing shall be done by the Legislature to impair the rights 
 of owners to hold the slaves thus brought contrary to 
 the local laws, I certainly can not vote for it. ... I 
 repeat what I have before said, that I can not vote to 
 convert a Territory already free into a slave Territory. 
 I am satisfied, for one, to let the lex loci, as it exists, 
 remain." 
 
 The main difference between Mr. Clay's resolutions 
 and the bills of the Territorial Committee adopted by 
 him as Chairman of the Select Committee consisted in 
 the fact that his resolutions declared, "Whereas slavery 
 does not exist by law, and is not likely," etc., whilst 
 the Territorial Bills, as originally drawn up by Judge 
 Douglas, utterly ignored the subject of African slavery. 
 Mr. Clay also opposed the mention of it in the bills, as 
 he foresaw it would produce a world of angry feeling 
 and discussion ; but he was overruled in the Committee, 
 and the forbidden subject was brought in.^ 
 
 On the 16th, Mr. Davis, of Mississippi, proposed to 
 alter his amendment of the day previous, by restoring 
 the section to its original state, and after the word 
 'slavery,' to add the following: 
 
 ^^ Provided, That nothing contained in this section 
 shall be so construed as to prevent the Territorial Legis- 
 lature from passing such police or other laws, or provid- 
 ing such remedies, as may protect the owners of African 
 slaves in said Territory, or who may remove to said Ter- 
 ritory, in the enjoyment of such rights as they may 
 possess under the Constitution and laws of the United 
 States. "=^ 
 
 The discussion of this section and the amendments 
 thereto embrace pretty much the whole subject of dis- 
 
 > See App. to Cong. Globe, Vol. 22, p. 612. 
 ' Cong. Globle, Vol. 21, p. 1019. 
 
326 The True History of 
 
 pute. Mr. Foote's views as to non-intervention were 
 very clear : 
 
 "For my part, Mr. President, I feel no particular de- 
 sire that any restrictions whatever should be imposed by 
 us upon the Territorial Governments in regard to legis- 
 lating on the subject of slavery. . . . The citizens 
 of all the States have a right to remove within the 
 limits of these Territories with any property which they 
 possess, and which is recognized by the Constitution of 
 the Union, either generally or specially, and to demand 
 recognition and protection of it as such from the Ter- 
 ritorial Government, so soon as it shall have been estab- 
 lished. ..." 
 
 He also declared : "That if we once allow Congress to 
 legislate on the subject of slavery at all, the whole sys- 
 tem of African slavery, as it now exists in the South, 
 will be speedily overwhelmed by that tide of abolition 
 which the sagacious statesmen of the South have been 
 constantly struggling to repel. "^ 
 
 On May 21st, Mr Clay proceeded to further analyze 
 the President's plan in a manner that called forth severe 
 criticism from a portion of the Whig party. 
 
 "Mr. Clay. . . . Let us look at the condition of 
 these Territories : 
 
 "Mr. President, with regard to Utah, there is no Gov- 
 ernment whatever, unless it is such as necessity has 
 prompted the Mormons to institute ; and when you 
 come to New Mexico, what Government have you? A 
 Military Government by a Lieutenant-Colonel of the 
 army ! A Lieutenant-Colonel — a mere subordinate of the 
 army of the United States — holds the Government power 
 there, in a time of profound peace ! Stand up. Whig, 
 who can — stand up, Democrat, who can — and defend the 
 establishment of a military Government in this free and 
 glorious Republic, in a time of profound peace ! Sir, 
 we had doubts about the authority of the late President 
 
 1 App. Cong. Globe, Vol. 22, p. 581. 
 
The Missouri Compromise and its Repeal. 327 
 
 to do this in time of war, and it was cast as a reproach 
 against him. But here, in a time of profound peace, it 
 is proposed by the highest authority, that this Govern- 
 ment, that this military Government — and by what au- 
 thority it has continued since peace ensued, I know not 
 — should be continued indefinitely, till New Mexico is 
 prepared to come as a State into the Union. And when 
 will that be? 
 
 "Whilst the President's plan is confined to a single 
 measure, leaving the Governments of Utah and New 
 Mexico unprovided for, and the boundary between Texas 
 and New Mexico unsettled, another, and one of the 
 most irritating questions, is left by him, A\T.thout any 
 recommendation or any provision, to harass and exas- 
 perate the country. 
 
 "He fails to recommend any plan for the settlement 
 of the important and vexatious subject of fugitive slaves. 
 He proposes no plan of settlement of the agitating ques- 
 tions which arise out of this subject. I will repeat, let 
 him, who can, stand up here and tell the country, and 
 satisfy his own conscience — when the whole country is 
 calling out for peace, peace, peace ; when it is imploring 
 its rulers above and its rulers below to bring once more 
 to this agitated and distracted people some broad and 
 comprehensive scheme of healing, and to settle all these 
 questions which agitate this afflicted people — let any 
 man who can, not in the public press, but in the Senate 
 of the United States, stand up and show that the plan 
 which is proposed by the executive authority is such a 
 one as is demanded by the necessities of the case and the 
 condition of the country. I should be glad to hear that 
 man. Aye, Mr. • President, I wish I had the mental 
 power commensurate with my fervent wishes for the ad- 
 justment of these unhappy questions — commensurate to 
 urge upon you and upon the country forbearance, con- 
 ciliation, the surrender of extreme opinions, the avoid- 
 ance of attempting impossibilities."' 
 
 1 App. to Cong. Globe, Vol. 22, pp. 614-616. 
 
328 The True History of 
 
 Mr. Clay here speaks, as he often did, of the acclama- 
 tions with which the passage of the act for the admission 
 of Missouri were received. 
 
 The Missouri compromise line was suggested by Mr. 
 Mason, of Virginia, as a possible settlement of all diffi- 
 culty. 
 
 "Mr. Cass : . . . The Missouri Compromise line 
 said nothing on the subject of slavery south of 36° 30'. 
 It left it to the people to introduce or exclude it there, 
 while it prohibited its existence north of that line. 
 This bill leaves the whole territory, north and south, pre- 
 cisely as the Missouri Compromise line left the country 
 to the South. That was non-action by Congress south 
 of that line, but action north ; while this is non-action 
 both north and south, and gives to the people the right 
 to settle the question for themselves. 
 
 "The Missouri Compromise line was a political line 
 dividing something, while this would divide nothing at 
 all. These bills create territorial governments without 
 touching the question of slavery. Is the honorable 
 Senator from Virginia willing it should not be touched? 
 If he is, he has only to vote for them, and his object is 
 accomplished. But this is no compromise line ; it is 
 non-intervention fairly carried out."^ 
 
 The pending question was on the following amend- 
 ment, offered by the Senator from Ohio (Mr. Chase) to 
 the amendment of the Senator from Mississippi (Mr. 
 Davis) : 
 
 "■ Provided further , That nothing herein contained shall 
 be construed as authorizing or permitting the introduc- 
 tion of slavery or the holding of persons as property 
 within said Territory. . . ."^ 
 
 "Mr. Douglas: I wish to say one word before this 
 part of the bill is voted upon. I must confess that I 
 rather regretted that a clause had been introduced into 
 
 1 App. to Cong. Globe, Vol. 22, p. 654. 
 =• Cong. Globe, Vol. 21, p. 1113. 
 
The Missouri Compromise and its Repeal. 329 
 
 this bill providing that the territorial governments 
 should not legislate in respect to African slavery. The 
 position that I have ever taken ha°s been that this, and 
 all other questions relating to the domestic affairs and 
 domestic policy of the Territories, ought to be left to 
 the decision of the people themselves, and that we ought 
 to be content with whatever way they may decide the 
 question, because they have a much deeper interest in 
 these matters than we have, and know much better 
 what institutions suit them than we, who have never 
 been there, can decide for them. I would therefore 
 have much preferred that that portion of the bill should 
 have remained as it was reported from the Committee 
 on Territories, with no provision on the subject of slav- 
 ery the one way or the other ; and I do hope yet that 
 that clause in the bill will be stricken out. I am satis- 
 fied, sir, that it gives no strength to the bill. I am sat- 
 isfied, even if it did give strength to it, that it ought not 
 to be there, because it is a violation of principle — a vio- 
 lation of that principle upon which we have all rested 
 our defense of the course we have taken on this question. 
 I do not see how those of us who have taken the position 
 which we have taken (that of non-interference) , and 
 have argued in favor of the right of the people to legis- 
 late for themselves on this question, can support such a 
 provision without abandoning all the arguments which 
 we urged in the presidential campaign in the year 1848, 
 and the principles set forth by the honorable Senator 
 from Michigan in that letter which is known as the 
 'Nicholson letter.' We are required to abandon that 
 platform ; we are required to abandon those principles, 
 and to stultify ourselves and to adopt the opposite doc- 
 trine — and for what? In order to say that the people of 
 the Territories shall not have such institutions as they 
 shall deem adapted to their condition and their wants. 
 I do not see, sir, how such a provision as that can be ac- 
 ceptable either to the people of the North or the South. 
 Besides, it settles nothing ; it leaves it a matter of doubt 
 
330 The True History of 
 
 and uncertainty what is to be the condition of things 
 under the bill ; and whatever shall be ascertained to be 
 the condition in respect to slavery, it may turn out that, 
 while the law is held to be one way, the people of the 
 Territory are unanimous the other way. 
 
 "And, sir, is an institution to be fixed upon a people 
 in opposition to their unanimous opinion? Or are the 
 people, by our action here, to be deprived of a law which 
 they unanimously desire, and yet have no power to 
 remedy the evil? . . ."^ 
 
 (In view of these expressions of opinion by Judge 
 Douglas, in which Mr, Clay fully concurred, it is diffi- 
 cult to conceive how he could, in 1854, have refused to 
 accept the repeal of the Missouri Compromise, once he 
 understood its purjoose and meaning, which was purely 
 to carry out this very principle of non-intervention for 
 which he was here contending.) 
 
 "Mr. Davis, of Mississippi: 
 
 "A word now to the Senator from Illinois, Mr. 
 Douglas. It is to his argument that I address myself. 
 The difference between that Senator and myself consists 
 in who are a people. The Senator says that the in- 
 habitants of a Territory have a right to decide what 
 their institutions shall be. When? By what authority? 
 How many of them? Does the Senator tell me, as he 
 said once before, from the authority of God? Then one 
 man goes into a Territory and establishes the funda- 
 mental law for all time to come. It would then be un- 
 questionably the unanimous opinion of what that law 
 should be ; and are all the citizens of the United States, 
 joint owners of that Territory, to be excluded because 
 one man chooses to exclude all others who might come 
 there? That is the doctrine carried out to its fullest ex- 
 tent. I claim that a people, having sovereignty over a 
 Territory, have power to decide what their institutions 
 shall be. That is the Democratic doctrine, as I have 
 
 ^ Cong. Globe, Vol. 21, p. 1114. 
 
The Missouri Compromise and its Repeal. 331 
 
 always understood it, and, under our Constitution, the 
 inhabitants of the Territories acquire that right when- 
 ever the United States surrenders the sovereignty to 
 them by consenting that they shall become States of the 
 Union, and they have no such right before. The differ- 
 ence, then, between the Senator from Illinois and myself 
 is the point at which the people do possess and may 
 assert this right. It is not the inhabitants of the Ter- 
 ritory, but the people as a political body, the people or- 
 ganized, who have the right ; and, on becoming a State, 
 by the authority of the United States, exercising sover- 
 eignty over the Territory, they may establish a funda- 
 mental law for all time to come. 
 
 "Then again the Senator states what, during the last 
 Presidential canvass, was his position in relation to the 
 doctrine of non-intervention. I am sorry to hear him 
 state it as he has. If non-intervention means that the 
 Government shall refuse protection to property, then, 
 sir, upon what basis rests the right of taxation? 
 Whence arises the claim to personal service of citizens? 
 There must be mutual obligation — support from one, 
 protection from the other. Whatever section has its 
 property excluded from this protection by the Govern- 
 ment has a right, from that day forth, to withhold all 
 further support. What claim, sir, has the Government 
 to the assistance and support of the citizens if it refuses 
 them protection? And what are all the great principles 
 of our Constitution worth if they are transferred to a 
 Government without power to use them?" 
 
 "Mr. Douglas : The Senator from Mississippi puts a 
 question to me as to what number of people there must 
 be in a Territory before this right to govern themselves 
 accrues. Without determining the precise number, I 
 will assume that the right ought to accrue to the people at 
 the moment they have enough to constitute a government ; 
 and, sir, the bill assumes that there are people enough 
 there to require a government and enough to authorize 
 the people to govern themselves. If, sir, there are enough 
 
332 The True History of 
 
 to require a government, and to authorizeyou to allow them 
 to govern themselves, there are enough to govern them- 
 selves upon the subject of negroes as well as concerning 
 other species of property and other descriptions of institu- 
 tions. Your bill concedes that government is necessary. 
 Your bill concedes that a representative government is 
 necessary, a government founded upon principles of popu- 
 lar sovereignty, and the right of the people to enact their 
 own laws ; and for this reason you give them a legislature 
 constituted of two branches, like the Legislatures of the 
 different States and Territories of the Union ; you con- 
 fer upon them the right to legislate upon all rightful 
 subjects of legislation, except negroes. Why except 
 negroes? Why except African slavery? If the inhabi- 
 tants are competent to govern themselves upon all other 
 subjects, and in reference to all other descriptions of 
 property, if they are competent to regulate the laws in 
 reference to master and servant, and parent and child, 
 and commercial laws affecting the rights and property 
 of citizens, they are competent also to enact laws to 
 govern themselves in regard to slavery and negroes. 
 Why, when you concede the fact that they are entitled 
 to any government at all, you concede the points that 
 are contended for here. 
 
 "But the Senator from Mississippi says that he is 
 contending for a principle that requires Congress to pro- 
 tect property, but that I am contending against it. Not 
 at all, sir ; I desire to give them such a government as 
 will enable them to protect property of every kind and 
 description. I wish to make no exception. He desires 
 to make an exception. 
 
 "Mr. Davis : Not at all. 
 
 "Mr. Douglas: The government contended for au- 
 thorizes them to protect property in horses, in cattle, in 
 merchandise, and in property of every kind and de- 
 scription, real and personal ; but the Senator from Mis- 
 sissippi says that you must exclude African slavery. 
 
 "Mr. Davis : No, sir ; he said no such thing. 
 
The Missouri Compromise and its Repeal. 333 
 
 "Mr. Douglas : He excepted — 
 
 "Mr. Davis, of Mississippi: With the Senator's per- 
 mission, I will explain. He is attacking the bill, but 
 I had nothing to do with the bill, except to try and 
 better it. 
 
 "Mr. Douglas : I begin to discover my error. I am 
 holding the Senator responsible for the work of the Com- 
 mittee of Thirteen. 
 
 "Mr. Davis (in his seat) : It was a very great error. 
 
 "Mr. Douglas : I was making war upon him by mis- 
 take. I must pay my respects to the Committee of 
 Thirteen. They make the distinction that the people of 
 the Territory are to govern themselves in respect to the 
 right of all kinds of property but African slaves. I 
 want to know why this exception? Upon what princi- 
 ple is it made? What is the necessity for it? Is it not 
 as important as any other right in property? Why, 
 then, should it be excepted and reserved? And, sir, if 
 you reserve it, to whom do you reserve it? To this 
 Congress? No, sir ; you deny it to the people, and you 
 deny it to the Government here. 
 
 "Now, Mr. President, I have a word to say to the 
 honorable Senator from Mississippi (Mr. Davis) . He 
 insists that I am not in favor of protecting property, 
 and that his amendment is offered for the purpose of 
 protecting property under the Constitution. Now, sir, 
 I ask you what authority he has for assuming that? Do 
 I not desire to protect property because I wish to allow 
 these people to pass such laws as they deem proper re- 
 specting their rights in property without any exception? 
 He might just as well say that I am opposed to protect- 
 ing property in merchandise, in steamboats, in cattle, in 
 real estate, as to say that I am opposed to protecting 
 property of any other description ; for I desire to put 
 them all on an equality, and allow the people to make 
 their own laws in respect to the whole of them. But 
 the difference is this : he desires an amendment which 
 he thinks w^ill recognize the institution of slavery in the 
 
334 The True History of 
 
 Territories as now existing in this country. I do not 
 believe it exists there now by law. I believe it is pro- ; 
 
 hibited there by law at this time, and the effect, if not I 
 
 the object, of his amendment, would be to introduce 
 slavery by law into a country from which I think a large 
 majority of this Senate are of opinion it is now ex- 
 cluded, and he calls upon us to vote to introduce it there. 
 The Senator from Kentucky, who brought forward this 
 compromise, tells us that he can never give a vote by 
 which he will introduce slavery where it does not exist. 
 Other Senators have declared the same thing, to an ex- 
 tent which authorizes us to assume that a majority of I 
 this Senate will never extend slavery by law into terri- 
 tory now free. What, then, must be the effect of the 
 adoption of the provision offered by the Senator from 
 Mississippi? It would be the insertion of a provision 
 that would infallibly defeat the bill, deprive the people 
 of the Territories of government, leave them in a state 
 of anarchy, and keep up excitement and agitation in this 
 country. I do not say, nor would I intimate, that such 
 is the object of the Senator from Mississippi. I know 
 that he has another and a different object, an object 
 which he avows. That object is to extend the institu- 
 tion of slavery to this Territory, or, rather, as he be- 
 lieves it to be already carried there by law, to continue 
 its legal existence in the Territory. But, sir, I do not 
 hold the doctrine that to exclude any species of property 
 by law from any Territory is a violation of any right to 
 property. Do you not exclude banks from most of the 
 Territories? Do you not exclude whisky from being in- 
 troduced into large portions of the territory of the 
 United States? Do you not exclude gambling-tables, 
 which are properly recognized as such in the States 
 where they are tolerated? I am opposed to any provis- 
 ion in this bill prohibiting the people of the Territory 
 from legislating in respect to African slavery. I would 
 desire to see it stricken out ; and I repeat that I can not 
 conceive how the Senator from Michigan (Mr. Cass) , 
 
The Missouri Compromise and its Repeal. 335 
 
 and those who think with him and acted with him dur- 
 ing the last campaign, can go for a provision of this kind 
 without abandoning the position which thej assumed ; 
 and upon that point I have the Senator from Mississippi 
 with me. I recollect that early in the session he made 
 a speech here in which he declared that he put that 
 construction on the letter from the Senator from Mich- 
 igan (Mr. Cass) during the campaign, and that it made 
 him a little lukewarm in his support of that gentleman. 
 
 "I do not believe, sir, that the Senate can agree upon 
 any principle by which a bill can pass giving govern- 
 ments to the Territories in which the word 'slavery' is 
 mentioned. If you prohibit, if you establish, if you 
 recognize, if you control, if you touch the question of 
 slavery, your bill can not, in my opinion, pass this body. 
 But the bill that you can pass is one that is open upon 
 these questions, that says nothing upon the subject, but 
 leaves the people to do as they please, and to shape their 
 institutions according to what they may conceive to be 
 their interests, both for the present and the future." 
 
 "Mr. Davis, of Mississippi: I have no right, Mr. 
 President, to ask the Senator from Illinois to read my 
 speeches. They are not worthy of it. I might ask him, 
 however, to read the amendment which I have lying 
 upon the table before he again makes a speech upon it. 
 If the Senator had considered my speeches worthy of 
 perusal, or had listened attentively to their delivery, he 
 would not have taken occasion to say that I had avowed 
 myself lukewarm in my support of the Senator from 
 Michigan as a candidate for the Presidency. 
 
 "Mr. Douglas : I said that in respect to this question 
 you had your doubts, and therefore were lukewarm in 
 your support of him. 
 
 "Mr. Davis: I had doubts, fears, apprehensions, 
 which reached to a conviction that the Senator was 
 wrong upon the question of the power of territorial in- 
 habitants ; yet, sir, I took him as a choice of evils. 
 (Laughter.) I say it in no terms of disrespect. The 
 
336 The True History of 
 
 Senator from Michigan knows that I thought it was a 
 wrong doctrine which he held upon this subject, but I 
 sustained him for the other doctrines which were directly 
 connected with the duties of a President ; and I gave 
 him an earnest support. My political opinions triumph- 
 ing over personal feelings, which were very near to me.^ 
 ' 'The Senator from Illinois, if he will review my course, 
 will never make that statement again. If the Senator 
 
 * Mr. Davis had married, in 1836, Gen. Taylor's daughter, Sarah Knox, 
 a graceful, fascinating, handsome and bright young girl. They had 
 loved one another for several years, but the General had opposed the 
 match. Mr. Davis was a Lieutenant in the army with poor pay, and 
 Gen. Taylor was not willing for his daughter to encounter the hardships 
 attending army life and poverty. When, however, Lieut. Davis resigned 
 his commission and purchased a plantation in Mississippi, the General, 
 then stationed at Prairie de Chien, Wisconsin, could no longer withhold 
 his consent, and wrote to his sister, Mrs. Gibson Taylor, asking that the 
 marriage take place at her home, near Louisville, Kentucky, where 
 Knox Taylor was then visiting. The young couple left for their Missis- 
 sippi home immediately after the marriage on a beautiful June morning; 
 but the young bride lived only three months, she and her husband both 
 being stricken with the dreadful fever of which she died, while he lay 
 unconscious of her death — and awakened to life only to learn of his 
 terrible loss. 
 
 It would appear that Mr. Davis had never met Gen. Taylor after his 
 marriage to his daughter until the battle of Buena Vista was fought, in 
 February, 1847. That battle, where 25,000 Mexicans, in a glittering ar- 
 ray of green and gold and white uniforms, filed down the mountain side 
 to the splendid music of Santa Anna's march, confident of victory over 
 the 5,000 Americans who awaited them in the valley. On the evening 
 of that day, whose watchword was "Victory or Death," Gen. Taylor 
 sent for Mr. Davis, who had distinguished himself by his gallantry on 
 the field, to come to his tent. Offering him his hand, he said : "You 
 must permit me, sir, to acknowledge that my daughter was a better judge 
 of men than I myself." And from that day a warm affection existed 
 between the two. 
 
 Whilst the battle of Buena Vista was at its hottest, by some strange 
 blunder the Indiana troops received an order to retreat, presumably, 
 according to official correspondence, from Brig.-Gen. Wool. This re- 
 treat, made at such an inopportune and critical moment,was misconstrued 
 and supposed to be a flight, by the whole army ; as no one conceived it 
 possible that such an order could have been given by any officer. At 
 thif? juncture, Mr. Davis, seeing disaster imminent, dashed forward 
 with his Mississippi troops and saved our army from the defeat which 
 
The Missouri Compromise and its Repeal. 337 
 
 from Illinois had read this amendment he would never 
 have fallen into the error of accusing me for what is 
 contained in the bill. If he had even listened to any of 
 my arguments in support of the amendment, he would 
 not have fallen into the mistake of supposing that it was 
 running pari paasu with the bill. He would have 
 learned, too, that I was only claiming for the Territorial 
 Legislature the power to protect property, which I con- 
 ceived to be the great duty of Government. . . . The 
 Senator from Illinois, however, announces again and 
 again that I claim for Congress the establishment or in- 
 troduction of slavery into the Territories. Now, sir, it 
 is passing strange that an amendment which merely 
 goes to prevent Congress from restricting territorial 
 legislation upon certain subjects should be considered as 
 
 would almost inevitably have overtaken it but for this gallant and 
 timely act of heroism. 
 
 The stigma of their retreat rested upon the Indianians (as false impres- 
 sions are hard to remove), even though it was officially shown, and is of 
 record, that it was made under orders. And, strange to say, after our 
 civil war began, they held Mr. Davis especially responsible for this false 
 impression. It was stated at the time that the entire regiment of 
 Indianians, raised by Gen. Lew. Wallace, in 1861, knelt and took an 
 oath to be revenged on "Jeff. Davis" for the slight he had put on the 
 Indiana troops, by saying that they " ran " at Buena Vista. Yet it is 
 also of record, that Mr. Davis, on the floor of the Senate, defended them 
 from the charge, and cited, as a proof of their bravery, the number of 
 dead left by them on that bloody field. 
 
 Col. Dix, of the regular army and brother to Gov. John A. Dix, of 
 New York, thought the Indianians were running. Seizing their battle 
 flag, he galloped with it two hundred yards ahead of his command, iu 
 the very teeth of the Mexicans, " looking like a veritable War-God, as 
 he dashed on, his long yellow hair floating in the wind, his blue eyes 
 ablaze, his cheeks aflame, shouting to the retreating troops to follow 
 him, and waving their flag over his head." 
 
 Col. Dix, and Gen. Cary H. Fry who was Major in Clay and McKee's 
 Kentucky regiment, both related to the writer the incident in Gen. 
 Taylor's tent; and it was Gen. Fry who described Col. Dix's appearance, 
 and also Mr. Davis' conduct on the battle-field ; whilst the account of 
 his marriage was given by Mrs. Ann PZdwards in the Louisville Courier 
 Journal — Mrs. Edwards being a daughter of Mrs. Gibson Taylor, and 
 cognizant of the facts. 
 22 
 
338 The True History of 
 
 a law to introduce slavery into the Territories. Time 
 and asain have I stated before the Senate that I claim 
 only our constitutional rights ; and that, if it is our con- 
 stitutional right to take slaves into the Territories, 
 Congress is bound to protect them as much as other 
 constitutional rights, and in delegating authority should 
 not prevent the Territorial Legislature from passing 
 those police laws or other remedies necessary for their 
 own peace and for the protection of this species of prop- 
 erty. Can it be said that this is a law to introduce 
 slavery into the Territories? Does not the Senator from 
 Illinois know that I have frem the beginning denied to 
 Congress the power to establish slavery? I neither con- 
 ceded that, nor the converse lately so much insisted 
 on. ... If the Constitution of the United States 
 does recognize our property ; if by the Constitution 
 and laws of the United States we have the right to go 
 into the Territories, I hold it to be the duty of this Gov- 
 ernment, if there are obstructions in the way of the 
 exercise of that constitutional right — if it be true that 
 the Mexican laws are now in force in the Territories, 
 and constitute an obstacle against its exercise, then, sir, 
 it is the bounden duty of this Congress to repeal those 
 laws, and to repeal them at once. It is not the right of 
 property in slaves that is alone afifected, but in all the 
 animals and manufactured articles prohibited from intro- 
 duction by the Mexican law. Is this prohibition to be 
 continued? No; you all will answer no. Why is it 
 then, I ask every man who has a heart above the petty 
 prejudices of his own sectional policy or interest, why is 
 it that slaves alone are excepted — that over slaves alone 
 it is pretended that the Mexican law is to reign supreme, 
 but in every other species of property it is admitted 
 that the inhibition is overriden by the great provisions 
 and principles of the Constitution of the United States?" 
 "Mr. Walker: . . . Now, let us see what this 
 amendment means, as explained by the Senator from 
 Mississippi. The clause of the bill provides that the 
 
The Missouri Compromise and its Repeal. 339 
 
 Territorial Legislature shall not legislate upon the sub- 
 ject of slavery. They can not prohibit it, neither can 
 they establish it." 
 
 "Mr. Davis, of Mississippi. (In his seat.) Nor pro- 
 tect it."' 
 
 Mr. King had declared Mr. Douglas' argument to be 
 a "Free Soil speech — the Wilmot Proviso." 
 
 "Mr. Douglas: ... I did not propose to say in 
 the bill that the Territorial Legislature should have the 
 power to legislate on the subject of slavery, or that Con- 
 gress should have power to prohibit or establish it in the 
 Territories. I proposed to strike out that prohibition of 
 the Territorial Legislature on the subject, and, that 
 being done, it would read, that territorial legislation 
 should extend to all rightful subjects of legislation 
 within their boundaries. I proposed to make it an open 
 question so that the people themselves could do with it 
 as they pleased. 
 
 "Now, sir, let me compare notes with the Senator, 
 and see who is in favor of the Wilmot Proviso and Free 
 Soil doctrine on this point. He desires a prohibition on 
 the part of Congress that the Territorial Legislatures 
 shall not legislate in respect to slavery. Why, sir, the 
 laws of Mexico prohibited slavery in those Territories 
 when we acquired them from that country, and accord- 
 ing to the law of nations, the laws of Mexico are still in 
 force. And what is it that the Senator proposed? Why, 
 it is to continue those laws in force, and to prevent the 
 people themselves from repealing them. And that is 
 the very doctrine of the Senator from Wisconsin, which 
 he wants to continue and retain in the bill. That was 
 the reason it was voted into the bill by the Committee 
 of Thirteen, the Senator from Vermont giving the cast- 
 ing vote to put it in, because it was a perpetuation of 
 the prohibition of slavery forever. Sir, I wish to strike 
 it out, because I do not wish to perpetuate any institu- 
 
 » Cong. Globe, Vol. 21, pp. 1115-16. 
 
340 The True History of 
 
 tion against the will of the people. I wish to leave 
 them free to regulate their own institutions in their own 
 way, without compelling them to establish an institu- 
 tion there, on the one hand, if they do not wish, nor 
 preventing them, on the other from establishing it, if 
 they do wish it,"^ 
 
 "Mr. Hale : . . . This question is full of embar- 
 rassments, practically. If the Constitution of the 
 United States carries slavery into the Territories, what 
 sort of slavery does it carry? Does it carry Virginia 
 slavery or Delaware slavery? Does it carry the slavery 
 of Kentucky or of some other State? Does it carry a 
 slavery which may be abolished by emancipation or does 
 it carry a slavery which can not be abolished by emanci- 
 pation unless the Legislature consent?" 
 
 "Mr. Webster: . . . Now, it is agreed on all 
 hands that it is a matter of municipal law. We know 
 that if slavery were introduced into the Territories, the 
 moment the people formed a State government they 
 could abolish it. On the other hand, if it were pro- 
 hibited, the moment they formed a State government 
 they could introduce it if they saw fit. Nevertheless, it 
 is not on that ground I proceed, though I think it is a 
 very proper ground. I conceive that the proper mode 
 of proceeding is to leave this matter to State legislation 
 after the Territories shall have become States. But my 
 ground is, standing by the declaration which I have a 
 thousand times made, that there is no reasonable human 
 probability, and that there is therefore no substantial 
 necessity, for doing any thing in organizing territorial 
 governments touching the future existence of slavery 
 therein. That is my belief. There are reasons for the 
 exclusion of slavery in these Territories which no human 
 legislation can control. Acting under that conviction, I 
 shall continue to give my vote here in pursuance of it. 
 
 1 Cong. Globe, Vol. 21, pp. 1117-1118. 
 
 
The Missouri Compromise and its Repeal. 341 
 
 Other gentlemen entertaining different opinions will, of 
 course, act as their consciences may dictate."^ 
 
 On June 5th, the vote was taken on the amendments 
 of Mr. Chase and Mr, Davis, and both were defeated. 
 Mr. Berrien then proposed to insert in place of "in re- 
 spect to" African slavery, the words "establishing or 
 prohibiting." The section will then read : 
 
 "But no law shall be passed interfering with the 
 primary disposal of the soil, nor establishtng "or pro- 
 hibiting African slavery." And this was agreed to by 
 30 to 29.2 
 
 Mr. Douglas then moved to strike out the words 
 "nor establishing nor prohibiting African slavery," but 
 his motion was voted down.' 
 
 Mr. Yulee proposed to strike out the 21st section, and 
 to insert, in lieu thereof, the following : 
 
 "And be it further enacted. That the Constitution 
 and laws of the United States are hereby extended over, 
 and declared to be in force in the said Territory of Utah, 
 so far as the same or any provision thereof may be ap- 
 plicable."* 
 
 This passed by 30 to 24, Mr. Webster voting nay. 
 
 Mr. Soule moved further to amend the bill in the fifth 
 section by inserting after "Utah," in the fifth line, the 
 following : 
 
 "And when the said Territory, or any portion of the 
 same, shall be admitted as a State, shall be received 
 into the Union with or without slavery as their Consti- 
 tution may prescribe at the time of their admission." 
 
 Also in section 22, after "New Mexico," add the same 
 words as above. ^ 
 
 Mr. Dickinson offered instead : 
 
 "And shall be admitted as a State of the Union, on 
 terms of equality in all respects with the original States, 
 and with such Constitution as it may adopt, with no 
 
 1 Cong. Globe, Vol. 21, p. 1119. '' Idem, p. 1134. 
 
 ' Idem, p. 1135. ■* Idem, p. 1145. 
 
 ^ App. to Cong. Globe, p. 902. 
 
342 The True History of 
 
 other restriction than that it shall be republican in 
 form.'" 
 
 "Mr. Underwood : I rise to express my hearty thanks 
 to the gentleman from Louisiana and the gentleman 
 from New York, Mr, Dickinson, who were affording in 
 this movement the only ray of hope that has been shed 
 upon my mind in regard to a compromise of the diffi- 
 culties of the country. Sir, this Constitution of ours 
 was based upon the idea originally that local matters 
 should be left to the local jurisdiction of the States, and 
 all the difficulties that we have had from the date of the 
 Missouri Compromise down to the present day have 
 grown out of the violation of that principle. And here, 
 sir, for the first time in the last thirty years, is an 
 amendment made upon this floor, by which it appears 
 that we are to go back to the days of the foundation of 
 the Government. Sir, what is the foundation of all our 
 difficulties? It is an attempt on the part of members of 
 Congress to regulate local matters in local jurisdictions. 
 That was the foundation of the Missouri difficulty. 
 This principle offered by the gentleman from Louisiana, 
 if it had been applied to the Missouri case, would have 
 healed the difficulty at that time, and w^e would never 
 have had it to settle. The foundation of that difficulty 
 was an effort on the part of Congress to refuse to the 
 people of a local jurisdiction the right to shape their 
 local government to suit themselves. That was the 
 foundation of it, and it has been the foundation of all 
 the difficulties we have had from the beginning. Now, 
 sir, we can have no difficulty hereafter ; we never shall 
 have any difficulties upon this point if the Congress of 
 the United States will announce to the people of the 
 United States that this Government was not formed, was 
 not designed in its origin, to take jurisdiction and cog- 
 nizance of local matters, but that they are to be left to 
 the local jurisdictions ; that the State governments 
 
 1 App. to Cong. Globe, p. 903. 
 
The Missouri Compromise and its Repeal. 343 
 
 which are to be carved out are to settle these things for 
 themselves, and that this National Government of ours 
 was designed to fulfill the powers vested by the Consti- 
 tution of the United States in Congress for national and 
 general j^urposes. 
 
 "Sir, I return my hearty thanks to the gentleman 
 from New York, because he acted with me more than 
 two years ago upon this very question, and he was the 
 only one who did act with me, in an effort to leave 
 these local matters to the local jurisdictions, and to 
 confine ourselves to the general powers of the Constitu- 
 tion." 
 
 Mr. Baldwin proposed to strike out "all after the 
 word 'State,' " and insert the following : 
 
 "At the proper time to be judged of by Congress, the 
 people of said Territory shall be admitted to the enjoy- 
 ment of all the rights of citizens of the United States, 
 according to the principles of the Constitution."^ 
 
 Mr. Soule's amendment passed on the 17tli of June, 
 over those of Messrs. Baldwin and Dickinson, by 38 to 
 12 — Mr. Webster voting for it, and saying : 
 
 "Sir, my object is peace. My object is reconciliation. 
 My purpose is, not to make up a case for the North, or 
 to make up a case for the South. My object is not to 
 continue useless and irritating controversies. I am 
 against agitators. North and South. I am against local 
 ideas. North and South, and against all narrow and 
 local contests. I am an American, and I know no local- 
 ity in America ; that is my country. My heart, my 
 sentiments, my judgment demand of me that I shall 
 pursue such a course as shall promote the good and the 
 harmony and the union of the whole country. This I 
 shall do, God willing, to the end of the chapter." 
 
 The honorable Senator resumed his seat amidst gen- 
 eral applause from the gallery.^ 
 
 1 App. Cong. Globe, Vol. 22, p. 906. 
 ' Cong. Globe, Vol. 21, p. 1239. 
 
344 The True History of 
 
 June 19th, Mr. Davis' amendment was rejected by a 
 vote of 30 to 18.' 
 
 On the same day, Mr. Clay said : 
 
 "Mr. President, I must own that a hundred times, 
 almost, during the progress of this bill, have I been 
 quite ready to yield, and to say, for one, I withdrew 
 from all further efforts for the passage of this bill. I 
 never have seen a measure so much opposed — so much 
 attempted to be thwarted. We exhibit a spectacle of see- 
 saw^ putting the least weight on one side, while there is 
 an obstruction of the balance on the opposite side. 
 Whilst all parties are, or ought to be, desirous of har- 
 monizing the country, and of restoring once more tran- 
 quility, difficulties almost insuperable, upon points of 
 abstraction, upon points of no earthly practical conse- 
 quence, start up from time to time, to discourage the 
 stoutest heart in any effort to accommodate all these 
 difficulties. . . ."^ 
 
 But on the morning of the 20th, he was very much 
 comforted by being able to present to the Senate resolu- 
 tions of indorsement — passed unanimously — by tlie Con- 
 stitutional Convention of Kentucky assembled in Frank- 
 fort to proclaim the new Constitution, and in most 
 cordial terms, of "the patriotic endeavor" of the Com- 
 mittee of Thirteen to reconcile the existing differences, 
 and pledging Kentucky to an "undivided suppor!} in the 
 attainment of an object so necessary to the welfare of 
 our common country." As there were more Democrats 
 than Whigs in the Convention, the members acted in the 
 name of both these great parties. 
 
 June 26th, by way of expediting business, Mr. Clay 
 proposed that the Senate meet at 11 o'clock instead of 
 12, and the motion was agreed to. 
 
 The discussions and motions for amendments mean- 
 time went on and on ; and it must be confessed that 
 some of these discussions recall very forcibly that great 
 
 1 App. to Cong. Globe, p. 921. ^ Idem, p. 929. 
 
The Missouri Compromise and its Repeal. 345 
 
 dispute •which convulsed the learned world in the days 
 of St. Thomas Aquinas, and was carried on for many 
 months with great excitement of feeling and many differ- 
 ent opinions, as to "how many angels could dance on the 
 point of a needle ! ' ' 
 
 July 3d, Mr. Bell, of Tennessee, made an exceedingly 
 able speech, in which he warmly defended Gen. Taylor's 
 course — alluding to Mr. Clay's arraignment of his policy, 
 and claiming, "that Gen. Taylor had been influenced in 
 his course upon this subject by the highest and noblest 
 motives of duty and patriotism. 
 
 "But the Senator from Kentucky will remember that 
 when he made that speech on the 21st of May, holding 
 up in vivid contrast the plan of the President with that 
 of the Committee, he accompanied his denunciations 
 with the utmost degree of scorn of manner — not to say 
 contempt ; and did he not then tempt the President to 
 the very brink of propriety? If he did not take the 
 leap — if he was not thrown off his guard, it is proof of 
 the noblest forbearance. Presidents, like other men, are 
 made of flesh and blood, and partake of all the infirmi- 
 ties of humanity. It would be strange, therefore, if, 
 after such a speech, the President had not shown some 
 irritation and resentment. And I ask the Senator from 
 Kentucky, judging from his knowledge of human nature 
 and his own temper, were it his case, how far would 
 such feelings be likely to be treasured up, and find utter- 
 ance from him, even against the dictates of policy and 
 propriety? . . . The distinguished Senator from 
 Michigan (Mr. Cass) the other day appropriated fully 
 one-half of his speech to a searching analysis of the 
 plan of the President ; assailing it in a studied and se- 
 vere critique ; attacking it with all the weapons to be 
 found in the armory of rhetoric, ridicule, sarcasm, exag- 
 geration, perversion, and denunciation." ^ 
 
 1 App. to Cong. Globe, Vol. 22, pp. 1091-1093. 
 
346 The True History of 
 
 C( 
 
 . Where do you place the President in his 
 guidance of the vessel of State? Struggling between 
 Scylla and Charybdis, with Hell Gate just in front, or 
 rear, as you may choose to place it. All the metaphors, 
 similies and other figures of speech drawn down from 
 the perils of ocean navigators, would be inadequate to 
 portray the obstructions thrown in the way of the Presi- 
 dent, in his arduous navigation of the ship of State at 
 the present moment."' 
 
 Just four days after Mr. Bell's speech, the President 
 died — of a sudden illness — his last words being: "I 
 have always done my duty ; I am ready to die ; my only 
 regret is for the friends I leave behind me,"^ 
 
 Millard Filmore took the oath of office — the customary 
 eulogies were pronounced — the old hero was laid to rest 
 with all the pomp and pride of military and civic honors 
 befitting the occasion of the burial of a President 
 from the White House. His war-horse, Old Whitey, 
 fully caparisoned and led by a groom, followed his 
 master to his grave — the last service he could render 
 him. All animosities seemed buried in that grave, and 
 only kindly memories of his good qualities, and feelings 
 of sorrow for his brave heart so suddenly stilled, re- 
 mained. 
 
 Humphrey Marshall, of Kentucky, did no more than 
 justice to the brave old soldier when he said that he was 
 — "Great, without pride ; cautious, without fear ; brave, 
 without rashness ; stern, without harshness ; modest, 
 without bashfulness ; sagacious, without cunning ; apt, 
 without flippancy ; intelligent, without the pedantry of 
 learning ; benevolent, without ostentation ; sincere and 
 honest as the sun, the 'noble old Roman' has laid down 
 his harness — his task is done. He has fallen as falls the 
 summer tree in the bloom of its honor, before the blight 
 of autumn has seared a leaf that adorns it. . ." 
 
 ^ App. to Cong. Globe, Vol. 22, p. 1099. 
 » Cong. Globe, Vol. 21, p. 1365. 
 
The Missouri Com^promise and its Repeal. 347 
 
 ^ On the banks of the beautiful Ohio, in his native 
 
 P State, and at his boyhood's home, lie the honored re- 
 
 mains of Kentucky's soldier-President, the hero of 
 Buena Vista, 
 
 "And glory guards with solemn round 
 The bivouac of the dead." 
 
 — Theodore O'Hara. 
 
348 The True History of 
 
 CHAPTER XIV. 
 
 1850 — Mr. Clay on Abolition, Disunion, Secession and Non-intervention 
 — California admitted — Utah and New Mexico given Territorial 
 Governments — Texas Boundary Bill passed — Also Fugitive Slave 
 Law — Abolition of Slave Trade in District of Columbia — Seward 
 proposes amendment — Defeated — Clay, Benton, Winthrop, Douglas 
 and others. 
 
 With the death of President Taylor, and the accession 
 of Millard Filmore to the Presidency, the hostility of the 
 Administration to Mr. Clay was withdrawn — but that 
 fact did not reconcile the ulras of either section to the 
 bills of the Committee of Thirteen as one measure. 
 
 On the 22d of July, Mr. Clay again spoke in their de- 
 fense, and made one of his most eloquent pleas for 
 Union and peace. Extracts : 
 
 "Mr. Clay: . . . It is said, Mr. President, that 
 this 'omnibus,' as it is called, contains too much. I 
 thank, from the bottom of my heart, the enemy ^ of the 
 bill who gave it that denomination. The omnibus is 
 the vehicle of the people, of the mass of the people. 
 And this bill deserves the name for another reason ; that, 
 with the exception of the two bills which are to follow, 
 it contains all that is necessary to give peace and quiet 
 to the country. It is said sometimes, however, that this 
 omnibus is too heavily weighted, and that it contains 
 incongruous matter. . . . It is not that the bill has 
 too much in it ; it has too little according to the wishes 
 of its opponents ; and I am very sorry that our omnibus 
 can not contain Mr. Wilmot, whose weight would break 
 it down, I am afraid, if he were put there. (Laughter.) 
 . No, sir, it is not the variety of the matter — it 
 is not the incongruity, the incompatibility of the 
 measures and the bill, but it is because the bill does 
 
 ^ President Taylor. 
 
The Missouri Compromise and its Repeal. 349 
 
 not contain enough to satisfy those who want the 
 'Wilmot,' as it has been properly called, placed in the 
 omnibus. 
 
 "Why, Mr. President, how stands the fact? There is 
 not an Abolitionist in the United States, that I know 
 of — there may be some — there is not an Abolition press, 
 if you begin with the Abolition press located in Wash- 
 ington, and embrace all others, that is not opposed to 
 this bill — not one of them. There is not one Abolition- 
 ist in this Senate Chamber, or out of it, any-where, that 
 is not opposed to the adoption of this comjoromise plan. 
 And why are they opposed to it? They see their doom 
 as certain as there is a God in Heaven who sends his 
 providential dispensations to calm the threatening storm 
 and to tranquilize agitated men. As certain as that God 
 exists in Heaven, your business (turning toward Mr. 
 Hale), your vocation is gone. 
 
 "I believe from the bottom of my soul, that the meas- 
 ure is the re-union of this Union, ... I believe it 
 is the dove of peace, which, taking its aerial flight from 
 the dome of the Capitol, carries the tidings of assured 
 peace and restored harmony to all the remotest extremi- 
 ties of this distracted land. I believe that it will be at- 
 tended with all these beneficent effects. And now let us 
 discard all resentment, all passions, all petty jealousies, 
 all personal desires, all love of place, all hoaning after 
 the gilded crumbs which fall from the table of power. 
 Let us forget popular fears, from whatever quarter they 
 may spring. Let us go to the limpid fountain of un- 
 adulterated patriotism, and, performing a solemn lustra- 
 tion, return divested of all selfish, sinister, and sordid 
 impurities, and think alone of our God, our country, 
 our consciences, and our glorious Union ; that Union 
 without which we shall be torn into hostile fragments, 
 and sooner or later become the victims of military des- 
 potism, or foreign domination. 
 
 "Mr. President, what is an individual man? An 
 atom, almost invisible without a magnifying glass — a 
 
350 The True History of 
 
 mere speck upon the surface of the immense universe — 
 not a second in time, compared to immeasurable, never- 
 beginning and never-ending eternity ; a drop of water in 
 the great deep, which evaporates and is borne off by the 
 winds ; a grain of sand, which is soon gathered to the 
 dust from which it sprung. Shall a being so small, 
 so petty, so fleeting, so evanescent, oppose itself to the 
 onward march of a great nation, to subsist for ages and 
 ages to come — oppose itself to that long line of posterity 
 which, issuing from our loins, will endure during the 
 existence of the world? Forbid it, God ! Let us look 
 at our country and our cause ; elevate ourselves to the 
 dignity of pure and disinterested patriots, wise and en- 
 lightened statesmen, and save our country from all im- 
 pending dangers. What if, in the march of this nation 
 to greatness and power, we should be buried beneath 
 the wheels that propel it onward? What are we — what 
 is any man worth who is not ready and willing to sacri- 
 fice himself for the benefit of his country when it is 
 necessary? 
 
 "Now, Mr. President, allow me to make a short ap- 
 peal to some Senators — to the whole of the Senate. 
 Here is my friend from Virginia (Mr. Mason) , of whom 
 I have never been without hopes. I have thought of the 
 Revolutionary blood of George Mason which flows in 
 his veins — of the blood of his own father — of his own 
 accomplished father^my cherished friend for many 
 years. Can he, knowing, as I think he must know, the 
 wishes of the people of his own State ; can he, with the 
 knowledge he possesses of the public sentiment there, 
 and of the high obligation cast upon him by his noble 
 ancestry, can he hazard Virginia's great and most glo- 
 rious work — that work, at least, which she, perhaps 
 more than any other State, contributed her moral and 
 political power to erect? Can he put at hazard this 
 noble Union, with all its beneficial effects and conse- 
 quences, in the pursuit of abstractions and metaphysical 
 theories — objects unattainable, or worthless, if attained 
 
The Missouri Compromise and its Repeal. 351 
 
 — while the honor of our own common native State, 
 which I reverence and respect with as much devotion as 
 he does, while the honor of that State and the honor of 
 the South are preserved unimpaired by this measure? 
 
 "I appeal, sir, to the Senators from Rhode Island and 
 from Delaware ; my little friends which have stood up by 
 me, and by which I have stood, in all the vicissitudes of my 
 political life ; two glorious little patriotic States, which, 
 if there is to be a breaking up of the waters of this 
 Union, will be swallowed up in the common deluge, and 
 left without support. Will they hazard that Union, 
 which is their strength, their power, and their great- 
 ness? 
 
 "Let such an event as I have alluded to occur, and 
 where will be the sovereign power of Delaware and 
 Rhode Island? If this Union shall become separated, 
 new unions, new confederacies will arise. And, with 
 respect to this — if there be any — I hope there is no one 
 in the Senate, before whose imagination is flitting the 
 idea of a great Southern Confederacy to take possession 
 of the Balize and the mouth of the Mississippi — I say in 
 in my place, never ! Never will we who occupy the 
 broad waters of the Mississippi and its upper tribu- 
 taries consent that any foreign flag shall float at the 
 Balize or upon the turrets of the Crescent City — Never ! 
 Never ! I call upon all the South. Sir, we have had 
 hard words, bitter words, bitter thoughts, unpleasant 
 feelings toward each other in the progress of this great 
 measure. Let us forget them. Let us sacrifice these 
 feelings. Let us go to the altar of our country and 
 swear, as the oath was taken of old, that we will stand 
 by her ; we will support her ; that we will uphold her 
 Constitution ; that we will preserve her Union, and that 
 we will pass this great, comprehensive, and healing sys- 
 tem of measures, which will hush all the jarring ele- 
 ments and bring peace and tranquility to our homes. 
 . The measure may be defeated. ... It 
 may be defeated. It is possible that, for the chastise- 
 
352 The True History of 
 
 ment of our sins or transgressions, the rod of Providence 
 may still be applied to us, may still be suspended over 
 us. But if defeated, it will be a triumph of ultraism and 
 impracticabilit}^ — a triumph of a most extraordinary con- 
 junction of extremes ; a victory won by Abolitionism ; 
 a victory achieved by Free Soilism ; the victory of dis- 
 cord and agitation over peace and tranquility ; and I 
 pray to Almighty God that it may not, in consequence 
 of the inauspicious result, lead to the most unhappy 
 and disastrous consequences to our beloved country." 
 (Applause.) 
 
 "Mr. Barnwell: It is not my intention to reply to 
 the argument of the Senator from Kentucky, but there 
 were expressions used by him not a little disrespectful 
 to a friend whom I hold very dear, and to the State 
 which I in part represent, which seem to me to require 
 some notice. 
 
 "'As to the State of South Carolina, I do not, as I 
 need not, defend her by words.' 
 
 "Mr. Clay: Mr. President, I said nothing with re- 
 spect to the character of Mr. Rhett, for I might as well 
 name him. I know him personally, and have some re- 
 spect for him. But, if he pronounced the sentiment at- 
 tributed to him of raising the standard of disunion and 
 of resistance to the common Government, whatever he 
 has been, if he follows up that declaration by correspond- 
 ing overt acts, he will be a traitor, and I hope he will 
 meet the fate of a traitor. (Great applause in the gal- 
 leries, with difficulty suppressed by the Chair.) 
 
 "The President : The Chair will be under the neces- 
 sity of ordering the gallery to be cleared if there is 
 again the slightest interruption. He has once already 
 given warning that he is under the necessity of keeping 
 order. The Senate Chamber is not a theater. 
 
 Mr. Clay resumed: "Mr. President, I have heard 
 with pain and regret a confirmation of the remark I 
 made, that the sentiment of disunion is becoming 
 familiar, I hope it is confined to South Carolina. I 
 
The Missouri Compromise and its Repeal. 353 
 
 do not regard as my duty what the honorable Senator 
 seems to regard as his. If Kentucky to-morrow unfurls 
 the banner of resistance unjustly, I will never fight un- 
 der that banner. I owe a paramount allegiance to the 
 whole Union, a subordinate one to my own State. 
 When my State is right — when it has a cause for re- 
 sistance — when tyranny, and wrong, and oppression in- 
 sufferable arise, I will then share her fortunes ; but if 
 she summons me to the battle-field, or to support her in 
 any cause which is unjust against the Union, never, 
 7iever will I engage with her in such a cause. 
 
 "With regard to South Carolina, and the spirit of her 
 people, I have said nothing. I have a respect for her; 
 but I must say, with entire truth, that my respect for 
 her is that inspired by her ancient and revolutionary 
 character, and not so much for her modern character. 
 But, spirited as she is, spirited as she may suppose her- 
 self to be, competent as she may think herself to wield 
 her separate power against the power of this Union, I 
 will tell her, and I will tell the Senator himself, that 
 there are as brave, as dauntless, as gallant men and as 
 devoted patriots, in my opinion, in every other State in 
 the Union as are to be found in South Carolina herself ; 
 and if, in any unjust cause, South Carolina or any other 
 State should hoist the flag of disunion and rebellion, 
 thousands, tens of thousands, of Kentuckians would 
 flock to the standard of their country to dissipate and 
 repress their rebellion. These are my sentiments — 
 make the most of them." 
 
 The next day, July 23d, Mr. Davis, of Mississippi, 
 offered an amendment to Mr. Foote's proposition to re- 
 strict the State of California to the limit of 36° 30' as 
 her southern boundary, and to form a new Territory 
 of the portion south of that line to be called Colorado, 
 which should be organized under the same provision as 
 Utah. The amendment was : 
 
 "And that all laws and usages existing in said Terri- 
 23 
 
354 The True History of 
 
 tory at the date of its acquisition by the United States 
 which deny or obstruct the right of any citizen of the 
 United States to remove to and reside in said Territory, 
 with any species of property legally held in any of the 
 States of this Union, be and are hereby declared to be 
 repealed."^ 
 
 The vote was taken on Mr. Davis' amendment as to 
 the repeal of the Mexican anti-slavery laws, and it was 
 defeated by 33 to 22.' 
 
 The bill of the Committee for the "admission of Cali- 
 fornia as a State, to establish territorial governments for 
 Utah and New Mexico, and making proposals to Texas 
 for the establishment of her northern and western 
 boundaries," was still before the Senate for its consid- 
 eration. There were many amendments offered and re- 
 jected — many heated discussions. It was, however, 
 finally agreed, July 30th, that Commissioners should be 
 appointed to settle the boundary line between Texas and 
 the territory of the United States, and that meantime 
 the question of territory, as between Texas and New 
 Mexico, should be held in abeyance. 
 
 July 30th, "Mr. Norris moved to strike out from the 
 tenth section the words 'establishing or prohibiting 
 African slavery.'^ 
 
 "Mr, Clay : . . . I have risen to say a few words 
 only on the proposition before the Senate ; and I do 
 think that if my Southern friends, and my Northern 
 friends, too, will only listen, if I am not entirely incor- 
 rect in the views I propose to present, they will concur 
 in the motion made by the Senator from New Hampshire 
 to strike out this clause. The clause is an interdiction 
 imposed by Congress upon the local Legislature either 
 to introduce or to exclude slavery. Now, sir, it appears 
 to me to be perfectly clear that Congress has no such 
 power according to the Southern doctrine. That doc- 
 
 1 App. to Cong. Globe, Vol. 22, p. 1416. ^ Idem, p. 1420. 
 
 ^ Idem, p. 1463. 
 
The Missouri Compromise and its Repeal. 355 
 
 trine is one of clear and clean non-intervention. The 
 amendment in the bill, on the contrary, assumes the 
 power to exist in Congress, which is denied. For if 
 Congress possesses the power to impose this interdiction. 
 Congress has the power to impose the Wilmot Proviso. 
 The only difference is, that the action of Congress in the 
 one case is direct, and that the action of Congress in the 
 other case is indirect. It appears to me, therefore, that 
 upon the great principle upon which Southern gentle- 
 men have rested the support of their rights, they ought 
 to oppose the exercise of this power by Congress to in- 
 terdict the local Legislature. Sir, it is a little remark- 
 able that, by the one side of the Union, whose interest 
 it should be to preserve the clause, the amendment is 
 opposed ; and that the other side of the Union, whose 
 principles, according to my humble conception, should 
 lead them to oppose the clause which is proposed to be 
 stricken out, are in favor of it. In point of interest, the 
 North should be for retaining the clause, because, if, as 
 they suppose, and as I believe, there is at this moment 
 an abolition of slavery in the Territories, this clause 
 serves to continue that abolition of slavery ; therefore it 
 is to their interest to retain this clause, because it would 
 give an additional security to the exclusion of slavery, 
 which they desire. I know that my Northern friends, 
 who are anxious to exclude this clause by the adoption 
 of this amendment, go upon a higher principle than 
 mere interest. They go upon the very principle which 
 the South has contended for. They say — for upon this 
 subject I have conversed with them freely — that they 
 are aware of the advantage to their interests which 
 might result from a retention of the clause, but that it 
 is in contravention of the principle for which they have 
 contended on behalf of Southern interests, and that is, 
 the principle of non-intervention on the subject of slav- 
 ery. They will sacrifice their interests for the preserva- 
 tion of the great principle upon which they are willing 
 to stand with their Southern friends — the principle of 
 
356 The True History of 
 
 non-intervention ; and which, if the amendment pre- 
 vails, is the principle which pervades the entire bill, 
 running through it from first to last. I know, sir, that 
 another principle has been contended for by Southern 
 gentlemen of great eminence, and that principle is, that 
 the Constitution of the United States confers upon the 
 slave-holder the right to carry his slaves into these Ter- 
 ritories, If so, where is the necessity for this interdic- 
 tion? The Constitution is paramount and supreme, and 
 if the legislation of " the Territory were to pass any law 
 in violation of the Constitution, that law unquestionably 
 would be null and void from the moment of its passage ; 
 and, as suggested by the Senator from Maryland, there 
 is a suspension of the operation of this bill in reference 
 to the only Territory in contest. New Mexico, this side 
 of the Rio Grande, until this effort at compromise shall 
 be successful, or thwarted and defeated. It appears to 
 me, therefore, that upon the very principle for which 
 Southern gentlemen have stood up, they should strike 
 out this clause from the bill, and leave it a clear and in- 
 disputable bill of non-intervention, from the enacting 
 clause to the end." ^ 
 
 It was decided, July 31st, to strike out "nor establish- 
 ing or prohibiting African slavery," by 32 to 20;* and 
 so the bill was left as Mr. Douglas first wrote it, and be- 
 fore it was altered by the Committee. 
 
 "Mr. Pearce then moved to strike out of the bill all 
 that related to New Mexico, and gave his reasons for so 
 doing. 
 
 "Mr. Pearce : . . . Yesterday an amendment was 
 adopted, on the motion of the Senator from Georgia 
 (Mr. Dawson) , by which the amendment of the Senator 
 from Maine was amended. It provides : 
 
 " 'That until such time as the boundary line between 
 the State of Texas and the Territory of the United States 
 be agreed to by the Legislature of the State of Texas 
 
 1 App. to Cong. Globe, Vol. 22, p. 1465. « Idem, p. 1473. 
 
The Missouri Compromise and its Repeal. 357 
 
 and the Government of the United States, the Terri- 
 torial Government authorized by this act shall not go 
 into operation east of the Rio Grande, nor shall any 
 State be established for New Mexico embracing any ter- 
 ritory east of the Rio Grande.' ' 
 
 "Mr. Clay : I certainly can not repress the expression 
 of my regret and surprise at this motion. What is its 
 effect? It is to destroy one of the most valuable features 
 of the bill, the object of which is the adjustment of this 
 troublesome boundary question. 
 
 "Mr. President, light was beginning to break upon 
 us — land was beginning to be in sight once more — and 
 is it possible, upon slight and unimportant amendments 
 — amendments which will not affect the great object of 
 this bill, upon mere questions of form and punctilio — 
 that we shall now hazard the safety, the peace, if not 
 the union of the country? I hope that Senators, meet- 
 ing in a spirit of conciliation, and waiving slight objec- 
 tions, will act upon the great principles which led our 
 fathers to adopt the Constitution, and which is suggested 
 in the letter of the Father of his Country to the people 
 of the United States, when he stated that there were 
 difficulties and objections, but that all were waived in a 
 spirit of conciliation and peace, and that they had con- 
 sented to establish a government that would last through 
 that generation and for posterity. . , ."^ 
 
 "Mr. Pearce : The Senator from Kentucky entirely 
 mistakes me, if he supposes that I desire to destroy the 
 most important feature in this bill — the adjustment of 
 the diflficulties with Texas. This is not so. I expressly 
 stated, when I submitted my motion, that my object was 
 to reinstate all that portion of the bill which relates to 
 that subject. I knew no other way of attaining my ob- 
 ject ; and if Senators will now indicate any parliament- 
 ary mode of getting rid of the amendment of the Sena- 
 tor from Georgia, and substituting another, which I 
 
 1 App. Cong Globe, Vol. 22, p. 1473. ^ Idem, pp. 1473, 1474. 
 
358 The True History of 
 
 stated I would offer, and which I now hold in my hand, 
 I would adopt it. My amendment is this : 
 
 " 'The territorial government of New Mexico author- 
 ized by this act shall not go into operation until the 4th 
 of March, 1851.'"' 
 
 Mr. Pearce's amendment was adopted and New 
 Mexico was struck out of the bill by 33 to 22 — Cass, 
 Clay, and Foote voting against it, and Douglas for it. 
 
 Mr. Yulee then moved to strike out all that related to 
 Texas, and his motion carried — by Abolition and South- 
 ern votes mainly — was opposed by Cass, Clay, Foote, 
 Douglas, and other conservatives. 
 
 "July, 31st. Mr. Foote : I rise to express my desire that 
 the Senator from Missouri will now offer his amendment to 
 give us an opportunity of acting upon the territorial 
 bill alone. 
 
 "Mr. Atchinson : As I have believed all along that the 
 greatest weight in the omnibus was California, I now 
 move to strike out of the bill all that pertains to her."* 
 
 After a long discussion and many motions, this was 
 agreed to — Clay, Cass, Douglas and Chase voting against 
 it — Mr. Foote for it, along with Benton, Seward, Yulee,' 
 and Davis of Mississippi.^ 
 
 There was now only Utah left in the bill ; and Mr. 
 Benton, who could not resist any opportunity to triumph 
 over Mr. Clay, said : 
 
 "Mr. Benton : An idea has struck me (laughter) ; that 
 idea is this : Homer made a mistake when he thought 
 he was writing history, and attributed to the pale-faced 
 lady — about as pale as the moon, and about as cold — 
 the labor of unraveling every night what she had woven 
 during the day ; and my opinion is that instead of writ- 
 ing history, he had a vision, and saw the American 
 Senate legislating on the compromise bill. (Laughter.) 
 . Gentlemen of the compromising party, from 
 
 ' App. Cong. Globe, Vol. 22, p. 1474. Idem, p. 1483. 
 
 3 Idem, p. 1483. 
 
Tlie Missouri Compromise and its Repeal. 359 
 
 the course which I have been compelled to pursue during 
 this session, have taken up, I am afraid, an opinion that 
 I was not kindly disposed toward them, and now I wish 
 to give them a proof to the contrary. Their vehicle is 
 gone, all but one plank, and I wish to save that plank 
 for them by way of doing homage to their work. The 
 omnibus is overturned, and all the passengers spilled out 
 but one. We have but Utah left — all gone but Utah ! 
 It alone remains, and I am for saving it as a monument 
 of the Herculean labors of the immortal thirteen. I am 
 for passing Utah this instant, by way of showing homage 
 and respect for the committee." ' 
 
 After various amendments offered and rejected, the 
 Utah bill was passed in exactly the same shape, so far as 
 regarded slavery, as when first drafted by Judge Doug- 
 las, as Chairman of the Committee on Territories — the 
 interpolations by the Committee of Thirteen on that 
 subject, having been all struck out, and the Territorial 
 Legislature left untrammeled. 
 
 On the same day, August 1st, Mr. Douglas moved to 
 take up the bill (169) for the admission of California — 
 and to amend it by adding what was the third section of 
 the Select Committee bill, being that in relation to pub- 
 lic lands. 
 
 Mr. Foote proposed an amendment which would re- 
 strict the State of California to 35° 30' as her southern 
 limit, and would form a Territory south of that line 
 which should be subject to the same provisions as 
 Utah. 
 
 "Mr. Dawson : I do not want to discuss this question. 
 My course in relation to these agitating questions is well 
 understood in this body. Upon the point now before 
 the Senate I feel a very great solicitude. Indeed, I am 
 very desirous, as far as I am concerned, that the amend- 
 ment should be adopted. 
 
 'In the month of February, of the present year, 
 
 I f 
 
 1 App. Cong. Globe, Vol. 22, p. 1484. 
 
360 The True History of 
 
 during the session of the Legislature of the State of 
 Georgia, resolutions upon these agitating questions were 
 passed nearly unanimously ; and one of these resolutions 
 was, that in the event of California being admitted into 
 the Union under existing circumstances, without a 
 word being said in relation to her boundary contrary to 
 the claim which California sets up in her Constitution, 
 the Governor of the State of Georgia is required to di- 
 rect the election of delegates from each county in the 
 State, which delegates shall convene in some place ac- 
 cording to his proclamation. It is needless for me to 
 say that that resolution at that time did not receive my 
 approval or my approbation. I had the utmost confi- 
 dence in the moderation of the United States, and in 
 the belief that they would act justly. I used my influ- 
 ence to avoid and prevent the passage of those resolu- 
 tions, but they passed, and they are now in the possession 
 of the Senators of the State, intended as instructions to 
 us as to what course to pursue. 
 
 "The adjustment bill, sir, met all these difficulties. 
 It was drawn with a view to produce conciliation, and 
 to restore harmony to the country, as I believe. It was 
 drawn in a way by which this position of Georgia — 
 taken, it is immaterial under what sort of feelings, 
 whether under external excitement or not — might be 
 avoided. And, sir, I take great pleasure in saying that 
 those Senators from the non-slave-holding States who 
 concurred with those of the South who were in favor of 
 the proposed compromise, for the purpose of meeting 
 every difficulty and quieting every discontent, agreed to 
 limit the boundary of California, and that the line of 
 35° 30', as alleged by my friend from Mississippi, was to 
 have been adopted, had the proposition been presented 
 to the Senate. We have been deprived of that ; and the 
 question is now presented to us, whether we will pursue 
 a course in Congress to create still greater discontent and 
 dissatisfaction. And here permit me to say, Mr. Presi- 
 dent, there is but one remedy which could be approved 
 
The Missouri Compromise and its Repeal. 361 
 
 by all ; and that is by an amicable compromise of this 
 question. There is another remedy — one which, I am 
 sure, every Senator would look upon with any thing but 
 pleasure — a remedy which may be considered by a por- 
 tion of the country ; and that remedy is disunion. 
 Permit me to say, whenever that period arrives when 
 a convention shall assemble in any one of the States of 
 the South, under resolutions of their Legislatures, and 
 the excited feelings of the country are to be united 
 with the calm considerations of the injustice which it is 
 thought, has been inflicted by the North upon the South, 
 I should look upon the result with the deepest and most 
 melancholy apprehension ; and I, sir, forseeing these 
 things, have united with all who have come and con- 
 tributed their mite to avoid it. We have failed ; and 
 here we are now, with resolutions mandatory in their 
 character, transmitted to Senators, to act against this 
 measure, without the adjustment of boundary ; and in 
 the event that the bill shall be passed, which has this 
 morning been presented, the Government of Georgia 
 leaves no discretion as to the execution of the laws of the 
 State ; and under the oath taken by the Governor of that 
 State, the convention will be assembled. . . ."^ 
 
 "Mr. Clay: I wish to say only a few words. We 
 have presented to the country a measure of peace, a 
 measure of tranquility ; one which would have harmo- 
 nized, in my opinion, all the discordant feelings which 
 prevail. The measure has met with a fate, not alto- 
 gether unexpected, I admit, on my part, but one which, 
 as it respects the country at large, I deplore extremely. 
 For myself, personally, I have no cause of complaint. 
 The majority of the committee to which I belonged have 
 done their duty, their whole duty, faithfully and perse- 
 veringly. If the measure has been defeated, it has been 
 defeated by the extremists on the other side of the Cham- 
 ber and on this. I shall not proceed to inquire into the 
 
 » App. Cong. Globe, Vol. 22, pp. 1485, 1486. 
 
362 The True History of 
 
 measure of responsibility which I incurred. Ail I mean 
 to say upon that subject is, that we stand free and liberated 
 from any responsibility of consequences. How it was 
 defeated, we know full well. The proposition of the 
 Senator from Maryland (Mr. Pearce) , made, no doubt, 
 upon a conscientious conviction of his duty, led to the 
 defeat — was the immediate cause of it. That proposi- 
 tion led to consequences, I repeat, which are fresh in 
 the recollections of the Senate. 
 
 "Now, Mr. President, I stand here in my place, mean- 
 ing to be unawed by any threats, whether they come 
 from individuals or States. I should deplore, as much 
 as any man living or dead, that arms should be raised 
 against the authority of the Union, either by individuals 
 or States. But, after all that has occurred, if any one 
 State, or a portion of the people of any State, choose to 
 place themselves in military array against the Govern- 
 ment of the Union, I am for trying the strength of the 
 Government. (Applause in the galleries, immediately 
 suppressed by the Chair.) I am for ascertaining whether 
 we have got a Government or not — practical, efficient, 
 capable of maintaining its authority, and of upholding 
 the powers and interests which belong to a Government. 
 Nor, sir, am I to be alarmed or dissuaded from any 
 such course by intimations of the spilling of blood. 
 If blood is to be spilled, by whose fault is it to be spilled? 
 Upon the supposition, I maintain it will be by the fault 
 of those who choose to raise the standard of disunion, 
 and endeavor to prostrate this Government ; and, sir, 
 when that is done, so long as it pleases God to give me 
 a voice to express my sentiments, or an arm, weak and 
 enfeebled as it may be by age, that voice and arm will 
 be on the side of my country, for the support of the 
 general authority, and for the maintenance of the powers 
 of this Union. (Applause in the galleries.)"^ 
 
 'Mr. Mason : . . . Now, Mr. President, one word 
 
 "1 
 
 » App. Cong. Globe, Vol. 22, p. 1486. 
 
The Missouri Compromise and its Repeal. 363 
 
 in regard to what fell from the Senator from Kentucky. 
 I do not know whether that Senator speaks the opinion 
 or judgment of a majority of the States represented on 
 this floor. I do know that his age, his experience, and 
 his position have enabled him, as he is entitled from his 
 high and lofty intellect to do, to direct the measures, if 
 not to mold the opinions of a large portion of the Amer- 
 ican people ; and I heard him declare here to-day, in his 
 place as a Senator, addressed to his brother Senators, 
 that it is the duty of the Federal Government to take no 
 further account of State resistance than they would do 
 of the resistance of individuals or of private citizens 
 against the laws of the land — 
 
 "Mr. Clay: That is not what I said. I said, and I 
 repeat — and I wish all men who have pens to record it — 
 that if any single State choose to raise the standard of 
 disunion and to defy the authority of the Union, I am 
 for maintaining the authority of the Union. That is what 
 I said. 
 
 "Mr. Mason : That is exactly what I understood the 
 honorable Senator to say — that resistance made under 
 the authority of a State is no further to be respected by 
 the authorities of the United States than if it were made 
 by a body of individuals on their own score. 
 
 "Mr. Clay (in his seat) : No further ; none whatever. 
 
 "Mr. Mason : . . . Now, sir, how do these States 
 stand? There is my honored Commonwealth, whose 
 limits are within view from the doors of this Capitol, 
 and other States south of this, including Georgia, all of 
 whom, through their own constituted authorities, have 
 declared, and placed it upon their statute books, that 
 they will resist what they believe to be an unconstitu- 
 tional act of power on the part of the Federal Govern- 
 ment, should it be done, in reference to the slave ques- 
 tion. The Senator from Kentucky replies to them dis- 
 tinctly, 'Resist at the peril of blood, if you do it;' and 
 that his counsel and aid shall be given to the bayonets 
 of the Federal Government to reduce them to submission. 
 
364 The True History of 
 
 Sir, it is well they should know it ; and now they do know 
 it, so far as the potential voice of that Senator — and 
 potent it is — can enforce it. Let it go to them, as it will 
 do, contemporaneous with the action of the Congress 
 of the United States upon this question of the exclusion 
 of slavery in the Territories. Sir, I wish to add no heat 
 to this discussion — none in the world. The subject is 
 one that we should deliberate on calmly and temperately, 
 and I hope we shall do it. I feel at liberty to speak for 
 the State of Virginia only so far as I believe I under- 
 stand what she designs to do. To that extent I am 
 bound to speak. I believe, sir, in my best and settled 
 judgment, that when a law shall be passed by the Con- 
 gress of the United States and become the law of the 
 land, which shall by its act exclude the people of the 
 State from taking their slaves into territory south of the 
 Missouri Compromise line, Virginia will do what has 
 been declared in her resolutions already — not threaten- 
 ing resistance — she will take such measures, by her own 
 sovereignty, as in her judgment will be best calculated 
 to preserve the Union, if it can be preserved, and if not, 
 to preserve her own safety and her own welfare out of 
 the Union. "^ 
 
 "Mr. Butler: . . . The State of South Carolina, 
 Mr. President, has been too often alluded to for one of 
 her representatives to mistake the aim. I do not think 
 that South Carolina has ever gone further, or has gone 
 as far as other Southern States in the Union. The 
 Senator from Kentucky limited his remark to a single 
 State or the people of a single State. My friend from 
 Virginia noticed that part of his remark, and I shall 
 
 not add any thing by way of amplification 
 
 There may be a contest, and it will not be made by a 
 single State. The gentleman will have to encounter a 
 combination of States. He may wish to select a State 
 or the people of a State. I will not deny to him the 
 
 1 App. Cong. Globe, Vol. 22, p. 1489. 
 
The Missouri Compromise and its Repeal. 365 
 
 tribute I have paid his talents. I could not withhold 
 what history may award ; but in such a contest, his 
 name will be as nothing. I believe he loves this Union, 
 that his fame is identified with it, and I pardon much 
 in one whose history is so much connected with it ; but 
 he must pardon me at the same time for saying, that in 
 his eagerness to preserve this Union, he is advocating 
 doctrines and using language that will destroy it. 
 Praises of the Union are not devices that will tend to 
 preserve it. Do justice to the obligations of the Con- 
 stitution — do justice and not insult the weak ; that is the 
 way to inculcate harmony." 
 
 "Mr. Clay: , . . Mr. President, I have said that 
 I want to know whether we are bound together by a 
 rope of sand or an effective, capable Government, com- 
 petent to enforce the powers therein vested by the Con- 
 stitution of the United States, . . .^ 
 
 "And with respect to my country, the honorable 
 Senator speaks of Virginia being my country. The 
 Union is my country ; the thirty States are my country ; 
 Kentucky is my country, and Virginia no more than 
 any other of the States of this Union. She has created 
 on my part obligations and feelings and duties toward 
 her in my private character which nothing upon earth 
 would induce me to forfeit or violate. But even if it 
 were my own State, if my own State lawlessly, con- 
 trary to her duty, should raise the standard of disunion 
 against the residue of the Union, I would go against 
 her. I would go against Kentucky herself in that con- 
 tingency, much as I love her." 
 
 More debate — more discussion — very heated. 
 
 Mr. Foote's amendment was lost. Mr. Douglas' ac- 
 cepted. The bill was still debated day by day. 
 
 "August 5th. Mr. Pearce, pursuant to notice, asked 
 and obtained leave to introduce the following bill : 
 
 "A bill proposing to the State of Texas the establish- 
 
 1 App. Cong. Globe, Vol. 22, p. 1490. ^ Idem, p. 1491. 
 
366 The True History of 
 
 ment of her northern and western boundaries, the re- 
 linquishment by said State of all territory claimed by 
 her exterior to said boundaries, and of all her claim 
 upon the United States."^ 
 
 This bill, with some amendments, passed August 9th, 
 by 30 to 20, the extremists of both sections joining in 
 the vote against the bill, and was as follows : 
 
 "jBe it enacted, etc., That the following propositions 
 shall be and the same hereby are offered to the State of 
 Texas, which, when agreed to by the said State, in an 
 act passed by the General Assembly, shall be binding 
 and obligatory upon the United States and upon the 
 said State of Texas. Provided, That the said agreement 
 by the said General Assembly shall be given on or 
 before the 1st day of December, 1850. 
 
 ''First. The State of Texas will agree that her bound- 
 ary on the north shall commence at the point at which 
 the meridian of one hundred degrees west from Green- 
 wich is intersected by the parallel of 36° 30' north lati- 
 tude, and shall run from said point due west to the 
 meridian of one hundred and three degrees west from 
 Greenwich ; thence her boundary shall run due south to 
 the thirty-second degree of north latitude ; thence on the 
 said parallel of thirty-two degrees of north latitude to the 
 Rio Bravo del Norte ; and thence with the channel of 
 said river to the Gulf of Mexico. 
 
 "Second. The State of Texas cedes to the United 
 States all her claim to territory exterior to the limits 
 and boundaries which she agrees to establish by the first 
 article of this agreement. 
 
 ''Third. The State of Texas relinquishes all claim 
 upon the United States for liability for the debts of 
 Texas, and for compensation or indemnity for the sur- 
 render ta the United States of her ships, forts, arsenals, 
 custom-houses, custom-house revenue, arms and muni- 
 tions of war, and public buildings, with their sites, 
 
 1 Cong. Globe, Vol. 21, p. 1520. 
 
The Missouri Compromise and its Repeal. 367 
 
 which became the property of the United States at the 
 time of the annexation. 
 
 ''Fourth. The United States, in consideration of said 
 establishment of boundaries, cession of ckiim to terri- 
 tory, and relinquishment of claims, will pay to the State 
 of Texas the sum of ten millions of dollars, in a stock 
 bearing five per cent interest, and redeemable at the end 
 of fourteen years, the interest payable half-yearly at the 
 Treasury of the United States. 
 
 "Fifth. Immediately after the President of the United 
 States shall have been furnished with an authentic copy 
 of the act of the General Assembly of Texas, accepting 
 these propositions, he shall cause the stock to be issued 
 in favor of the State of Texas, as provided for in the 
 fourth article of this agreement. Provided, That not 
 more than five millions of said stock shall be issued 
 until the creditors of the State holding bond and other 
 certificates of stock of Texas, for which duties on im- 
 ports were specifically pledged, shall first file at the 
 Treasury of the United States releases of all claim 
 against the United States for or on account of said bonds 
 or certificates, in such form as shall be prescribed by the 
 Secretary of the Treasury, and approved by the Presi- 
 dent of the United States. Provided, also, That nothing 
 herein contained shall be construed to impair or qualify 
 any thing in the third article of the second section of the 
 joint resolution for annexing Texas to the United States, 
 approved March 1, 1845, either as regards the number of 
 States that may hereafter be formed out of the State of 
 Texas or otherwise." ^ 
 
 On the 13th, the question was taken, and the bill for 
 the admission of California passed the Senate by 34 to 
 18 — the minority being all Southern men — Foote and 
 Berrien among them, though they were two of the most 
 conservative men of their section. The vote is given in 
 full : 
 
 1 Cong. Globe. Vol. 21, pp. 1555, 1556. 
 
368 The True History of 
 
 '^Yeas — Messrs. Baldwin, Bell, Benton, Bradbury, 
 Bright, Cass, Chase, Cooper, Davis (of Massachusetts) , 
 Dickinson, Dodge (of Wisconsin), Dodge (of Iowa), 
 Douglas, Ewing, Felch, Greene, Hale, Hamlin, Houston, 
 Jones, Miller, Norris, Phelps, Seward, Shields, Smith, 
 Spruance, Sturgeon, Underwood, Upham, Wales, Walker, 
 Whitcomb, and Winthrop — 34. 
 
 ^^Nays — Messrs. Atchison, Barnwell, Berrien, Butler, 
 Clemens, Davis (of Mississippi), Dawson, Foote, Hun- 
 ter, King, Mason, Morton, Pratt, Rusk, Sebastian, 
 Soule, Turney, and Yulee — 18. 
 
 "So the bill was passed." ^ 
 
 Mr. Douglas now moved that the Senate should take 
 up the bill to establish a territorial government for New 
 Mexico. 
 
 GOVERNMENT FOR NEW MEXICO. 
 
 "The Senate proceeded to the consideration of the 
 special order, being the bill providing for the establish- 
 ment of a territorial government for the Territory of 
 New Mexico. 
 
 "Mr. Douglas : The bill, as originally proposed, was 
 for the establishment of territorial governments for 
 Utah and New Mexico, and also to settle the Texan 
 boundary. The bill for the establishment of a govern- 
 ment in Utah has already passed the Senate, and I 
 move to strike out of this bill all relating to that sub- 
 ject. 
 
 "The motion was agreed to. 
 
 "Mr. Douglas : I now move to strike out the thirty- 
 third section, relating to the Texan boundary, that also 
 having been already disposed of. 
 
 "The motion was agreed to. 
 
 "Mr. Douglas : I now offer the following amendment, 
 as an additional section to the bill : 
 
 ^^ Be it further enacted, That the provisions of this act 
 be, and they are hereby suspended, until the disputed 
 
 1 Cong. Globe, Vol. 21, p. 1573. 
 
The Missouri Compromise and its Repeal. 369 
 
 boundary between the United States and the State of 
 Texas shall be adjusted by the mutual assent of the 
 parties ; and when such adjustment shall have been 
 effected, the President of the United States shall issue 
 his proclamation declaring this act to be in full force 
 and operation, and shall proceed to appoint the oflEicers 
 herein provided to be appointed in and for said Ter- 
 ritory. 
 
 "Mr. Mason: I do not mean to be hypercritical at 
 all, but I suggest to the Senator from Illinois that the 
 amendment will be just as perfect if he strikes out the 
 word 'disputed.' 
 
 "Mr. Douglas : I see no objection to striking it out. 
 
 "The amendment was modified accordingly by striking 
 out the word indicated,^ 
 
 "Mr, Foote : I wish now to offer an amendment. . . . 
 by inserting the following proviso, after the word New 
 Mexico, in the eighth line : 
 
 ^^ Provided, further, That, when admitted as a State, 
 the said Territory, or any portion of the same, shall 
 be received into the Union, with or without slavery, as 
 their Constitution may prescribe at the time of their ad- 
 mission. 
 
 "Question! Question! 
 
 "Mr. Chase: I ask for the yeas and nays on that 
 amendment. 
 
 "The yeas and nays were not ordered. 
 
 "The question was then taken on the amendment of 
 Mr. Foote, and it was agreed to." 
 
 "Mr. Hale: I have now an amendment to offer pre- 
 cisely similar to one which received the sanction of the 
 Senate, and was incorporated in the compromise bill. 
 In section twenty-five, line forty-two, after the word dol- 
 lars, insert — 
 
 "Except only that in all cases involving title to 
 slaves, the said writs of error or appeals shall be al- 
 
 1 Cong. Globe, Vol. 21, p. 1583. 
 
370 The True History of 
 
 lowed and decided by the said Supreme Court, without 
 regard to the value of the matter, property or title in 
 controversy ; and, except, also, that a writ of error or 
 appeals shall also be allowed to the Supreme Court of 
 the United States from the decision of the said Supreme 
 Court created by this act, or of any judge thereof, or of 
 the District Courts created by this act, or of any judge 
 thereof, upon any writ involving the question of per- 
 sonal freedom. 
 
 ". . . . In the same section, line forty-five, after 
 the words 'United States,' I move to insert what I send 
 to the Chair. I would also say that it is copied from 
 the amendment which was adoi)ted in the other bill, 
 and it is intended to grant writs of habeas corpus, which, 
 as the bill now stands, could be had by implication 
 only : 
 
 "And the said Supreme and District Courts of the 
 said Territory, and the respective judges thereof, shall 
 and may grant writs of habeas corpus in all cases in which 
 the same are grantable by the judges of the United States 
 in the District of Columbia. 
 
 "The amendment was agreed to. 
 
 "Several Senators: 'Now take question on the bill.' 
 
 "There being no further amendments, the bill was re- 
 ported to the Senate. 
 
 "The President : The question is now on concurring in 
 the several amendments which have been made as in 
 Committee of the Whole. The question will be taken 
 upon them separately, if required. If not, it will be 
 taken upon them altogether. 
 
 "Several Senators : 'All together, all together.' 
 
 "The question was then taken on the amendments all 
 together, and they were concurred in. 
 
 "The bill was then ordered to be engrossed for a third 
 reading without a division.' And on the next day it was 
 passed by a vote of 27 to 10."^ 
 
 > Cong. Globe, Vol. 21, p. 1585. » Idem, p. 1589. 
 
The Missouri Compromise and its Repeal. 371 
 
 "August 14th. Mr. Hunter presented a protest against 
 
 the admission of California, addressed to the courtesy of 
 
 the Senate, with the request that it be 'read and spread 
 
 upon the Journals of the Senate.' It was signed by 
 
 J. M. Mason, ) ^r. . . 
 
 ' > Virginia. 
 
 R. M. T. Hunter, S ^ 
 
 A. P. Butler, j ^^^^^ Carolina. 
 R. B. Barnwell, ) 
 H. L. TuRNEY, Tennessee. 
 Pierre Soule, Louisiana. 
 Jefferson Davis, Mississippi. 
 David R. Atchison, Missouri. 
 Jackson Morton, ) t^, . . 
 
 D. L. YULEE, ) 
 
 •'Senate Chamber, August 13, 1850."' 
 
 August 16th. On motion of Mr. Norris, the question 
 of reception of the Southern Protest was taken up, and 
 it was laid on the table by a vote of 22 to 19.^ ' 
 
 California, New Mexico and Utah and the Texas 
 Boundary Question, having been disposed of, there re- 
 mained only the Fugitive Slave Law, and the District of 
 Columbia matter, to be dealt with. 
 
 The Fugitive Slave Law, as passed by the Congress of 
 1850, was a substitute by Mr. Mason, of Virginia, for 
 the bill recommended by the Committee of Thirteen. 
 
 It recited that: "For the purpose of enabling the 
 citizens of one State or Territory, or of the District of 
 Columbia, to reclaim fugitives from service or labor, 
 who have already or may hereafter escape into some 
 other State or Territory of the United States, as pro- 
 vided for by the third clause of the second section of the 
 fourth article of the Constitution of the United States." 
 
 » Cong. Globe, Vol. 21, p. 1588. 
 
 * The protest was, however, after considerable debate, spread upon the 
 record, where it is still to be seen, in evidence of the attitude of the 
 ultra Southern men of that day. — Author. 
 
 ' Cong. Globe, p. 1588. 
 
372 The True History of 
 
 Commissioners should be appointed in every county of 
 the States or Territories by the judges of the District or 
 Superior Courts ; and whose duty it should be to hear 
 evidence and to determine all cases arising under the 
 same clause. 
 
 "Sec. 2. And be it further enacted, That it shall be the 
 duty of all marshals and deputy marshals to obey and 
 execute all warrants and precepts issued under the pro- 
 visions of this act, when to them directed." 
 
 Furthermore, these marshals were authorized "to 
 summon and call to their aid the bystanders, or posse 
 comitatis, of the proper county when necessary to insure 
 a faithful observance of the clause of the Constitution 
 referred to, in conformity with the provisions of this act ; 
 and all good citizens are hereby commanded to act and 
 assist in the prompt and efficient execution of this law, 
 whenever their services may be required, as aforesaid 
 for that purpose. . . . In no trial or hearing under 
 this act, shall the testimony of such alleged fugitive be 
 admitted in evidence ; and the certificates in this and 
 the first section mentioned shall be conclusive of the 
 right of the person or persons in whose favor granted, 
 to remove such fugitive to the State or Territory from 
 which he escaped, and shall prevent all molestation 
 of said person or persons, by any process issued by 
 any court, judge, magistrate, or other persons whom- 
 soever. 
 
 "Sec. 4. And be it further enacted, That any person 
 who shall knowingly and willfully obstruct, hinder or 
 prevent such claimant, his agent or attorney, or any 
 person or persons lawfully assisting him, her or them 
 from arresting such a fugitive from service or labor, 
 either with or without process as aforesaid ; or shall 
 rescue or attempt to rescue such fugitive from service or 
 labor from the custody of such claimant, his or her 
 agent or attorney, or other person or persons lawfully 
 assisting as aforesaid, when so arrested, pursuant to the 
 authority herein given and declared ; or shall aid, abet, 
 
The Missouri Compromise and its Repeal. 373 
 
 or assist such persons, so owing service or labor as afore- 
 said, directly or indirectly, to escape from such claimant, 
 his agent or attorney, or other person or persons legally 
 authorized as aforesaid ; or shall harbor or conceal such 
 fugitive, so as to prevent the discovery and arrest of 
 such person, after notice or knowledge of the fact that 
 such person was a fugitive from service or labor as 
 aforesaid, shall, for either of said offenses, be subject to 
 a fine not exceeding one thousand dollars, and imprison- 
 ment not exceeding six months, by indictment and con- 
 viction before the District Court of the United States for 
 the district in which such offenses may have been com- 
 mitted, or before the proper court of criminal Jurisdic- 
 tion if committed within any one of the organized Ter- 
 ritories of the United States, and shall moreover forfeit 
 and pay, by way of civil damages to the party injured 
 by such illegal conduct, the sum of one thousand dollars, 
 to be recovered by action of debt, in any of the district 
 or territorial courts aforesaid, within whose Jurisdiction 
 the said offense may have been committed. 
 And should such fugitive, at any time after being ar- 
 rested as aforesaid, by warrant as aforesaid, be rescued 
 by force from those having such fugitive in custody, 
 then it shall be lawful for such claimant, his agent or 
 attorney, to exhibit proof of such arrest and rescue be- 
 fore any Judge of the Circuit or District Court of the 
 United States for the State where the rescue was ef- 
 fected ; and upon such arrest and rescue being made to 
 appear to him by satisfactory proof, and that the same 
 was without collusion, and further, that the service or 
 labor claimed from such fugitive was due to such claim- 
 ant in the State, Territory or District whence he fled, it 
 shall be the duty of such Judge to grant to such claim- 
 ant, his agent or attorney, a certificate of the facts so 
 proved, and of the value of such service or labor (in the 
 State, or Territory or District whence the fugitive fled) 
 to said claimant, to be proved in like manner ; which cer- 
 tificate, when produced by such claimant or his attorney, 
 
374 The True History of 
 
 shall be paid at the Treasury, out of any moneys therein 
 not otherwise appropriated, and the same shall be filed 
 in the Treasury as evidence of so much money due from 
 the State or Territory where such rescue was effected to 
 the United States, and shall be by the Secretary of the 
 Treasury reported to Congress at the next session ensu- 
 ing its payment. Provided, That not more than $ 
 
 in case of a male, or $ in case of a female fugitive 
 
 shall be so allowed or paid." ^ 
 
 This bill was passed August 26th, with some few 
 minor amendments. The vote upon it is not recorded 
 in the Globe, which is a little singular. And it was 
 said that the Northern men who voted for it dared not 
 let their constituents have the proof of it. It was entitled 
 "An act to amend, and supplementary to the act enti- 
 tled, 'An act respecting fugitives from justice, and per- 
 sons escaping from the services of their masters,' ap- 
 proved February 12, 1850." ^ 
 
 In the course of debate on this question, Mr. Pratt 
 said, August 20th: "I read this morning in the 
 Union the abstract of a speech delivered by a member of 
 this body (Mr. Seward) before the people of a non- 
 slave-holding State of this Union, which shows the char- 
 acter of the aggressions which have excited the feelings 
 of the South upon this subject. Permit me to read two 
 extracts from that speech. 
 
 "I ask the attention of those Senators, who, at one 
 time, were disposed to protect the individual referred to 
 from the just censure which his remarks, made in this 
 body, ought to have imposed upon him, to the sentiments 
 expressed by him on this occasion : 
 
 " 'It is written (says he) in the Constitution of the 
 United States that five slaves shall count as equal to 
 three freemen, as a basis of representation ; and it is 
 written also in violation of the divine law, that we shall 
 
 1 App. Cong. Globe, Vol. 22, p. 1582. 
 » Cong. Globe, Vol. 21, p. 1660. 
 
The Missouri Compromise and its Repeal. 375 
 
 surrender the fugitive slave who takes a refuge at our 
 firesides from his relentless pursuer.' 
 
 "Then his advice is, 'Reform your own code.' This 
 is the advice given to the people of Ohio, a non-slave- 
 holding State, at a mass-meeting, and given to a people 
 who have produced as much of this excitement on the 
 subject of fugitive slaves as those of any other State. 
 This is the advice given to that people by one standing 
 high in the estimation of his own State : 
 
 " 'Reform your code, extend a cordial welcome to the 
 fugitive who lays his weary limbs at your door, and de- 
 fend him as you luould your household gods.'' 
 
 "Yes, sir ; 'defend him as you would your household 
 gods.' 
 
 "Mr. Foote : What Senator do you allude to? 
 
 "Mr. Cass : The 'higher law.' 
 
 "Mr. Pratt: That is it."^ 
 
 September 3d the bill for the suppression of the slave 
 trade in the District of Columbia was taken up. Mr. 
 Seward offered a substitute, abolishing slavery in the 
 District entirely. It was shown that there were not 
 over six hundred slaves in the District. Mr. Seward's 
 bill proposed that the Government pay their owners for 
 them. 
 
 Mr. Winthrop, of Massachusetts, spoke against the 
 substitute. 
 
 "Mr. Winthrop. . . . But, sir, is there not some- 
 thing more in this proposition, which is contrary to all 
 the views which have ever been entertained in regard to 
 such a measure, if it should at any time be passed and 
 carried through? This amendment provides for the im- 
 mediate emancipation of all the slaves in this District. 
 And has the honorable Senator made the slightest pro- 
 vision for their condition after they are emancipated? 
 What is to become of them? They are to be taken away 
 from their masters. The masters are, to some extent, 
 
 ' App. Cong. Globe, Vol. 22, p. 1592. 
 
376 The True History of 
 
 to be paid for them. Provision is to be made by the 
 Secretary of the Interior for compensating the proprietors 
 for any damages which may result to them from taking 
 away their slaves, to the aggregate amount of two thou- 
 sand dollars. But what isto become of these poor people 
 themselves? . . . When the abolition of these ac- 
 cursed depots for carrying on the slave trade in the 
 District of Columbia seems just within our grasp, I 
 must repeat, sir, that I do most deeply deplore that the 
 honorable Senator from New York should embarrass and 
 perhaps defeat our action, by a proposition so indiscreet, 
 so ill-digested and so impracticable every way, as that 
 which he has ofiFered." 
 
 "Mr. Badger. . . . But permit me to say, I was 
 extremely sorry that my friend and colleague (Mr. 
 Mangum) , under the influence of a just feeling of ex- 
 citement at the introduction of this measure here, should 
 have proposed to abandon the bill now under consid- 
 eration. I am not to be driven from my propriety by 
 the movements of the honorable Senator from New ' 
 York (Mr. Seward) . Not at all. I shall vote for what 
 I deem right, and I will not be driven from voting for it 
 because a Senator produces a proposition which asks my 
 consent to what I know is wrong. And permit me to 
 say to my colleague, that if he desires to play into 
 the hands of the Senator from New York, if he wishes to 
 become his ally and assistant, if he desires to promote 
 his objects, if he goes for a disturbance of the country, 
 or a dissolution of the Union — and I know he desires 
 none of these things — let him be led by the excitement 
 on the present occasion to vote down this bill abolishing 
 the slave trade in the District of Columbia. My own 
 opinion is, that nothing could answer the ends or pur- 
 poses, and I think that it is highly probable that nothing 
 would gratify the wishes of the Senator from New York 
 more than to see this bill voted down. Let him go be- 
 fore the Northern people and say to them that Southern 
 men not merely maintained the rights of property, not 
 
The Missouri Compromise and its Repeal 377 
 
 merely stood up against any violation of them, not 
 merely insisted that measures should not be adopted 
 which might have an evil and sinister look towards an 
 invasion of their rights, but that they are disposed to 
 maintain all the abominations that cupidity and avarice 
 may have cast around the institution of slavery ; that 
 they will correct no abuses and lend no assistance for 
 the purpose of removing whatever may be justly of- 
 fensive in connection with slavery in this District ; and 
 my word for it, he will gain more of influence and 
 control over the Northern mind than he now possesses, 
 and more, I am sure, than my friend and colleague will 
 be disposed to concede to him, and which, I know, he 
 would not directly aid in conferring upon him. . . ." 
 
 "Mr. Hamlin, of Maine: . . . But there is an 
 objection to the amendment offered by the Senator from 
 New York, which would control my vote, if there were 
 no other reason in the matter. He proposes to take 
 from the National Treasury a sum of money to pay for the 
 persons to be emancipated here by the provisions of his 
 amendment. I would like very well to learn from that 
 Senator, or from any other Senator, by what provision 
 of the Constitution, by what authority or by what power 
 we can appropriate money from the Treasury for the 
 purpose of paying for emancipated slaves? I know of 
 none. Besides that, I know of no State, and I shall be 
 very glad to be informed if there is one, in which, where 
 slaves have been emancipated, payment has been made 
 for them." ^ 
 
 Mr. Seward's substitute^ was rejected — and on the 
 14th of September, the bill was ordered to its third read- 
 ing and was as follows : 
 
 "5e it enacted, etc., That from and after the first day 
 of January, eighteen hundred and fifty-one, it shall not 
 be lawful to bring into the District of Columbia any 
 
 1 App. Cong. Globe, Vol. 22, p. 1646. 
 
 * The reader can make his own comments on Mr. Seward's course. 
 
378 The True History of 
 
 slave whatever, for the purpose of being sold, or for the 
 purpose of being placed in depot, , to be subsequently 
 transferred to any other State or place to be sold as mer- 
 chandise. And if any slave shall be brought into the 
 said district, by its owner or by the authority and con- 
 sent of its owner, contrary to the provisions of this act, 
 such slave shall thereupon become liberated and free. 
 
 "Sec. 2. And he it further enacted^ That it shall and 
 may be lawful for each of the corporations of the cities 
 of Washington and Georgetown, from time to time, and 
 as often as may be necessary to abate, break uj), and 
 abolish any depot or place of confinement of slaves 
 brought into the said district as merchandise, contrary 
 to the provisions of this act, by such approbriate means 
 as may appear to either of the said corporations expedi- 
 ent and proper. And the same power is hereby vested 
 in the levy court of Washington county, if any attempt 
 shall be made within its jurisdictional limits to establish 
 a depot or place of confinement for slaves brought into 
 the said district as merchandise for sale contrary to 
 this act." ' 
 
 Upon the final question of its passage, September 16th, 
 Col. Benton could not resist the temptation of again 
 crowing over Mr. Clay. His characteristic weaknesses, 
 egotism and personal vanity, would crop out upon all 
 occasions. Though a man of fine ability, of great influ- 
 ence, and of many good qualities, he was yet so pomp- 
 ous, bombastic, and overbearing as to destroy very much 
 of the admiration that would otherwise have been felt 
 for him.'^ 
 
 ' App. Cong. Globe, Vol. 22, p. 1674. 
 
 "^ Col. Benton's egotism and bombast were the cause of a practical joke 
 being played upon him when a young man, that probably cost him very 
 dear. A number of young cousins were collected at the home of their 
 grandmother Hart in North Carolina, Thomas Hart Benton among 
 them. He was so overbearing and pompous in his assumption of superi- 
 ority that the other lads determined to give him a lesson in humility. 
 Accordingly, whilst he was asleep, they took his cravat and secreted in 
 it a five-dollar bill (I think that was the amount). In the morning, at 
 
The Missouri Compromise and its Repeal. 379 
 
 And Mr. Clay, while a steady object of his dislike, 
 took but little notice of his assaults — which were a good 
 deal like the blustering of the wind against the great 
 monarch of the forest. 
 
 breakfast, one of the lads put his hands in his pocket, and exclaimed in 
 great apparent consternation, " I have lost a bill out of my pocket," — 
 then, turning to the others, said angrily, " some of you have taken my 
 money, it was there last night, and there was no one else in the room." 
 They all protested their innocence, young Benton as well. Finally it 
 was proposed to prove it by search of each one. It was agreed to, and 
 lo ! when they came to Tom Benton, there, in his cravat, was found the 
 missing bill. His anger and mortification knew no bounds, and can be 
 better imagined than described. After enjoying his discomfiture long 
 enough they explained the trick they had played upon him. He could 
 scarcely have forgiven them, could he have foreseen that the story would 
 get out as true ; and that during his future career, whenever he was 
 spoken of as a candidate for the Presidency, which was the dearest am- 
 bition of his life, the " cravat" episode would furnish his enemies and 
 political opponents with material for attacks upon him which would 
 succeed in defeating his most cherished hopes. 
 
 The incident, as above given, was related by Rebecca Hart one of the 
 young cousins who were visiting their grandmother, and who was ac- 
 quainted with all the circumstances. 
 
 There can be no doubt that it is the correct version of the " Cravat 
 Story," to which Gov. Wise alludes in his interesting work, "Seven 
 Decades of the Union," in the most pointed way, and which he evi- 
 dently believed to be true as currently told. He there gives a most 
 graphic account of a scene in the Senate Chamber in 1837, when Hon. 
 B. Watkins Leigh, of Virginia, in a speech against " expunction," was 
 illustrating with great power the meaning of the words " to keep" — "and 
 of its meaning in continuando/' "to keep a journal," — and said: "Mr. 
 President, in that catechism which I learned at my mother's knee, I 
 was taught to keep — to keep — to keep my hands from picking and steal- 
 ing, and my tongue from evil speaking. . . ." 
 
 "A pin might have been heard to drop on the floor of the Senate ; 
 there sat Mr. Benton, swinging back in his chair, his eyes looking up to 
 the wall, patting his foot, and Mr. Leigh's eyes fixed on him for some 
 seconds, which seemed hours. Breaths were drawn when those eyes 
 were taken off" him. It was the touch of Ithuriel's spear, and the 
 cravat of Chapel Hill was revealed as plainly as the " toad-squat" was 
 shown to be Lucifer himself. (Seven Decades of the Union, pages 
 141 and 142.) 
 
 Mr. Leigh afterward disclaimed any allusion to Col. Benton, as Gov 
 Wise states — but the "Cravat Story" was a fearful punishment for so 
 common a fault as egotism, and a fearful consequence of a thoughtless 
 practical joke. — Author. 
 
380 The True History of 
 
 "Mr. Benton : I wish this morning to make a remark 
 which is called for by what has taken place. I am one 
 of those who insisted, both as a matter of right and as 
 a matter of expediency, that certain bills, commonly 
 called the omnibus, should be separated and treated on 
 their own merits. I was answered by arguments of ex- 
 pediency, that the bills would pass sooner altogether, 
 and that hereby a better effect would be produced in set- 
 tling the public mind. I disagreed with those argu- 
 ments, and I then brought upon myself a great deal of 
 censure in some parts of the country, and especially in 
 my own State. The thing is now over, the votes have 
 been taken, and the results tell, what history will tell, 
 that I was right in every thing that I said. We have 
 had votes upon every subject, and when separated every 
 subject passed, passed quickly, without a struggle, and 
 by a great majority, and the effect on the public mind 
 has been just as sedative as if the whole dose had been 
 taken at once. And, sir, when we come to look into the 
 yeas and nays on the four leading measures, the admis- 
 sion of California, the territorial government for Utah 
 and New Mexico, and the settlement of the Texan 
 boundary question, we find that the yeas who voted for 
 all the four measures amount to just seventeen ! and 
 counting in one who was absent (Mr. Clay) , they would 
 have been just eighteen — eighteen out of sixty." . . . 
 
 "Mr. Clay: I have not risen to say one word upon 
 these subjects. The events of the last few weeks are 
 not, in my opinion, a proper subject for individual tri- 
 umph or for indulgence of a spirit of egotism. They 
 are the triumphs of the country, the triumphs of the 
 Union, the triumphs of harmony and concord in the 
 midst of a distracted people. The question as to whether 
 the measures should have been combined or separated 
 was the merest question of form that ever concurred ; 
 and I venture to say that, if there had been no opposi- 
 tion to the combination, these measures would all have 
 passed three or four months ago." 
 
The Missouri Compromise and its Repeal. 381 
 
 "Mr. Benton: The day has not yet come when any 
 Senator can come upon this floor and lay down a plan 
 of operations, and permit no opposition to be made to 
 it, or call gentlemen to account or charge them with the 
 delay of business because they do not submit to the 
 proposed plan. We have not yet arrived at this point. 
 Such a point hais existed in some countries ; it has ex- 
 isted in France under her old monarchs, but the effect 
 was to help take away her kings. The day was when 
 Louis XIV., although considered a monarch of good 
 taste in general, and a proud man, walked into the hall 
 of Parliament, sitting as a Bed of Justice, with a whip 
 in his hand, and required his edict to be registered. But 
 w^e have not come to that day yet ; and when it does 
 come, if ever, there will be found resistance on this 
 floor. I have a right to resist a measure, come from 
 whom it may ; and on this occasion the result proves I 
 was right ; the result proves that we have lost four 
 months about a matter wiiich was unparliamentary, and 
 which has failed, and the moment that it failed every 
 thing which was proposed was accomplished ; at that 
 moment, the cats and dogs that had been tied together 
 by their tails four months, scratching and biting, being 
 loose again, every one of them ran off to his own hole 
 and was quiet. (Laughter.) We then passed the bills 
 instanter, w^hen we had the different subjects disen- 
 tangled, and without the aid of the Senator from Ken- 
 tucky (Mr. Clay) , and with the aid of only four votes 
 from the Committee of Thirteen, 
 
 "Mr. Foote : . . . Whatever may be the opinion 
 of others here, I have a decided opinion, which I be- 
 lieve is concurred in throughout the United States, that, 
 but for the change which has taken j)lace, both in the 
 public mind of the country and the Congressional mind 
 within the last six months, all of these measures would 
 not have been passed. But for their being combined so 
 as to produce a free discussion here — but for their being 
 made the basis of a free interchange of opinion in the 
 
382 The True History of 
 
 two Houses of Congress and in the newspapers of the 
 country, and the consequent change effected in the public 
 mind, the great scheme now so triumphantly adopted 
 would not have become a part of the law of the land. 
 So the impartial historian will hereafter record. As to 
 tyranny and oppression, I have but a word to say. I 
 should be the last man in the Senate, I hope, to incur a 
 charge of being either tyrannical or oppressive ; but, if 
 we have been the subjects of tyranny, if a domineering 
 course has been at one time pursued here, and if we 
 have borne it with patience for years, yes, sir, for almost 
 thirty years entire, thank God ! we may exclaim, at 
 last, 'Behold the tyrant prostrate in the dust, and 
 
 ROME again is FREE.' "^ 
 
 "Mr. Dickinson : . . . Sir, I will add that neither 
 the Committee of Thirteen nor Congress have settled 
 these questions. They were settled by the healthy in- 
 fluence of public opinion ; and in my estimation have 
 been settled more surely and satisfactorily because the 
 whole questions were before the Senate and the country 
 at one time and under discussion and consideration to- 
 gether."^ 
 
 "Mr. Douglas : I do not deem it very profitable now 
 to stop to inquire whether it would have been better to 
 have passed the several bills jointly or separately ; the 
 important point was to secure their passage. The par- 
 ticular form of the proceeding was a matter of small 
 moment. I supported them all as a joint measure, and 
 when they failed I supported each as a separate meas- 
 ure. I had no idea of losing the great measures which 
 my judgment approved, and upon which I believed the 
 peace and quiet of the country depended, by a petty 
 
 ^ Col. Benton was the " tyrant " to whom Mr. Foote alluded — Foote's 
 fiery, impulsive nature could ill brook Benton's supercilious ways. 
 They had had a personal difficulty on the floor of the Senate of a serious 
 nature, and Foote evidently rejoiced that Col. Benton's term of "Thirty 
 Years in the Senate " was about to expire. — Author. 
 
 * Cong. Globe, Vol. 22, p. 1829. 
 
The Missouri Compromise and its Repeal. 383 
 
 quarrel as to the mode in which the thing should be 
 done. The Committee on Territories hesitated long and 
 deliberated well whether we should report the measures 
 in separate bills or combine them all in one when we 
 first brought them before the Senate. I prepared the 
 bills for California, Utah, New Mexico, and the Texas 
 boundary separately, and laid them before the Commit- 
 tee in that shape, with the view of taking the judgment 
 of the Committee whether they should be joined to- 
 gether or kept separate. The decision of that point in- 
 volved no principle ; it was purely a matter of policy. 
 We came to the conclusion that it was expedient to pass 
 California separately, and to unite the governments for 
 Utah and New Mexico with the Texas boundary in one 
 bill, and accordingly I reported them from the Com- 
 mittee on Territories in that shape. When the Com- 
 mittee of Thirteen subsequently united these two bills 
 in one and recommended their passage in that form, I 
 gave them my cordial support. I could see no reason 
 why I should oppose my own bills merely because they 
 had been united together. My object was to settle the 
 controversy and to restore peace and quiet to the coun- 
 try, and I was willing to adopt any mode of proceeding 
 and to follow any gentleman's lead which could bring 
 us to that desirable result. When the omnibus bill was 
 defeated, I fell back upon my own separate bills, which, 
 fortunately for the country, received the sanction of the 
 two Houses of Congress and became the laws of the 
 land. California, Utah, New Mexico, the fugitive slave 
 bill, and the bill for the abolition of the slave trade in 
 the District, each passed the Senate as separate meas- 
 ures. In the House, New Mexico was joined to the 
 Texan boundary, and both passed as one bill. Thus it 
 will be seen that neither plan has entirely succeeded. 
 No man and no party has acquired a triumph, except 
 the party friendly to the Union triumphing over Aboli- 
 tionism and disunion. The measures are right in them- 
 selves, and, collectively, constitute one grand scheme of 
 
384 The True History of 
 
 conciliation and adjustment. They were all necessary 
 to the attainment of this end. The success of a portion 
 of them only would not have accomplished the object ; 
 but all together constitute a fair and honorable adjust- 
 ment. Neither section has triumphed over the other. 
 The North has not surrendered to the South, nor has the 
 South made any humiliating concession to the North. 
 Each section has maintained its honor and its rights, 
 and both have met on the common ground of justice and 
 compromise. It will always be a source of gratification 
 and just pride to me that I had the opportunity of act- 
 ing an humble part in the enactment of all these 
 great measures, which have removed all causes of sec- 
 tional discontent, and again united us together as one 
 people."^ 
 
 More talk, and the yeas and nays were ordered and 
 the bill passed by 33 to 19 : 
 
 "Feas — Messrs. Baldwin, Benton, Bright, Cass, Chase, 
 Clarke, Clay, Cooper, Davis of Massachusetts, Dayton, 
 Dickinson, Dodge of Wisconsin, Dodge of Iowa, 
 Douglas, Ewing, Felch, Fremont, Greene, Gwin, Hale, 
 Hamlin, Houston, Jones, Norris, Seward, Shields, 
 Spruance, Sturgeon, Underwood, Wales, Walker, Whit- 
 comb, and Winthrop — 33. 
 
 '■'Nays — Messrs. Atchison, Badger, Barnwell, Bell, 
 Berrien, Butler, Davis of Mississippi, Dawson, Downs, 
 Hunter, King, Mangum, Mason, Morton, Pratt, Sebas- 
 tian, Soule, Turney, and Yulee — 19."^ 
 
 And so was ended for the time this great controversy 
 in the Senate of the United States, which had convulsed 
 the entire country for months, and threatened most 
 strongly to end in civil war. 
 
 The House offered some amendments to the Senate 
 bills in which the Senate concurred ; and the Compro- 
 mise measures of 1850, which utterly repudiated the 
 principle of the Missouri Compromise Act of 1820, viz., 
 
 1 Cong. Globe, Vol. 22, p. 1830. 
 
The Missouri Compromise and its Repeal. 385 
 
 the division of the territory by a geographical line, and 
 most emphatically adopted, instead, the principle of ab- 
 solute non-intervention by Congress with the subject of 
 slavery, became the law of the land. 
 
 Congress adjourned from its labors, September 30th, 
 and the country drew a long breath of relief. 
 26 
 
386 The True History of 
 
 CHAPTER XV. 
 
 1851-52 — Division and defeat of the Whig Party in Kentucky in 1851 — 
 Archibald Dixon elected Senator, December 30th, vice Henry Clay, 
 resigned — Division and disintegration of the National Whig Party 
 in 1852— Death of Henry Clay. 
 
 The Compromise of 1850 had been passed by the Con- 
 gress of the United States and accepted by patriots 
 every-where, but it did not produce that harmony and 
 peace which had been hoped for. 
 
 The Abolitionists and Free Soilers loudly demanded 
 the repeal of the fugitive slave law ; and Northern press 
 and pulpit were arrayed in ominous unity against its 
 execution. Not only had Mr. "Webster been refused the 
 use of Faneuil Hall to speak in, because of his support 
 of this law, but many of the Northern papers denounced 
 him as a renegade to his own party and people. His 
 patriotism, his splendid abilities, his great services to 
 his country, were all lost sight of and overshadowed by 
 the angry prejudice and passion which had taken the 
 place of common sense and justice. Politically dead, 
 he could no longer control the tide of abolitionism which 
 threatened to sweep the North like a tornado. 
 
 The declarations of Theodore Parker were to a great 
 degree, instead, accepted by Northern Whigs, viz : 
 ' * That the natural duty to keep the law of God overrides the 
 obligation to observe any human statute. . . . It is the 
 natural duty of citizens to rescue every fugitive slave 
 from the hands of the marshal who essays to return him 
 to bondage — to do it peaceably if they can, forcibly if 
 they must, but by all means do it. . . . The fugi- 
 tive has the same natural right to defend himself against 
 the slave catcher or his constitutional tool, that he has 
 against a murderer or a wolf. ... If I were the 
 
The Missouri Compromise and its Repeal. 387 
 
 fugitive and could escape in no other way, I would kill 
 him with as little compunction as I would drive a mos- 
 quito from my face."^ 
 
 Mr. Julian, of Indiana, Democrat and Free Soiler, 
 elected to Congress from his district, declared he would 
 resist the execution of this law at the peril of his life, 
 and said in a public speech : 
 
 "If I believed the people I represent were base enough 
 to become the miserable flunkies of a God-forsaken 
 Southern slave hunter by joining him or his constables 
 in the bloodhound chase of a panting slave, I would 
 scorn to hold a seat on this floor by their suffrage, and I 
 would denounce them as fit subjects for the lash of the 
 slave driver."^ 
 
 From the great Northern cities, the free negroes (or 
 runaways, perhaps) fled by hundreds to Canada, under 
 the real or pretended fear of being captured as slaves. 
 "The Fugitive Slave !" "The Panting Slave !" "Free- 
 men to be Made Slaves ! ' ' were some of the headings of 
 calls for meetings "to resist oppression," etc., etc., ad 
 libitum. 
 
 In the June of 1851 was issued the first number of 
 that famous work of fiction by Mrs. Harriet Beecher 
 Stowe, "Uncle Tom's Cabin," which produced an un- 
 paralleled sensation, such as was scarcely equaled by 
 Dante's "Inferno" on its first appearance; and wiiich 
 unquestionably did as much, if not more, than any other 
 one thing to precipitate the w^ar between the States. 
 It idealized the negro in the most exaggerated way, and 
 excited the Northern mind intensely against that insti- 
 tution which could render possible such wrongs as were 
 described as being inflicted by the Yankee overseer, 
 "Legree," upon the saintly old darky, "Uncle Tom." 
 
 This trend of public sentiment at the North produced 
 a corresponding uneasiness at the South, and South 
 
 ^ Theodore Parker, Boston, September 22, 1850. 
 ' Louieville Journal, June 11, 1851. 
 
388 The True History of 
 
 Carolina, whilst lier Legislature passed laws for the 
 better protection of her free negro population and 
 against their further degradation, whilst her churches 
 were vying with one another in extending the benefits of 
 religious instruction to the negroes of all conditions, 
 still continued to muster her soldiers with the fixed idea 
 of being prepared "for any emergency that may arise ;" 
 and Geo. D. Prentice sarcastically advised them "to 
 look carefully to their flints," as "the Yankees, in an- 
 ticipation of a fight," might "have cunningly managed 
 to supply their enemies with horn gun-flints." 
 
 Kentucky meantime was true to the Union to the 
 heart's core, but her great Whig party, so long success- 
 ful in the past, was in a perilous position. Its disinte- 
 gration, begun in 1849, had not been checked by the 
 differences among Whigs as to the Old and New Consti- 
 tutions ; nor yet by the crystallization of the emancipation 
 sentiment of one portion of the Whigs, and of the ultra 
 pro-slavery sentiment of another portion of them. The 
 Whigs themselves fully realized the danger they were 
 in of losing the State in the coming election of Gov- 
 ernor, which was now to take place under the New Con- 
 stitution. 
 
 The Democrats were also well awake to the situation ; 
 they were fully apprised of their own advantages, and 
 were never better organized and equipped. They virtually 
 were understood to be opposed to the measures of 1850, 
 which they thought had originated with the great Whig 
 leader; but in their convention of February, 1851, they 
 expressed a conditional assent to the compromise, in 
 their platform, and proceeded to nominate what they 
 considered, and what unquestionably was, the strongest 
 ticket they could have presented to the people of Ken- 
 tucky — Lazarus W. Powell, of Henderson, as Governor, 
 and Robert N. Wickliffe as Lieutenant-Governor. 
 
 Gov. Powell was one of the most amiable and genial 
 of men ; of fine intellect and character, as true as steel, 
 bold, firm and decided of purpose ; he won friends 
 
The Missouri Compromise and its Repeal. 389 
 
 wherever he went by his charm of manner, his lack of 
 all affectation of superiority, his hearty greeting to the 
 lowest as well as the highest, and a rich sense of humor 
 that made him a welcome guest in the humble cabin as 
 in the palatial dwelling. He had had the opportunity 
 to become well acquainted with the people of his State 
 in 1848, when he had canvassed it in opposition to John 
 J. Crittenden, who was elected by a triumphant ma- 
 jority while the Whig party was still in the ascendency, 
 and previous to its division on the emancipation ques- 
 tion in 1849. 
 
 The Whigs regarded Archibald Dixon, also of Hender- 
 son, as the strongest man they could select ; the most 
 popular Whig in the State at the time, they believed his 
 personality and high character would go farther to recon- 
 cile the differences in the party than that of any other 
 Whig. They knew, that if united, they had nothing to 
 fear from their opponents ; but they also knew that on 
 the subject of slavery they were irrevocably divided, 
 and Mr. Dixon was the only man in whom they had 
 any hope of uniting the broken links of party affiliation. 
 
 The calls upon him to become their candidate were so 
 numerous and pressing that in January of 1851, he con- 
 sidered it necessary to issue the following address : 
 
 "Tb the Whigs of Kentucky. — Connected as my name 
 has been with the next gubernatorial canvass in Ken- 
 tucky, I feel it due to myself, to my friends, and the Whig 
 party, with whose members I have all my life been as- 
 sociated in feeling and in principle, and with whom I hope 
 to live and die associated, to give a short explanation of 
 the position which a combination of circumstances forces 
 me to assume. I am the more thoroughly convinced of 
 the propriety of this course, from the fact (of the exist- 
 ence of which none are ignorant) that the members of 
 the Whig party have been, and still are, divided by sec- 
 tional feelings, local jealousies and differences of opinion, 
 upon questions connected with the organic law of the 
 State and State policy ; and that these divisions can 
 
390 The True History of 
 
 only be healed by a spirit of forbearance, of mutual con- 
 cession, and a determination on the part of every good 
 Whig to lay aside personal preferences in the selection 
 of the candidates who are to be the standard bearers of 
 the great Whig party in the fierce and fiery conflict 
 which is to have its termination on the first Monday in 
 August next. As a member of the State Convention that 
 framed the New Constitution, my course on the subject 
 of slavery, if not ultra, was at lest objectionable to 
 a great many true and conscientious Whigs, who not 
 only believed slavery a great evil, but that the earliest 
 steps possible should be taken to rid the State of 
 its existence. Actuated by a high sense of public duty, 
 and honestly differing with those entertaining such opin- 
 ions, every effort on their part, tending to the accom- 
 plishment of their purpose, was opposed by me both in 
 and out of the Convention. My support, too, of the 
 proposition to make the judiciary elective was equally 
 objectionable to many of the oldest and best Whigs of 
 Kentucky (to differ with whom caused me almost to 
 distrust the correctness of my own judgment) ; and, al- 
 though conscientious myself in the part taken by me 
 upon each of these great measures, yet prejudices inci- 
 dent to human nature, and which never fail to arise out 
 of differences of opinion, however honestly entertained, 
 upon questions of so exciting a nature, have, it is to be 
 feared, been awakened against me in many counties in 
 Kentucky ; and might, unless abandoned, render it not 
 only impolitic in the Whigs to nominate me as their 
 candidate for Governor, but morally impossible for me 
 to unite the entire Whig strength of the State, should 
 the nomination be given to me. In addition to all this, 
 if I should receive the nomination, it would only be, 
 under existing circumstances, after a contest with the 
 friends of others, and might leave me crippled and 
 weakened in the very commencement of the canvass. 
 This, so far as I am personally concerned, would be of 
 but little consequence ; but knowing, as every intelli- 
 
The Missouri Compromise and its Repeal. 391 
 
 gent man must know, that the Democratic party was 
 never better organized in Kentucky than it is now, and 
 that stimulated with the hope of victory, its efiforts will 
 be in proportion to its prospects of success ; and know- 
 ing also that a crisis in the history of the Whig party is 
 rapidly apjDroaching, and that division in their ranks 
 would not only result in a disgraceful defeat at the next 
 election, but in ruin, hopeless and irretrievable, for 
 years to come ; and feeling now, as I have always, ready 
 and anxious to yield up to the good of the Whig party 
 any aspirations I may have to personal honor or indi- 
 vidual preferment, and pledging myself to do a soldier's 
 part in defense of our glorious principles, in whatever 
 place the Convention may assign me, I can not but ex- 
 press the hope that my friends — in view of all the cir- 
 cumstances, and to whom I owe a debt of gratitude, 
 which my life will be too short to cancel — will not place 
 my name in nomination before the Convention for the 
 office of Governor, unless upon full conviction it will 
 secure the entire union and success of the Whig party, 
 but will unite in the selection of some one to whom the 
 objections that may be urged to me can not be made, 
 and who, by the union of the Whig strength of the 
 State, will insure .not only a victory but a glorious tri- 
 umph. 
 
 "With the hope that every true Whig in Kentucky 
 will burn upon the altar of patriotism and his country 
 every prejudice he may have formed against a brother 
 Whig for mere differences of opinion upon questions 
 which, as Whigs, should never have divided them, and 
 that each and all of them, in the hour of trial and con- 
 flict, will be found at the post of duty, as when in times 
 of old they battled with one arm and one heart for their 
 country and Whig principles, I subscribe myself, 
 
 "Respectfully and truly, 
 
 "Arch'd Dixon. 
 "Henderson, Dec. 28, 1850." ^ 
 
 ^ Louisville Journal, Jan. 6, 1851. 
 
392 The True History of 
 
 A month later, the following appeared in the columns 
 of the Journal, the Whig organ of Kentucky, edited by 
 Geo. D. Prentice : 
 
 "MR. DIXON NOT A CANDIDATE FOR GOVERNOR. 
 
 "It will be seen from the following letter that Mr. 
 Dixon unconditionally declines to be regarded as a can- 
 didate for Governor. He believes that he could not fully 
 unite the strength of the Whig party, and, therefore, 
 like a true Whig patriot as he is, he takes his name out 
 of the canvass. 
 
 "Would to Heaven that all who call themselves Whigs 
 were as worthy of the noble name as Archibald Dixon." 
 
 And then followed the letter. 
 
 Notwithstanding this positive declination, the Whigs, 
 in their State Convention which met at Frankfort, Feb- 
 ruary 22, 1851, nominated Mr. Dixon as their candidate 
 for Governor, and Hon. John B. Thompson, of Mercer 
 county, Lieutenant-Governor. After making the nom- 
 inations unanimous, the Convention 
 
 ''Resolved, That it is the sense of the Whig party of 
 Kentucky, that to the Union of the States w^e owe our 
 liberty, peace, national character, prosperity, and re- 
 nown ; that, as it has been a guaranty in the past, so it 
 is a pledge for the future continuance of these inestima- 
 ble blessings ; that on this appropriate and auspicious 
 day we renew our vows of unabated loyalty, according 
 to the principles of the Constitution, to the sacred Union 
 which it designed to render immortal and indissoluble ; 
 and that, as taught by Washington, we 'indignantly 
 frown upon the first dawning of every attempt to alien- 
 ate any portion of our country from the rest or to en- 
 feeble the sacred ties which now link together the va- 
 rious parts.' 
 
 ''Resolved, That the Whig party of Kentucky, recog- 
 nizing the spirit of conciliation and compromise in the 
 measures of Congress for adjusting the territorial and 
 slavery disputes which so fearfully distracted and men- 
 
The Missouri Compromise and its Repeal. 393 
 
 aced the Union, and regarding them as constitutional, 
 and substantially just in practical operation, cordially 
 approve the same ; and that the gratitude and applause 
 of the whole country should be fervently accorded to the 
 ^visdom and patriotism of the noble-hearted statesmen 
 who contributed to their success. 
 
 "Resolved, That the New Constitution of Kentucky, 
 having been adopted by the people, the sovereign au- 
 thority to which all should bow with respectful and 
 cheerful submission, every loyal citizen should dutifully 
 do every thing in his power to give it easy and sufficient 
 operation as the supreme fundamental law of the land 
 (according to the intention of its framers) ; and that, 
 in the distribution of political honors and offices, no dis- 
 crimination should be made founded on the opinion of 
 citizens in regard to that instrument when its adoption 
 was an open question ; but that all Whigs should be 
 recognized as standing on a perfect equality without in- 
 vidious favor to one class of them or odious proscription 
 of another. 
 
 "Resolved, That the Constitution of the United States 
 and the laws made in pursuance thereof constitute the 
 supreme law of the land ; and it is the duty of the 
 oflBcers of the Federal Government to enforce the same. 
 
 "Resolved, That Henry Clay, for a long life of eminent 
 (and beneficent) public service, and especially for his 
 patriotic and almost superhuman labors in devising and 
 advocating the recent great measures, is entitled, in an 
 especial manner, to the gratitude of Kentucky, of the 
 Union, and of the friends of civil liberty throughout the 
 world." 
 
 Shortly after, the Emancipation Whigs proceeded to 
 hold their Convention, and, at Lexington, about March 
 1st, nominated Cassius M. Clay, a noted Abolitionist, as 
 their candidate for the governorship. 
 
 In 1845, C. M. Clay had edited an Abolition paper, 
 the "True American," at Lexington, and published 
 some most incendiary articles. Finally, on the 12th of 
 
394 The True Historij of 
 
 August, 1845, his paper contained an editorial from 
 which the following is an extract : 
 
 "But, remember, you who dwell in marble palaces, 
 that there are strong arms and fiery hearts and iron 
 pikes in the streets, and panes of glass only between 
 them and the silver plate on the board, and the smooth- 
 skinned woman on the ottoman." 
 
 This allusion (which was, of course, to the negro ele- 
 ment) so enraged the people of Lexington that they held 
 a mass meeting, at which it was stated that "In the 
 preparation and establishment of his office in Lexington, 
 Mr. Cassius M. Clay acted as though he were in an 
 enemy's country. He has employed scientific engineers 
 in fortifying against attacks, and prepared the means of 
 destroying the lives of his fellow citizens, it is said, in 
 mines of gunpowder, stands of muskets, and pieces of 
 cannon. 
 
 "It is therefore resolved by this assembly : 
 
 "■First. That no Abolition press ought to be tolerated 
 in Kentucky, and none shall be in this city or its 
 vicinity. 
 
 "Fifth. That we hope C. M. Clay will be advised. 
 For by our regard to our wives and children, our homes, 
 our property, our country, our honor, wear what name 
 he may,^ be connected with whom he may, whatever 
 arm or party here or elsewhere may sustain him, he 
 shall not publish an Abolition paper here, and this we 
 affirm at the risk, be it of his blood or our own, or both, 
 or all he may bring, of bond or free, to aid his murder- 
 ous hand." 
 
 C. M. Clay, however, would not be advised, and stated 
 in his next issue that "The slave-holders must calm 
 themselves into just thinkers and cease to provoke the 
 Northern free States by putting them at defiance in 
 Congress and out of it." 
 
 '•C. M. Clay was not related to Henry Clay, the great Commoner, at 
 all, or so distantly as to amount to the same thing. 
 
The Missouri Compromise and its Repeal. 395 
 
 Finding that he would neither leave nor moderate his 
 turbulent and incendiary expressions, the citizens of 
 Lexington, en masse, assembled on the evening of August 
 18th, resolved to destroy his office and press and drive 
 him from the city. Thos. F. Marshall, in a speech of 
 singular tact and force, persuaded them instead to sim- 
 ply pack up his press and fixtures and ship them to Cin- 
 cinnati, which was done. 
 
 As their candidate in 1851, C. M. Clay eminently 
 suited the purposes of the Abolitionists, who were vio- 
 lently opposed to Mr. Clay, to the Compromise of 1850, 
 and to every thing that looked to peace between the 
 States. His nomination also delighted the Democracy 
 (or Loco Focos, as they were then called), for they saw 
 in the prospective division of the Whig party their only 
 hope of success. 
 
 The approaching contest in Kentucky was looked upon 
 with the deepest interest by the whole country, as it was 
 deemed the forerunner of the struggle between the two 
 great parties for the Presidency in 1852. 
 
 Mr. Dixon's position during this canvass was unique. 
 An ardent Whig, he had yet antagonized many of his 
 associates by the bold and firm stand he had taken 
 against emancipation in the Constitutional Convention 
 of 1849. An earnest pro-slavery man, yet a strict be- 
 liever in the rights of the States to regulate their own 
 domestic affairs, he lost the support of hundreds of ultra 
 pro-slavery Whigs (who now voted their first Democratic 
 ticket) because he sustained Mr. Clay's policy, as to 
 the admission of California with her anti-slavery Consti- 
 tution, with all the vigor and energy of his nature, not 
 only from his fixed convictions as to the rights of the 
 States, but also from his devoted love for the Union 
 which seemed to be in such great and imminent peril. 
 He had adhered to Mr. Clay steadily in the contest be- 
 tween him and Taylor in 1848, but in 1849, took a 
 course exactly opposite to that recommended by Mr. 
 Clay. He followed no man's lead unless satisfied he 
 
396 
 
 The True History of 
 
 was right, and while he always believed Mr. Clay to be 
 the purest patriot he ever knew, he yet believed him to 
 be mistaken on this point, and he had adopted the course 
 which he himself thought the right one. The resolu- 
 tions of the Convention, however, sustaining Mr. Clay's 
 position in the Congress of 1850, met his hearty ap- 
 proval ; for Mr. Dixon did not believe that any Congress 
 could, constitutionally, by its mere dictum, deprive the 
 people of either of the great sections of the country of 
 their equal rights to territory which belonged equally to 
 every section ; neither did he believe that Congress had 
 the risht to refuse entrance to a State either because her 
 Constitution -prohibited slavery, or because it established 
 slavery ; but he did believe that Congress could, consti- 
 tutionally, refrain from all interference with the domestic 
 affairs of the Territories, and leave all local questions to be 
 settled by the majority of the people themselves. This 
 view was the doctrine of non-intervention, as advocated by 
 Clay, Webster, Calhoun, Douglas, Cass and Footein 1850, 
 and maintained by Mr. Dixon in the canvass of 1851. 
 But this view and these resolutions were so distasteful 
 to the ultra pro-slavery Whigs, who thought California 
 should never have been admitted with an anti-slavery 
 constitution when one-half of her territory lay south of 
 the line of the Missouri Compromise, 36° 30', that many 
 of them declared they would vote the Democratic ticket 
 in preference to casting their votes for any Whig who 
 would run on the platform of the Compromise of 1850. 
 And they cared nothing for the fact that Mr. Dixon's 
 work in the convention of 1849, had been of such a 
 character as to so thoroughly accomplish the purpose he 
 had in view, viz. — to prevent the invasion of the rights 
 of property of her citizens — that when the peculiar 
 property, designed to be protected, had, by force of 
 events, for over a quarter of a century been a thing of 
 the past, yet the provisions for its protection remained, 
 and stood as a nearly impassable barrier to the making 
 of a new constitution, or amending the old one. The 
 
The Missouri Compromise and its Repeal. 397 
 
 ultra pro-slavery men of Kentucky did not appreciate 
 at that time the value to themselves of the great princi- 
 ple of non-intervention, through which alone they could 
 hope for equality in the Union. 
 
 Mr. Dixon, however, did appreciate it, not only for 
 its value, but for its justice. He felt that it would be 
 quite as unfair to attempt to force slavery upon the 
 people of California as to force emancipation upon the 
 people of Kentucky. And he advocated the principle 
 of non-intervention by Congress with the subject of 
 slavery, as laid down in the Compromise of 1850, all 
 over the State of Kentucky. 
 
 Personally the canvass was not less unique. Gov. 
 Powell, Mr. Dixon's opponent, was his townsman, his 
 neighbor, his bosom friend. They had been partners in 
 law, they indorsed for each other, they each held power 
 of attorney for the other, and as long as they lived were 
 in the daily habit of taking walks together. It was mu- 
 tually agreed that during the canvass there should be no 
 personalities by either party. They traveled together 
 during the whole time, usually occupied the same room, 
 and often had to sleep in the same bed. Through all the 
 intense excitement — and the political caldron was boiling 
 hot — their friendship was never for a moment inter- 
 rupted, and it continued unbroken during their lives. 
 It is doubtful if such an instance ever occurred, either 
 before or since, in American polities. Mr. Dixon, 
 although in very feeble health at the time, followed Gov. 
 Powell to his grave as chief pall bearer. Upon his re- 
 turn, he said, in a voice broken with emotion and grief, 
 that I can never forget, "I have taken my last walk with 
 Powell." 
 
 Gov. Powell was fully worthy of this devoted friend- 
 ship. Bold to denounce wrong, he was equally gener- 
 ous to forgive it. 
 
 In the Senate of the United States, in 1862, his elo- 
 quent, decided, and patriotic utterances against the 
 wrongs being committed by the government, and in de- 
 
398 The True History of 
 
 fense of constitutional right, induced Garrett Davis, his 
 colleague, to bring up a resolution of expulsion against 
 him. Gov. Powell spoke in his own behalf and the reso- 
 lution failed by so decided a majority that it was not 
 again brought up, though he continued his remonstrances 
 in the most forcible way against the course of the ad- 
 ministration.^ It is to be noted that when it was moved 
 to expel Mr. Davis for disloyalty some time afterwards, 
 Gov. Powell, "with a generosity that was the wonder of 
 the hour," at once rose to defend him, and by his argu- 
 ment and reasoning prevented any action of the Senate 
 adverse to Mr. Davis. 
 
 Mr. Dixon knew that the race for Governor in 1851 
 would be no mere child's play (as it had comparatively 
 been in 1848) , it would be a desperate battle of divided 
 forces on the part of the Whigs, with all the odds on the 
 side of a solid and united Democracy, who would con- 
 test every inch of the ground. 
 
 Said a contemporary : "With the consciousness that 
 he was leading a forlorn hope ; nay, that it was almost 
 impossible that he should be elected, his ardor was not 
 damped, nor his natural force abated. . . . From 
 every speaker's stand in Kentucky his eloquent voice 
 was heard calling upon the people to stand by the insti- 
 tutions of their fathers, and maintain the integrity of 
 the Union against the insidious attacks of Northern 
 Abolitionists, and the more violent and furious on- 
 slaughts of Southern seceders. Those spirit-stirring ap- 
 peals were not lost. They were not thrown away upon 
 listless ears. The people of Kentucky, we assert boldly, 
 have more true loyalty of feeling, and deep, unselfish, 
 patriotic affection and admiration for the Republic than 
 those of any other State. These patriotic sentiments 
 
 ' Only a perusal of the speeches themselves could convey any idea of 
 their force, their boldness, their fidelity to the right, their admirable 
 temper, their justness of appreciation, their broad understanding of the 
 true relations of the Federal Government to the people of the States. — 
 Author. 
 
The Missouri Compromise and its Repeal. 399 
 
 Mr. Dixon, by his bold and manly eloquence, awakened 
 into activity at a time when the expression of such 
 sentiments on the part of the masses was necessary to 
 sustain the course of those great statesmen, who stood 
 like faithful pilots at the helm and, finally succeeded in 
 weathering the storm. He spoke, not for his own elec- 
 tion merely, nor for the success of the Whig party, but 
 for the Union."' 
 
 As he had predicted, from the divisions in the Whig 
 party, Mr. Dixon lost the election, Gov. Powell being 
 elected by 850 majority; Cassius M, Clay, the emanci- 
 pation candidate, receiving about 3,600 votes. 
 
 By the inexorable law of cause and effect in the pro- 
 gress of human events, the State of Kentucky, from be- 
 ing the banner Whig State in 1844, and triumphantly 
 Whig in 1848, became Democratic in 1851. Not all of 
 the great personal popularity of the Whig candidate for 
 Governor could heal the breach in the party ranks which 
 had arisen in 1849, nor unite the emancipation Whigs 
 and the ultra pro-slavery Whigs under the same banner 
 with the conservative and Union-loving men of the 
 party. Not all of his eloquence could persuade the 
 extreme pro-slavery men to vote for the candidate of the 
 platform of the Compromise of 1850, which to them 
 meant only the admission of California with an anti- 
 slavery Constitution ; nor yet the emancipation Whigs 
 to vote for one who, in 1849, had so strenuously and so 
 successfully opposed all of their views in the making of 
 the New Constitution. 
 
 This defeat was a bitter pill to the Whigs, so long the 
 victorious party in Kentucky ; and some of its organs 
 began at once to cast about for some cause of it, other 
 than the true one — the division of the party itself on the 
 emancipation question ; to which division they were 
 anxious to shut their eyes, as, in a clear view of the 
 future of their party, they could not but see the danger 
 
 ' Livingston's Biographical Magazine, June, 1853. 
 
400 The True History of 
 
 ahead, of its total disruption on this very question. So 
 they said it was Mr. Dixon's personal unpopularity that 
 had caused his defeat ; and they circulated the story 
 that he had, by his discourtesy and inhospitality to 
 members of the Methodist Conference, which met in 
 Henderson in 1849, won the enmity of the Methodists of 
 Kentucky in a body, and, as they were mostly Whigs, 
 their vote had defeated him. 
 
 The truth is, that Mr. Dixon received a larger vote in 
 that election than Mr. Thompson, the candidate for 
 Lieutenant-Governor, and more votes in each district 
 than most of the pro-slavery Whig candidates for Con- 
 gress. This, in connection with the fact that out of 
 about 6,500 emancipationists in Kentucky, Mr. C. M. 
 Clay received only 3,600 votes, would seem to indicate 
 that a number of emancipation Whigs refrained from 
 voting against Mr. Dixon, whilst yet they were not will- 
 ing to vote /or him, strongly opposed as he was to their 
 views on a point in which they conscientiously believed 
 themselves to be correct. 
 
 The story as to the Methodists was made out of 
 ^^ whole doth.'" The author has taken pains to ascertain 
 the time of meeting of the Methodist Annual Conference 
 held in Henderson in 1849. In a letter of February 17, 
 1896, Rev. John J. Tigert, of Nashville, states that, 
 "The date according to the minutes is October 1-3-9." 
 Now, the Constitutional Convention held its first session 
 October 1, 1849. The members assembled at Frankfort 
 a day or two previous, and Mr. Dixon was among them. 
 I speak from personal knowledge, as I went to Frank- 
 fort with my father, who was also a member, and Mr. 
 Dixon had arrived there before we did, and was one of 
 the first acquaintances I recognized upon our arrival. 
 So, of course, he could not have shown "discourtesy or 
 inhospitality" to those gentlemen of the Conference, 
 when he was absent from home in the discharge of his 
 public duty. Doubtless some members of the Confer- 
 ence would have been entertained at his house, even in 
 
The Missouri Compromise and its Repeal. 401 
 
 his absence, but for the extreme illness of one of his 
 little children,' who had lain for some weeks apparently 
 at the point of death, and still claimed the entire atten- 
 tion of his mother. 
 
 By a singular coincidence, a few days after a recent 
 discussion in some of our papers as to the causes of the 
 Whig defeat in Kentucky in 1851, the writer came 
 across a little roll of papers, never seen before, in Mr. 
 Dixon's handwriting, regarding that defeat. One of 
 them is given verbatim. It is conclusive of the position 
 taken by the author, from the evidence, as to this ques- 
 tion, long before this memorandum was found. 
 
 '■'■Mem. I knew for weeks before the election that if 
 defeated at all it would be from the withholding the 
 emancipation votes from me, or the giving them to the 
 emancipation candidate for Governor, Capt. Clay ; and 
 I wrote to a number of friends in different parts of 
 the State, expressing my apprehensions that I would 
 lose from six to ten thousand of these votes unless some- 
 thing could be done to bring them back to the support 
 of the Whig party. The result has verified the correct- 
 ness of my prediction, for in every county in the State 
 where the emancipation votes existed, they have been, 
 with a few exceptions, either withheld from me or cast 
 for Capt. Clay. Nor has the opposition been confined 
 to me, but Col. Thompson, the Whig pro-slavery candi- 
 date for Lieutenant [Governor] , has suffered equally 
 with myself. Mr. Hill, Mr. Ewing, Mr. Wm. C. Mar- 
 shall, Gen. Combs, and even Col. Humphrey Marshall, 
 have all suffered to a greater or less extent from the 
 withholding of this vote from them. It is useless to 
 disguise the fact — the emancipation vote of Kentucky is 
 lost to the Whig party unless something can be done to 
 recall them to its support. They are led on by a man 
 bold, intrepid and daring, with talents to command 
 
 ^ Hon. Henry C. Dixon. 
 26 
 
402 The True History of 
 
 respect, an eloquence flowing and persuasive, and an 
 energy and perseverance, indomitable and untiring. 
 And if in the last contest for Governor he has failed to 
 get the entire emancipation vote, he has at least suc- 
 ceeded in neutralizing thousands who did not vote for 
 him. If I were to express an opinion at all upon the 
 subject, I should unhesitatingly say that but for the 
 letter addressed by him to the committee of Free Soilers 
 in Maine, he would have gotten almost the entire eman- 
 cipation vote of the State. Many warm emancipation- 
 ists did not agree fully with him in all the views ex- 
 pressed by him in that letter, and consequently did not 
 vote for him. They nevertheless entertained the highest 
 respect for him as a man and admiration for his talents. 
 I know that this was the fact, for many of them ex- 
 pressed fully their opinions of him to me as I traveled 
 through the State. That the 3,000 emancipation votes 
 given to him for Governor were principally Whigs there 
 can be no doubt, and there is just as little doubt that 
 those who did not vote at all belonged also to the Whig 
 party — indeed the emancipation vote of Kentucky is 
 almost entirely Whig, and the few who belonged to the 
 Democratic party felt that Democracy was greater than 
 emancipation, and their opinions on the latter subject 
 are lost sight of and merged in their devotion to the 
 principles of the former." 
 
 When Mr. Dixon first started out on the canvass, his 
 health was so broken that his immediate friends feared 
 he would never return alive ; but on the contrary, the 
 weeks spent in the open air, driving or riding on horse- 
 back over mountain and plain, speaking every day, 
 often twice, and sometimes three times, seemed to 
 restore his health, and he came back very much stronger 
 and better than when he left. 
 
 In November of 1851, it became the duty of the Legis- 
 lature of Kentucky to elect a successor to Mr. Under- 
 wood, whose term in the Senate of the United States 
 would expire March 3d, 1853. There was a very exciting 
 
The Missouri Compromise and its Repeal. 403 
 
 contest in the Whig party over the nomination for this 
 office, between the friends of Mr. Dixon on the one side, 
 and of Hon. John J. Crittenden on the other. It resulted 
 in the withdrawal of both gentlemen, when Hon. John B. 
 Thompson was put in nomination, and elected over Mr. 
 Stone, Democrat, by 73 to 65. 
 
 Mr. Clay having, on December 17th, resigned his seat 
 in the Senate, to take effect on the first Monday of Sep- 
 tember, 1852, it became necessary to elect his successor, 
 and on December 30th, Mr. Dixon was elected over 
 James Guthrie, Democrat, by 71 to 58. 
 
 Says the biographer: "The gubernatorial campaign, 
 as he had anticipated and predicted, resulted in his de- 
 feat by a small majority. But the emancipation party, 
 though it possessed a sufficient number of votes to con- 
 trol the election, before the peoj)le, on account of the 
 almost equal division of the State between the Whigs 
 and Democrats, did not possess the same commanding 
 power in the Legislature, and the immense majority who 
 coincided with Mr. Dixon in his opinions on the subject 
 of slavery, determined to reward his talents and fidelity 
 with a seat in the United States Senate. 
 
 "He was opposed, however, by the whole emancipa- 
 tion influence in the contest which ensued for this high 
 office, and was run against nearly every prominent 
 Whig in the State, Mr. Crittenden included. A caucus 
 having at last been called for the purpose of deciding the 
 claims of the respective candidates, it was found that 
 Mr. Crittenden and Mr. Dixon were the only competi- 
 tors. The friends of Mr. Dixon claimed a majority of 
 two, but the adherents of Mr. Crittenden remaining 
 firm or obstinate, as the apologists of either side may 
 prefer, Mr. Dixon consented, for the sake of harmony in 
 the Whig party, that his own name should be withdrawn 
 in connection with the withdrawal of that of Mr. Crit- 
 tenden. It being anticipated, however, that a vacancy 
 in the Senate might soon occur, the friends of Mr. Dixon 
 still adhered to him, resolved upon his ultimate success, 
 
404 The True History of 
 
 and in a short time the resignation of Mr. Clay again 
 called upon the Legislature of Kentucky to choose a 
 representative to fill the unexpired term of that great 
 man. The nam-e of Mr. Dixon was immediately pre- 
 sented to the two Houses of the Legislative body for 
 their suffrages, and in opposition to it those of many 
 other prominent and distinguished Whigs, but after a 
 few ballotings, his election was carried without diffi- 
 culty. . . . He is for the compromise as it stands, 
 without the slightest abatement or reservation as a final 
 settlement of those alarming questions which have so 
 long agitated the country."* 
 
 DIVISION OF THE NATIONAL WHIG PARTY. 
 
 If the emancipation question and the compromise 
 measures had so divided and defeated the Whig party 
 in Kentucky, the fugitive slave law and the compromise 
 measures were now threatening the party with a still 
 greater calamity in the division of the Northern Whigs 
 from those of the South, so as to render their dissolution 
 as a national body almost a certainty, unless something 
 should be done to prevent it. The question was how to 
 do this, and so secure the coming election of President 
 to the Whigs. 
 
 A large body of the Northern Whigs, under the lead 
 of Mr. Seward, declared openly against the execution 
 of the fugitive slave law, and demanded its repeal. 
 
 The Southern Whigs, with the Northern conservative 
 Whigs, on the contrary, insisted that the Compromise of 
 1850, should be strictly adhered to, and each and all of its 
 provisions faithfully observed. They were in favor of 
 either Mr. Fillmore or Mr. Webster, as candidate of the 
 party; both of whom had shown themselves to be na- 
 tional and conservative statesmen ; Mr. Fillmore insist- 
 ing, in the terms of Mr. Foote's resolution of January 
 28, 1852, that the compromise measures should be re- 
 
 ' Livingston's Biographical Magazine, June, 1853. 
 
The Missouri Compromise and its Repeal. 405 
 
 garded "as a final settlement, in principle and substance, 
 of the dangerous and exciting questions which they em- 
 brace." ^ 
 
 And this position was most strongly indorsed by lead- 
 ing conservative Whigs in the North as well as the 
 South. Monster mass meetings were held, speeches 
 were made and resolutions passed ; of which the follow- 
 ing, taken from the proceedings of a meeting of thou- 
 sands in the City of Philadelphia, whose cry was "Fill- 
 more, the Constitution and the Union;" is given as a 
 sample. 
 
 "9. Resolved, therefore, That we will, to the extent of 
 our ability, endeavor to procure the nomination of Mil- 
 lard Fillmore, believing that, in so doing, we are con- 
 sulting the highest interest of our country, and the 
 honor and safety of the great conservative party, to 
 which it is our pride and pleasure to belong." 
 
 Henry Clay is quoted at the same meeting. 
 
 "6. . . . As from the tomb, comes to us the dec- 
 laration of Henry Clay, that of all the candidates for 
 the Presidency, there is no one fitter, safer, or more eli- 
 gible, than our candidate, Millard Fillmore."^ 
 
 The Seward (or Abolition) Whigs advocated the nomi- 
 nation of Gen. Winfield Scott, who, acting, as it was 
 believed, under Mr. Seward's advice, refused to make 
 any publication of his views, or to make any pledges as 
 to the carrying out of the Compromise. The Democrats 
 said, " So he might be for it in the South and against it 
 in the North." 
 
 Forty-four members of the 31st Congress, Whigs and 
 Democrats, Northern and Southern alike, with Henry 
 Clay at their head, had signed a pledge not to support 
 "for the office of President or of Vice-President, or of 
 a Senator or of Representative in Congress, or as mem- 
 ber of a State Legislature, any man, of whatever party, 
 
 1 App. Cong. Globe, Vol. 25, p. 372. 
 » Philadelphia Inquirer, May 24, 1852. 
 
406 The True History of 
 
 who is not known to be opposed to the disturbance of 
 the settlement aforesaid, and to the renewal in any 
 form, of agitation upon the subject of slavery."^ 
 
 And it was stated on the floor of the House that Mr. 
 Clay had taken the position, before the Legislature of 
 Kentucky, that he himself would go for a Democrat who 
 was sound on this question rather than a Whig who 
 was not. ^ 
 
 The Southern Whigs had resolved not to pledge their 
 votes to any nominee who would not unequivocally and 
 publicly declare himself for the compromise measure as 
 a "finality." 
 
 The Northern Whigs would not agree to adopt the 
 compromise measures as a finality, or as a part of the 
 party creed ; and it was stated in the House by Mr. 
 Washburne of Maine, a Whig member, that any candi- 
 date who "insists upon that, or who is nominated by a 
 convention which affirms or requires it, can not, in my 
 opinion, obtain the vote of a single Northern State, not 
 one. . . . The North can not submit to this new 
 test, and the South, I think, ought not to. It will do 
 harm, and nothing but harm, to both North and South. 
 It will have a surer tendency to create sectional parties 
 than any thing we can do. . . . No nation beneath 
 the sun is so favored as ours in having within its bound- 
 aries all the elements of strength, prosperity and happi- 
 ness — not England, nor France, Russia, Austria, Spain — 
 not one. . . . But let intestine strife prevail, and 
 sectional jealousies be aroused till disunion shall come, 
 and no star of hope shall light the prospect that will lie 
 before us. 'The blasted leaves of autumn may be re- 
 newed by the returning spring, the cerements of the 
 grave shall burst, and earth give up her dead;' but let 
 this Union be once destroyed, there is no power that can 
 restore it, no heat that can its 'light relume.' National 
 death is followed by no resurrection." ^ 
 
 ^ App. Cong. Globe, Vol. 25, p. 372. » Idem, p. 506. 
 ' Idem, pp. 626, 627. 
 
The Missouri CoTnpromise and its Repeal. 407 
 
 Gen. Scott had been nominated by Whig conventions 
 in several of the Northern States, but they had main- 
 tained a portentous silence as to the compromise meas- 
 ures. 
 
 The Democracy were also divided upon these vital 
 questions of the hour. They held their convention first ; 
 and the three divisions of the party met, each at differ- 
 ent places. The Free Soilers at Buffalo, the Southern 
 wing at Nashville, and the great National Democracy at 
 Baltimore. But, by the "powerful magnet of patron- 
 age," all the discordant elements were brought together, 
 and they united on a platform of strict adherence to the 
 compromise measure of 1850, as expressed in the resolu- 
 tion here given : 
 
 DEMOCRATIC PLATFORM. 
 
 "9. That Congress has no power under the Constitu- 
 tion to interfere with or control the domestic institutions 
 of the several States, and that such States are the sole and 
 proper judges of every thing appertaining to their own 
 affairs not prohibited by the Constitution ; that all efforts 
 of the Abolitionists or others made to induce Congress 
 to interfere with questions of slavery, or to take incipi- 
 ent steps in relation thereto, are calculated to lead to 
 the most alarming and dangerous consequences ; and 
 that all such efforts have an evitable tendency to dimin- 
 ish the happiness of the people, and endanger the sta- 
 bility and permanency of the Union, and ought not to 
 be countenanced by any friend of our political insti- 
 tutions. 
 
 ^^ Resolved, That the foregoing proposition covers and 
 was intended to embrace the whole subject of slavery 
 agitation in Congress, and therefore the Democratic 
 party of the Union, standing upon this national plat- 
 form, will abide by and adhere to a faithful execution of 
 the acts known as the compromise measures, settled by 
 the last Congress — the act for reclaiming of fugitives 
 from service of labor included, which act, being de- 
 
408 The True History of 
 
 signed to carry out an express provision of the Consti- 
 tution, can not, with fidelity thereto, be repealed, or so 
 changed as to destroy or impair its efficiency. 
 
 ''Resolved, That the Democratic party will resist all 
 attempts at renewing in Congress, or out of it, the agi- 
 tation of the slavery question, under whatever shape or 
 color the attempt may be made." ^ 
 
 Franklin Pierce, of New Hampshire, was the nominee 
 of the Democrats ; and he was a true representative 
 of the conservative, Union-loving, Constitution-loving, 
 American people. He had voted for those resolutions 
 of Mr. Calhoun, in 1838, which embodied the Demo- 
 cratic principle of States rights and a strict construction 
 of the Constitution ; and his every vote in the Senate 
 had shown his belief "that," as he expressed it, Febru- 
 ary 21, 1839, "we live under a written Constitution, 
 which is the panoply and protection of the South as well 
 as the North ; that it covers the entire Union." ^ 
 
 Gen. Pierce had enshrined himself in the hearts of his 
 fellow-soldiers and of his countrymen by his gallant 
 conduct on the battle fields of Mexico, and of which 
 Col. O'Hara, editor of the Louisville Times,' an eye- 
 witness, said : "Our admiration knew no bounds." * 
 
 And in the struggle of 1850, when Millard Fillmore 
 and George Washington were being denounced in North- 
 ern Conventions as being equally "infamous and vile" 
 for signing the acts of 1793 and 1850; "both were in- 
 famous, both laws were infamous;" Franklin Pierce 
 "threw the full weight of his high character, of his un- 
 bounded personal popularity, of his great and acknowl- 
 edged abilities in the scale of the Union." * 
 
 Pierce's acceptance of the nomination was charac- 
 teristic, straightforward, and direct. He said in his 
 letter : 
 
 "I accept the nomination upon the platform adopted 
 
 1 App. Cong. Globe, Vol. 25, p. 748. ^ Idem, p. 749. 
 
 ^ Also author of that immortal lyric, "The Bivouac of the Dead." 
 
 * App. Cong. Globe, Vol. 25, p. 751. * Idem, 877. 
 
The Missouri Compromise and its Repeal. 409 
 
 by the Convention, not because this is expected of me 
 as a candidate, but because the principles it embraces 
 command the approbation of my judgment, and with 
 them, I believe I can safely say, there has been no word 
 nor act of my life in conflict.''^ ' 
 
 W. R. King, of Alabama, a most superior man, was 
 nominated as Vice-President, and his indorsement of 
 the platform was as decided as Gen. Pierce's. Col. 
 King replied : 
 
 "The platform as made by the Convention meets my 
 cordial approbation. It is national in all its parts, and 
 I am content not only to stand upon it, but upon all oc- 
 casions to defend it." ^ 
 
 This action on the part of the Democracy and its 
 leaders served still further to embarrass the Whigs, 
 whose Convention was not held until some little time 
 after the Democratic nominations. The Compromise, 
 however, had been steadily gaining favor among the 
 Whigs both North and South as well as the Democrats. 
 
 Early in the session of '51-'52, Mr. Foote, of Missis- 
 sippi, had offered a resolution "declaring the Measures 
 of Adjustment to be a definitive settlement of the ques- 
 tions growing out of domestic slavery. 
 
 "5e it resolved, That the series of measures embraced 
 in the acts . . . approved September 20, 1850, com- 
 monly known as the Compromise Acts, are, in the judg- 
 ment of this body, a settlement in principle and sub- 
 stance — a final settlement of the dangerous and exciting 
 subjects which they embrace, and ought to be adhered 
 to by Congress until time and experience shall demon- 
 strate the necessity of further legislation to guard 
 against evasion or abuse." ^ 
 
 The discussion of this resolution, which was prompted 
 by the declarations of the Abolitionists against the Com- 
 promise, aroused the attention of the whole nation to 
 
 1 App. Cong. Globe, Vol. 25, p. 882. ^ Idem, 819. 
 3 Cong. Globe, Vol. 24, p. 410. 
 
410 The True History of 
 
 the. dangers ahead. The American people generally, 
 both North and South, were devoted to the Union ; and 
 public sentiment every- where indorsed the spirit of Mr. 
 Foote's resolution, excepting, perhaps, the ultras of 
 either section, who were, however, very few at the South, 
 compared with the numbers of them at the North. 
 
 The Southern Whigs had successfully combated sec- 
 tionalism at home, even incurring reproaches of friends, 
 neighbors, and relatives, because of their support of the 
 Compromise ; and the feeling in behalf of the Union and 
 against all disturbers of it was steadily growing in every 
 part of the country. 
 
 The Northern Abolition Whigs, who had been to such 
 an extent under the lead of Mr. Seward, and had de- 
 clared so strongly against the Compromise, were now 
 confronted with the question, whether they would yield 
 up their opposition to the Compromise or their hopes of 
 gaining the Presidency and with it the offices. The 
 situation was one which demanded the skill and craft of 
 a Machiavelli ; and this, apparently, was not wanting. 
 Presumably under the advice of their leader, they de- 
 cided to keep hold of both horns of their dilemma, or, 
 as the homely saying runs, "to carry water on both 
 shoulders." 
 
 They adopted a platform containing the declaration 
 that the Compromise should be regarded as a. final set- 
 tlement of the questions involved. In their eighth reso- 
 lution they declared that : 
 
 "8. The series of acts of the Thirty-first Congress, 
 commonly known as the compromise or adjustment (the 
 act for the recovery of fugitives from labor included) , 
 are received and acquiesced in by the Whigs of the 
 United States as a final settlement in principle and sub- 
 stance of the subjects to which they relate ; and, so far 
 as these acts are concerned, we will maintain them and 
 insist on their strict enforcement until time and experi- 
 ence shall demonstrate the necessity of further legisla- 
 tion to guard against the evasion of the laws on the one 
 
The Missouri Compromise and its Repeal. 411 
 
 hand and the abuse of their powers on the other, not im- 
 pairing their present efficiency to carry out the require- 
 ments of the Constitution ; and we deprecate all further 
 agitation of the questions thus settled as dangerous to 
 our peace, and will discountenance all efforts to continue 
 or renew such agitation whenever, wherever, or however 
 made ; and we will maintain this settlement as essential 
 to the nationality of the Whig party and the integrity 
 of the Union.'" 
 
 This platform enabled the Abolition wing of the Whig 
 party to carry the Convention for their candidate. Gen. 
 Scott, who, although he had absolutely refused to ex- 
 press his opinions publicly, or to pledge himself in any 
 way regarding his action as to the Compromise in case 
 he were elected President, yet, his friends claimed, had 
 in private conversation expressed himself as most de- 
 cidedly for it ; and moreover, they said, he had given 
 all his influence to its passage at the time President 
 Taylor was opposing it. (Be it understood that there 
 was no good feeling between Taylor and Scott, nor had 
 been since Scott went to Mexico to supersede Taylor, 
 during the Mexican war ; and this feeling may have in- 
 fluenced Gen. Scott to a degree in his support of the 
 Compromise.) 
 
 Upon such an unequivocal platform, the conservatives 
 concluded that it would be safe to accept this "mum" 
 candidate, as he was called ; and they were unwilling to 
 divide their party if it could be avoided. They found 
 that the Abolition wing would not agree to nominate 
 their candidate, Fillmore, towards whom, it was stated, 
 Mr. Seward entertained a strong enmity ; and so they 
 yielded the point of the candidate to secure what they 
 deemed more important, the platform. The Whigs were 
 still romantically devoted to their party, and were held 
 together, not only by the strong cohesive power of office 
 and "plunder," but also by that old-fashioned loyalty of 
 
 1 App. Cong. Globe, Vol. 25, p. 883. 
 
412 The True History of 
 
 feeling which had descended to them as an inheritance 
 from their ancestors, whose spirit of devotion to King 
 and Church was now embodied as loyalty to party and 
 country. 
 
 Gen. Scott telegraphed his acceptance of the nomina- 
 tion on the same day, as follows : 
 
 * 'Washington, June 21, 1852. 
 "Having the honor of being the nominee for Presi- 
 dent by the Whig National Convention, I shall accept 
 the same, with the platform of principles which the 
 Convention has laid down. Please show this to G. B, 
 Duncan.* With respects to friends, 
 
 "WiNPiELD Scott. "^ 
 
 Now, all this might have looked fair enough ; as his 
 acceptance of the nomination on that platform would 
 necessarily commit the candidate to its policy ; but un- 
 luckily for Gen. Scott, it was disclosed that the word 
 '■'"finaV had been omitted from the copy of the platform 
 sent to him, and which he had accepted. In a discus- 
 sion between two Whigs, Mr. Howe, Conservative, and 
 Mr. Stevens, Free Soiler, both of Pennsylvania, on the 
 3d of August, on the floor of the House, Mr. Stevens 
 says: "I see that my colleague is about to read the 
 platform. I ask him if Gen. Scott had that version 
 of the platform before him when he sent that dispatch?" 
 
 "Mr. Howe: It was the same, with the exception of 
 the word 'final.' " 
 
 "Mr. Stevens: The word 'final' was not in at the 
 time Gen. Scott sent the telegraphic dispatch."^ 
 
 It appeared from the statements afterwards made, that 
 this w^as done designedly, and that the platform sent to 
 Gen. Scott, and to which he gave his adhesion by tele- 
 graph, was repudiated by the proper ofiicers of the Con- 
 
 ' Congressman from Kentucky. 
 
 ' App. Cong. Globe, Vol. 25, p. 883. 
 
The Missouri Compromise and its Repeal. 413 
 
 vention "as false and spurious, put in circulation for the 
 use of the party in Free Soil latitudes."^ 
 
 Gen. Scott afterwards wrote a letter of acceptance to 
 the President of the Convention, stating that he adopted 
 the platform sent him by the Convention. Every Whig 
 Free Soiler in Congress approved his position, as noth- 
 ing in his letter bound him to veto any law repealing 
 any of the Compromise measures ; and Mr. Stevens, of 
 Pennsylvania, said, August 24th, in response to a ques- 
 by Mr. Polk : 
 
 "I mean to say, then, as far as I know any thing 
 of the Whig party in Pennsylvania, that some of 
 them support Gen. Scott because the word 'final,' is 
 in the platform, and some because it is not in the plat- 
 form."' 
 
 And moreover, "that no thinking Whig could be 
 bound by the action of the Whig Convention." 
 
 If the nomination of Gen. Taylor were the death- 
 warrant of the Whig party, as many thought at the 
 time, certainly Gen. Scott was its executioner. In 
 nominating him the Whig party lost its grandest oppor- 
 tunity ; it might have been nationalized ; it was instead 
 sectionalized ; it might have been made powerful ; it 
 was instead defeated and disintegrated. Had it given 
 evidence of its sincerity by nominating a man who 
 would have carried out its published platform in good 
 faith, such as Mr. Webster or Mr. Fillmore, every true 
 Whig would have rallied to his support, and whether 
 elected or not, the party would have retained its identity 
 and its entity. But it had lost its last opportunity, and 
 its doom was sealed. Its national character was gone 
 forever, its Northern wing thereafter being absorbed 
 into the great Abolition party, of which Seward was 
 chief leader ; its Southern wing taking refuge with the 
 Democracy, or else trying something new and hopeless 
 of success, as the Know Nothing ebullition. 
 
 1 App. Cong. Globe, Vol. 25, p. 751. » Idem, p. 1182. 
 
414 The True History of 
 
 The real contest, all the while, was, not between Scott 
 and Fillmore, but between Seward and Fillmore. It was 
 really Clay, Fillmore, the Compromise, the Constitution 
 and the Union, against Seward, Abolition and the 
 higher-law party with Gen. Scott as their figure-head ; 
 Mr. Seward, it was said and believed, expecting to 
 hood-wink the Conservatives by the pretended adher- 
 ence of the Convention and its candidate to the Compro- 
 mise until after Scott was elected, and then to control 
 Scott through the weakness of his character, and his 
 lack of ability as a statesman. Gen. Scott, with. all his 
 six feet and over, of a superb physique, must have been 
 a mere puppet in this man's hands. Otherwise, he 
 would certainly have investigated and disclaimed the 
 deception put upon his party by the omission of the 
 word "final" in the platform sent him. But instead of 
 occupying a high and open position, he stood, as one of 
 the Fillmore Whigs said, more tersely than elegantly, 
 "with a padlock on his mouth and his principles in 
 Seward's breeches pocket.'" 
 
 DEATH OF CLAY. 
 
 The Whig party had, most unfortunately, suffered the 
 loss of its two great leaders, in the Senate ; Mr. Webster 
 having accepted a place in the Cabinet, at Mr. Fillmore's 
 earnest solicitation, and Mr. Clay's ill health having 
 precluded him from all exertion for the entire session of 
 1851-'52. A few days after the nomination of Gen. 
 Scott he breathed his last. It is to be hoped that he 
 died consoled Avith the thought that both the great par- 
 ties of the country had adopted his Compromise, and 
 that he did not know that even then the leaders of the 
 Whigs in the one section were already contemplating the 
 breaking of the pledges they had made regarding it, 
 in the platform of their convention. 
 
 Mr. Clay's death occurred on the 29th of June, 1852, 
 
 1 App. Cong. Globe, Vol. 25, p. 683. 
 
The Missouri Compromise and its Repeal. 415 
 
 at the National Hotel in Washington City, in the seventy- 
 sixth year of his age. In full possession of his faculties, 
 he died with "perfect composure, and without a groan 
 or struggle." ' Even Death had joined the vast army of 
 those who acknowledged him as their superior, and 
 shrank back with awe as his great spirit entered that in- 
 visible realm. 
 
 No man of his day had such enthusiastic devotion 
 while living as Henry Clay — never were so many, and 
 such, eulogies delivered as after his death. Nor were 
 these confined to men of his own party — for he compelled 
 the admiration of his opponents as well as the love of 
 his adherents. He had the grandest presence of any 
 man in the world, and stood a veritable king among 
 men. The only men who did not love him were those 
 who hated or feared or misjudged him, or else, those 
 whom he angered by his superiority, or wounded by 
 neglect, as was sometimes complained of him. But om- 
 nipotence itself could scarcely have returned the devo- 
 tion of all the worshipers of Henry Clay. The tall, 
 graceful, willowy form, rocked and swayed by the might 
 of his own passion ; the flashing of his blue-gray eye, 
 commanding, controlling, subduing, persuading, or 
 withering ; the majestic embodiment of a spirit of fire ; 
 the impersonation of an imperial will superhuman in its 
 energy and power ; the concentration of a sublime force 
 which compelled men to yield to the fascination of his 
 genius, to the wonderful eloquence which charmed and 
 thrilled them like some magical strain of music — these 
 were some of the qualities which gave him such a place 
 in the hearts of the American people. But more even 
 than all his genius, all his eloquence, all his marvelous 
 gifts of command — were the settled convictions in the 
 minds of the people of his true and sincere patriotism. 
 Said Mr. Faulkner, of Virginia, a Democrat : 
 "He never paused to consider how far any step which 
 
 ^ Mr. Underwood, who was with him, states this. (Cong. Globe, Vol. 
 24, p. 1631.) 
 
416 The True History of 
 
 he was about to take would lead to his own personal ad- 
 vancement ; he never calculated what he might lose or 
 what he might gain by his advocacy of, or his opposi- 
 tion to, any particular measure ; his single inquiry was, 
 is it right? Is it in accordance with the Constitution of 
 the land? Will it redound to the permanent welfare 
 and interest of the country? When satisfied upon these 
 points, his determination was fixed — his purpose was im- 
 movable. . . . With him, the love of the Union was 
 a passion — an absorbing sentiment which gave color to 
 every act of his public life. It triumphed over party ; 
 it triumj)hed over policy ; it subdued the natural fierce- 
 ness and haughtiness of his temper and brought him 
 into the most kindly and cordial relations with those who, 
 upon all other questions, were deeply and bitterly op- 
 posed to him." ^ 
 
 "I know no North, no South, no East, no West." "I 
 had rather be right than be President." "These lofty 
 words," said one of his eulogists, "were a clue to his 
 whole character — the secret of his hold upon the heads 
 as well as the hearts of the American people — nay, the I 
 
 key to his immortality." ^ 
 
 1 Cong. Globe, Vol. 24, p. 1642. 
 
 « Mr. Brooks, of New York. (Cong. Globe, Vol. 24, p. 1641.) 
 
The Missouri Compromise and its Repeal. 417 
 
 CHAPTER XVI. 
 
 1852 — The principle of Non-intervention indorsed in Pierce's election to 
 the Presidency — Archibald Dixon takes his seat in the Senate — 
 Death of Webster — Attempt to organize the Nebraska Territory. 
 
 The election returns in November of 1852 showed an 
 overwhelming majority for Pierce over Scott. Only four 
 States were for Scott — Vermont and Massachusetts in 
 the North ; Kentucky and Tennessee in the South ; Ten- 
 nessee by only 1,000 majority, and Kentucky, which 
 gave Henry Clay over 9,000 majority in '44, now giving 
 Scott only 3,262, even with all her 6,500 Emancipation 
 Whigs, who, of course, voted for him. All of the other 
 States (26 in number) were for Pierce — Maine, New 
 Hampshire, Rhode Island, New York, Pennsylvania, 
 Connecticut, New Jersey, Delaware, Maryland, North 
 Carolina, Virginia, Georgia, Mississippi, Louisiana, 
 Florida, Alabama, Iowa, Ohio, Arkansas, Missouri, In- 
 diana, Michigan, Illinois, Wisconsin, Texas, and Cali- 
 fornia — and the popular majority they rolled up for him 
 was 202,008 ; whilst Polk's popular majority over Clay, 
 in 1844, was only 37,370, and Taylor's over Cass, in 
 1848, 138,447.^ Never did Abolition and disunion, 
 higher law and chicanery, receive so severe a rebuke as 
 in this immense popular majority for Pierce over Scott, 
 whose military fame, splendid personal appearance. 
 Whig antecedents and Abolition backing, all failed to 
 save him and his party from the most inglorious defeat. 
 
 The election of Pierce was a complete triumph of the 
 principles of the Compromise measures of 1850. These 
 measures embraced the principles of non-intervention 
 by Congress with slavery in the Territories, of equality 
 
 ' See Whig Almanac. 
 
 27 
 
418 The True History of 
 
 between the States, and of a strict adherence to the 
 Constitution in all its parts. In adopting the principle 
 of non-intervention in place of any geographical line of 
 division whatever, the Congress distinctly repudiated 
 and rejected, as entirely unjust and untenable, the 
 principle of the Missouri Compromise line, "which," 
 Gen. Cass said, was "intervention north of the line of 
 36° 30' and non-intervention south of that line. 
 
 "The true doctrine of non-intervention leaves the 
 whole question to the people. ... If they choose 
 to have slavery north of that line, they can have it." ^ 
 
 As stated heretofore, President Pierce had, in 1838, 
 voted and spoken for Mr. Calhoun's resolutions. Mr. 
 Calhoun's ideas of non-intervention by Congress with 
 slavery were strictly conservative, and were strongly 
 advocated by Mr. Pierce as Senator at that time. Mr. 
 Calhoun believed that the Constitution extended over all 
 the Territories, and that their inhabitants were entitled 
 to the protection of the Government in all their property 
 rights ; that every citizen of the States was entitled to go 
 into the Territories, carrying his property with him, of 
 every description ; and, when there, entitled to pro- 
 tection of the same ; that only when the Territories be- 
 came States, and formed their Constitution as such, could 
 they have the right to make laws to decide what should, 
 or what should not, be property within their several 
 limits. 
 
 Mr. Webster, on the other hand, had contended that 
 the Constitution did not extend over the Territories until 
 they were organized as such by Congress, and that 
 slavery, being a matter of lex loci, could not be trans- 
 ferred to a Territory, and could not, therefore, be under 
 protection of the Government ; whilst Gen. Cass main- 
 tained that the people of a Territory had the inherent 
 right of self-government, and could make their laws 
 without any organization by Congress whatever. This 
 
 1 Cong. Globe, Vol. 21, p. 518. 
 
The Missouri Compromise and its Repeal. 419 
 
 doctrine was also held by Judge Douglas, and was after- 
 ward known as "squatter sovereignty." 
 
 With all these differing opinions, however, wo find all 
 parties, Whigs and Democrats, North and South, united 
 in favor of the Compromise measures, with the single 
 exception of the Abolition, Free Soil element. 
 
 The execution of the Fugitive Slave Law, as provided 
 for in the Constitution ; the irregular admission of Cali- 
 fornia as a State without any intermediate territorial 
 organization and with her anti-slavery Constitution ; 
 and the decision of the principle of absolute non-inter- 
 vention by Congress with slavery, as the only correct 
 principle ; these were the three leading features of the 
 Compromise of 1850 ; and President Pierce and the great 
 majority of the American people had indorsed them in 
 the most emphatic way — had indorsed not only the strict 
 and faithful observance of the requirements of the Con- 
 stitution, and the doctrine of the equal rights of the 
 States, but also that broad principle of non-intervention 
 which was embraced in those measures. On these is- 
 sues the Democratic party had swept the country, and 
 their triumph was complete. On the evasion of these 
 issues, the great National Whig party had been not only 
 defeated, but sundered, sawn in two, and smitten into 
 fragments ; whereof, however, a few, faithful to the 
 last, hoped yet to reconstruct that organization which 
 had been so glorious in the past and was still so dear 
 to them even in its ruin and downfall. 
 
 When Congress convened in December, 1852, Hon. 
 Archibald Dixon presented his credentials, which were 
 as follows : 
 
 "Kentucky, set : 
 
 "The Legislature of this Commonwealth, on the 30th 
 of December, 1851, having chosen Archibald Dixon, 
 Esq., a Senator in the Congress of the United States 
 from the State of Kentucky, to serve for the unexpired 
 term rendered vacant by the resignation of Henry Clay, 
 
420 The True History of 
 
 wliicli had been made and accepted to take effect from 
 the first Monday of September, 1852, until the end of 
 the term for which the said Henry Clay was elected, I, 
 Lazarus W. Powell, being Governor or Chief Magistrate 
 of the Commonwealth of Kentucky, do hereby certify 
 the same to the Senate of the United States. 
 
 Given under my hand and seal of this Commonwealth 
 this 6th day of January, 1852, and the sixtieth year of 
 the Commonwealth. 
 
 [l. s.] L. W. Powell. 
 
 "By the Governor: 
 
 David Meriwether, Secretary of State. 
 
 A. P. Metcalfe, Assistant Secretary of State.' 
 
 »n 
 
 Upon Mr. Clay's death, in June, Gov. Powell had ap- 
 pointed David Meriwether to fill the vacancy existing 
 between the time of his death and the commencement 
 of the term of his successor, elected by the Legislature 
 of Kentucky. Gov. Meriwether was a warm personal 
 friend of Mr. Dixon, as was the Governor who appointed 
 him, and he did not claim the seat at all. But some of 
 the Democrats in the Senate were so anxious to secure 
 a Democratic Senator in Mr. Clay's place that they 
 sprang the most extraordinary question as to Mr. 
 Dixon's title to his seat. They claimed that there was 
 no vacancy by reason of Mr. Clay's resignation (Mr. 
 Clay having sent his resignation to the Governor of his 
 State and not to the Senate) , that the only vacancy which 
 had occurred was that caused by his death, and that 
 vacancy having been filled by the appointment of the 
 Governor, Mr. Meriwether was entitled to the seat for 
 the balance of the Senatorial term. Flimsy as this 
 fallacy was, distinguished Senators argued it lengthily 
 pro and con for two weeks, and it was only on the 20th 
 of December that Kentucky was finally accorded her 
 
 » Cong. Globe, Vol. 26, p. 1. 
 
The Missouri Compromise and its Repeal. 421 
 
 right of choosing her own Senator, and Mr. Dixon was 
 sworn in and took his seat. 
 
 Before Mr. Clay's successor had been admitted to his 
 place in the Senate, came the news of the death of the 
 last one of its great triumvirate, Daniel Webster. And 
 it is one of the saddest commentaries on the ingratitude 
 of human nature, that he had died wounded to the 
 quick by the denunciation of men who had been his as- 
 sociates and allies, his political friends and life-long ad- 
 mirers. He was denounced by them as a renegade, a 
 traitor, mourned over as degenerate, as fallen from his 
 once high estate, and all because of that great speech 
 of the 7th of March, 1850, in which he had maintained 
 the integrity of the Constitution, had advocated peace 
 between the sections, and taken his position as a true 
 friend to the Union. For this — the most eloquent plea 
 on record for the Union — he was deserted, forsaken, in- 
 sulted by his own people and in his own State. Even 
 worse, they professed to pity him. Their poets wrote 
 laments for his fall ; bade others 
 
 " Revile him not — the Tempter hath 
 A snare for all ; 
 And pitying tears, not scorn and wrath, 
 Befit his fall ! 
 
 " Let not the land, once proud of him, 
 Insult him now, 
 Nor brand with deeper shame, his dim, 
 Dishonored brow." 
 
 The entire poem was quoted by Horace Mann on the 
 floor of the House, August 23, 1852, "and written," 
 he said, "for the occasion by the great Poet of Hu- 
 manity."^ 
 
 How much all this may have embittered the last 
 years of Mr. Webster's life, none can ever know, but 
 that he must have suffered from such deep and damnable 
 
 1 App. Cong. Globe, Vol. 25, p. 1079. 
 
422 The True History of 
 
 injustice, is very certain. That it was injustice is 
 equally certain. No man, merely ambitious for place 
 or power, merely catering to a section for office as he 
 was accused of doing, could ever have given voice to 
 that eloquent plea for his whole country ; only true 
 patriotism could ever have prompted and inspired 
 Daniel Webster to speak as he spoke on that celebrated 
 7th of March. He knew that he risked all personal 
 popularity, all political prestige in the North ; but there 
 is in Genius that heaven-born instinct of Truth which 
 defies all circumstance and even fate itself. He could 
 not, if he would, have been untrue to the bidding of the 
 God-like intellect which sat enthroned on that grand, 
 imperial brow, a brow which overhung great, dark, soft, 
 mournful eyes, within whose depths shone no light of 
 joyousness, no gleam of gladness. It was in 1848 that 
 the writer saw Mr, Webster, when he was in the full 
 tide of his popularity ; and this deep melancholy, which 
 is so often an accompaniment of great genius, was even 
 then strikingly apparent. 
 
 Mr. Calhoun, who was truthfulness itself, stated "that 
 Mr. Webster tried to aim at truth more than any states- 
 man of his day." ' 
 
 And Mr. Preston said in his funeral oration that his 
 future fame would rest on that 7th of March speech. 
 But, above all the panegyrics bestowed on him when he 
 could no longer hear them, was the judgment expressed 
 by Judge Douglas a few days after the 7th of March, 
 1850, when he said : 
 
 "It requires but little moral courage to act firmly and 
 resolutely in the support of previously expressed opin- 
 ions. Pride of character, self-love, the strongest pas- 
 sions of the human heart, all impel a man forward and 
 onward. But when he is called upon to review his 
 former opinions, to confess and abandon his errors, to 
 sacrifice his pride to his conscience, it requires the exer- 
 
 1 Cong. Globe, Vol. 26, p. 66. 
 
The Missouri Compromise and its Repeal. 423 
 
 else of the highest qualities of our nature, the exertion 
 of a moral courage which elevates a man almost above 
 humanity itself. A brilliant example of this may be 
 found in the recent speech of the distinguished Senator 
 from Massachusetts."* 
 
 AVhat a foreshadowing of Douglas' own future lay in 
 these words ! But only the soul which can appreciate 
 greatness in others is capable of equal greatness in 
 itself! There is in all our history as Americans, no 
 picture more pathetic, more touching, and more heroic, 
 than the sad close of the lives of these two gifted men ; 
 both sacrified on the altar of their country's welfare, 
 and both most cruelly and unjustly denounced by those 
 to whose service their best of life had been given. 
 
 ORGANIZATION OF NEBRASKA TERRITORY. 
 
 The territorial organization of Nebraska had been for 
 eight years a favorite scheme with Judge Douglas. The 
 first bill to this effect having been offered by him shortly 
 after the annexation of Texas, and doubtless proposed 
 a,s an offset to the acquisition of that immense slave 
 territory. He had presented bill after bill to Congress 
 to secure this organization ; which, after the Mexican 
 war, became a necessity, in order to the protection of 
 the emigrants and travelers over those great prairies of 
 the West, which stretched their treeless and waterless 
 expanse between the older States and their newly ac- 
 quired and rich possessions in California and Oregon ; 
 and also to. unite these widely separated parts of the 
 Union by safe roads and easy intercourse, which could 
 not be done so long as the Indians held this immense 
 territory, owning allegiance to no law save their own 
 savage will. There can be but little doubt that the 
 failure of these bills had been due to the fact that the 
 Act of 1820, precluding all Southern men from entering 
 this Territory with their slave property, was in force ; 
 
 1 Cong. Globe, Vol. 22, p. 373. 
 
424 The True History of 
 
 and as the South had held the balance of power between 
 the two great parties of the North, her influence had 
 been sufficient to prevent the organization of Nebraska. 
 
 In February of 1853, the bill for the territorial organ- 
 ization of Nebraska was before the House, having been 
 introduced by Mr. Richardson, of Illinois. During the 
 discussion, Mr, Howe, of Pennsylvania, inquired of Mr. 
 Giddings, who was a member of the Committee on Ter- 
 ritories, "why the Ordinance of 1787 is not incorporated 
 in this bill? (Laughter.) I should like to know whether 
 he or the Committee were intimidated on account of the 
 platforms of 1852? (Laughter.) The gentleman pre- 
 tends to be something of an anti-slavery man ; at least I 
 have understood so. 
 
 "Mr. Giddings: With the permission of the gentle- 
 man from Illinois (Mr. Richardson), I will say to my 
 friend that the south line of this Territory is 36° 30'. 
 The law authorizing the people of Missouri to form a 
 State government, enacted in 1820, provides in express 
 language : 
 
 " 'That in all that territory ceded by France to the 
 United States under the name of Louisiana, which lies 
 north of 36° 30' north latitude, not included within the 
 limits of the State contemplated by that act (Missouri) , 
 slavery and involuntary servitude, otherwise than for 
 crimes, whereof the parties shall have been duly con- 
 victed, shall fee, and is hereby, forever prohibited.'' 
 
 "This law stands perpetually, and I did not think 
 that this act would receive any increased validity by a 
 re-enactment. There I leave the matter. It is very 
 clear that the territory included in that treaty must be 
 forever free, unless that law be repealed. 
 
 "Mr. John W. Howe: I should like to know of the 
 gentleman from Ohio, if he has not some recollection of 
 a compromise made since that time? 
 
 "Mr. Giddings : That does not affect this question 
 
 » Cong. Globe, Vol. 26, p. 543. 
 
 )> 1 
 
The Missouri Compromise and its Repeal. 425 
 
 The bill passed the House, February 10th, and on the 
 17th was reported back to the Senate without amend- 
 ment, by Mr. Douglas, from the Committee on Terri- 
 tories, to which it had been referred. But the Senate 
 declined to take it up, and on the 2d of March tabled it 
 by 25 to 21 — 4 Northern votes and 21 Southern, against 
 20 Northern votes and 1 Southern — this last, Mr. Atchi- 
 son, of Missouri. 
 
 On the next day, the 3d of March, Mr. Douglas again 
 moved to take up the bill from the house to organize the 
 Territory of Nebraska. 
 
 Mr. Atchison said: "It is only a question of time 
 whether we will organize the Territory at this session of 
 Congress, or whether we will do it at the next session ; 
 and for my own part I acknowledge now, as the Senator 
 from Illinois well knows, when I came to this city at the 
 beginning of the last session I was perhaps as much op- 
 posed to the proposition as the Senator from Texas now 
 is. The Senator from Iowa knows it ; and it was for 
 reasons which I will not now mention or suggest. But, 
 sir, I have upon reflection and investigation in my own 
 mind and from the opinions of others — my constituents 
 whose opinions I am bound to respect — come to the con- 
 clusion that now is the time for the organization of this 
 Territory. It is the most propitious time. The treaties 
 with the various Indian tribes, the titles to whose pos- 
 sessions must be extinguished, can better be made now 
 than at any future time ; for, as this question is agitated, 
 and as it is understood, white men, speculators, will in- 
 terpose and interfere, and the longer it is postponed the 
 more we will have to fear from them, and the more diffi- 
 cult it will be to extinguish the Indian title in that 
 country, and the harder the terms to be imposed. There- 
 fore, Mr. President, for this reason, without going into 
 detail, I am willing now that the question shall be taken, 
 whether we will proceed to the consideration of the bill 
 or not."^ 
 
 1 Cong. Globe, Vol. 26, p. 1111. 
 
426 TJie True History of 
 
 Mr. Atchison again said : 
 
 "Mr. President, I will now state to the Senate the 
 views which induced me to oppose this proposition in 
 the early part of the session. 
 
 "I had two objections to it. One was that the Indian 
 title in that territory had not been extinguished, or at 
 least a very small portion of it had been. Another was 
 the Missouri Compromise, or, as it is commonly called, 
 the slavery restriction. It was my opinion at that time 
 — and I am not now very clear on that subject — that the 
 law of Congress, when the State of Missouri was admitted 
 into the Union, excluding slavery from the Territory of 
 Louisiana north of 36° 30', would be enforced in that 
 Territory unless it was specially rescinded ; and, whether 
 that law was in accordance with the Constitution of the 
 United States or not, it would do its work, and that 
 work would be to preclude slave-holders from going into 
 that Territory. But when I came to look into that ques- 
 iion, I found that there was no prospect, no hope of a 
 repeal of the Missouri Compromise, excluding slavery 
 from that territory. Now, sir, I am free to admit that 
 at this moment, at this hour, and for all time to come, I 
 should oppose the organization or the settlement of that 
 Territory unless my constituents and the constituents of 
 the whole South, of the Slave States of the Union, 
 could go into it upon the same footing, with equal rights 
 and equal privileges, carrying that species of property 
 with them, as other people of this Union. Yes, sir, I 
 acknowledge that that would have governed me, but I 
 have no hope that the restriction will ever be repealed. 
 
 "I have always been of the opinion that the first great 
 error committed in the political history of this country 
 was the ordinance of 1787, rendering the North-west 
 Territory free territory. The next great error was the 
 Missouri Compromise. But they are both irremediable. 
 There is no remedy for them. We must submit to them. 
 I am prepared to do it. It is evident that the Missouri 
 Compromise can not be repealed. So far as that ques- 
 
The Missouri Compromise and its Repeal. 427 
 
 tion is concerned, we might as well agree to the admis- 
 sion of this Territory now as next year, or five or ten 
 years hence. 
 
 "Another reason that I will assign why I was opposed 
 to this measure, and why I still think it objectionable in 
 a local point of view, so far as my immediate constitu- 
 ents, the people of western Missouri, as well as those 
 of Iowa and Arkansas, are concerned, is, if you organize 
 the Territory of Nebraska and extinguish the Indian 
 title, and let in the white population upon that Territory, 
 it extends our frontiers from seven to one thousand miles 
 west, and we raise up competition with what we now 
 have. The States of Iowa and Missouri have now the 
 best market for all their products, . . . But if we 
 extend this frontier from year to year, competition will 
 increase, and we will be compelled to turn our agricul- 
 tural products down the Missouri and Mississippi rivers, 
 to the East instead of the West ; yet we are not so selfish 
 but that we are willing to extend the power of the United 
 States still further West. We know that it must come, 
 and that in a very few years. The pressure of popula- 
 tion from the older States and from Europe has been 
 such that they roll up against the frontier, and the most 
 populous counties in the State of Missouri are upon the 
 western boundary line of that State." ^ 
 
 Mr. Rusk opposed the bill because it would turn all 
 the Nebraska Indians down on the Texas frontiers to scalp 
 the women and children. Gen. Houston opposed it on 
 the grounds of philanthropy ; declaring of the Indians 
 that — 
 
 "You will find them generous, noble, faithful, daring 
 and chivalrous. You will find their chiefs elevated in 
 their condition and feeling, and as chivalrous as the 
 proudest man that adorns the annals of Christendom. 
 I call upon you to do justice to them and to protect 
 them. 
 
 1 Cong. Globe, Vol. 26, p. 1113. 
 
428 The True History of 
 
 "Mr. Bell : I do not know what object can be accom- 
 plished by this debate. The morning of the 4th of March 
 is breaking, and only five or six hours of the present 
 Congress remain. The honorable Senator from Illinois, 
 however, having moved the consideration of this bill, I 
 shall take great pleasure in hearing from him what he 
 proposes. 
 
 ". . . I know the Senator from Illinois sufficientlv 
 well to know that when he moots a proposition of this 
 description it has a meaning in it, a pregnant meaning ; 
 and he does not merely mean to fill up the space, and 
 pass the time until the present session of Congress has 
 passed away. What he does is pregnant with signifi- 
 cance ; and if the honorable Senator from Illinois is dis- 
 posed to tell us his meaning, I am perfectly willing to 
 hear him. I should like to know of that Senator 
 upon what grounds he proposes, upon what principles 
 of honesty and honor and good faith, national or 
 private, he proposes to establish the Territory of 
 Nebraska. 
 
 "Mr. President, who now pleads for the rights of the 
 Indian? Who stands by the red man? I have not heard 
 any one of those, who seem on other occasions to have 
 such a superbundant flow of the milk of human kind- 
 ness — such deep and profound sensibilities awakened 
 whenever the condition of the black is alluded to — say 
 one word when it is proposed to strip the red man of his 
 whole country, and not leave him one spot over which 
 he can still roam, and feel, or even fancy, that he has a 
 country. Not one is found to raise his voice against this 
 proposition for a general spoliation of Indian rights. 
 This sentiment of humanity, how wayward — how ca- 
 pricious ! It is not more stable than fashion, in the 
 objects on which it exhausts or wastes itself. The negro 
 was introduced into America to save the Indian from the 
 hardships of servitude. The Indian is now to be robbed 
 of his sole remaining country to form new States, which 
 
The Missouri Compromise and its Repeal. 429 
 
 are destined to be free States, that the negro may be 
 eventually rescued from slavery."^ 
 
 Mr. Douglas stated the object of the bill to be "to 
 form a line of territorial governments extending from 
 the Mississippi valley to the Pacific ocean, so that we 
 can have continuous settlements from the one to the 
 other."' 
 
 He also read a clause of the bill to show that no rights 
 of the Indians would be impaired by it, "so long as such 
 rights shall remain unextinguished by treaty between 
 the United States and such Indians." 
 
 In the small hours of the morning of the 4th of March, 
 the bill was again tabled by 23 to 17. The same North- 
 ern votes, pretty much, against the tabling, the same 
 Southern ones for it ; Mr. Fish of New York, Davis of 
 Massachusetts, Truman Smith of Connecticut, and Brod- 
 head of Pennsylvania, voting with the Southerners to 
 table it. And so it ended for that session. The few 
 speeches made are yet very significant of the motives 
 all round, and the reader can form his own judgment of 
 them. The bill itself was silent as to the Act of 1820, 
 and if we judge from the dialogue between Mr. Howe 
 and Mr. Giddings, this silence was interpreted by either 
 side to suit their respective views. To the one it meant 
 that the Legislation of 1820 was rendered a nullity by 
 that of 1850 — to the other it was expressive only of the 
 fact that the Act of 1820 still existed in full force, and 
 required no declaration of that existence. 
 
 1 Cong. Globe, Vol. 26, p. 1116. 
 
430 The True History of 
 
 CHAPTER XVII. 
 
 1853-54 — Repeal of the Missouri Compromise — Offered by Archibald 
 Dixon, and accepted by Stephen A. Douglas and the Democratic 
 party — Embodied in the Kansas-Nebraska bill. 
 
 For years past, there have been continually recurring 
 doubts and questionings as to the true authorship and 
 origin of this Repeal, as well as the motives underlying 
 it, "Plot," "intrigue," "scheming of political leaders," 
 and even harsher epithets, have been freely applied to it 
 as a measure, and its authors have been denounced as 
 traitors to party and country. 
 
 There have been many misapprehensions as to the 
 nature and character of the Missouri Compromise itself, 
 but its Repeal has perhaps been more thoroughly mis- 
 understood, and the origin and motives of that Repeal 
 more thoroughly misapprehended and misrepresented 
 than those of any other public measure of like impor- 
 tance. 
 
 Perhaps no more striking illustration of this misap- 
 prehension could be furnished than the following from 
 the pen of George Ticknor Curtis, author of the "Con- 
 stitutional History of the United States."^ Speaking 
 of the Repeal of the Missouri Compromise, he says : 
 
 "At what time Mr. Douglas changed his views on this 
 subject can not be determined ; but when it became nec- 
 essary, during the subsequent administration of Presi- 
 dent Pierce (1853-7), to provide territorial governments 
 for the regions ceded by Mexico to the United States by 
 the treaty of Guadaloupe Hidalgo, Mr. Douglas con- 
 ceived the project of repealing the Missouri Compro- 
 mise, . . . and . . . persuaded President Pierce 
 to sign it." 
 
 » See Vol. 2, p. 260, of that work. 
 
The Missouri Compromise and its Repeal. 431 
 
 Kankas and Nebraska "regions ceded by Mexico !" 
 
 "Regions ceded by Mexico," in 184-8, subject to the 
 Act of 1820 ! 
 
 Where could Mr. Curtis have studied history? 
 And by what rule of legal arithmetic could he have 
 worked out this problem? Could such an anachronism, 
 such a gross historical blunder, have proceeded from ig- 
 norance ? With so able and distinguished a writer such 
 a theory is inconceivable, and yet what motive could 
 such a man have had to garble facts in such a way? 
 
 As we have seen, the "regions ceded by Mexico" had 
 all been provided with either State or territorial govern- 
 ments in 1850 ; and the Nebraska Territory, for which 
 alone government was to be provided during President 
 Pierce's administration, was, as every child knew, a 
 part of the Louisiana Territory purchased from France 
 in 1803. 
 
 Mr. Curtis' statements as to Douglas and Pierce are 
 quite as contrary to the evidence of the record — and 
 again the question arises, did this inaccuracy of state- 
 ment proceed from ignorance? Did he get his history 
 from second-hand sources, laying aside his own reason- 
 ing powers, and accepting blindly all assertions, illogical 
 and conflicting though they might be?' 
 
 However this may be, as the years go by, these mis- 
 taken conceptions crystallize into historical statements, 
 and numerous authors of various histories repeat the 
 misstatements until they may, in time, if not corrected, 
 pass for historical truth. 
 
 Having been in a position to know its origin, its 
 author, and its most profound motives better perhaps 
 than any one else could do, the writer proposes, in the 
 interest of the truth of history, to give the facts regard- 
 
 * Other writers are inaccurate to the last degree — even so accomplished 
 a historian as "Percy Greg" giving, in his "History of the United 
 States," no adequate account of this important measure, of its motives, 
 its true meaning, or its plain and definite purpose. — Author. 
 
432 The True History of 
 
 ing this Repeal, including some personal features not 
 hitherto made public. 
 
 I will state that from the time of our marriage in 
 October, 1853, I acted as amanuensis for my husband, 
 Hon. Archibald Dixon, and continued, through the 
 years after, to do pretty much all of his writing either 
 from his dictation, or copying articles for the press. So 
 that I was as intimately acquainted with his sentiments, 
 his ideas and feelings as it was possible for another per- 
 son to be. 
 
 When the attempt to organize the Territory of 
 Nebraska, in March, 1853, was made, Mr. Dixon was 
 not in the City of Washington. In September of 1852, he 
 had had an almost fatal attack of cholera ; losing his wife, 
 to whom he was most tenderly devoted, of the same 
 dread disease. A severe attack of pleurisy followed, 
 and when he went to Washington in December of 1852, 
 he was in such a state of health as almost to disable him 
 from taking part in any legislation. His wonderful 
 will-power, alone, sustained him, and early in the 
 month of February, his physician, Dr. Hall, ordered 
 him to go South to recuperate. He returned to Ken- 
 tucky by way of Charleston, South Carolina, not going 
 further South, as the warm, moist air seemed to increase 
 the lung trouble under which he was laboring. He was 
 sufficiently improved to return to Washington in De- 
 cember, 1853, though his health was still exceedingly 
 delicate. It was during this session that he offered the 
 Repeal of the celebrated Missouri Compromise Act. 
 
 The failure of the bill to organize Nebraska, the 
 previous session, had not lessened the interest felt in its 
 passage, for or against ; and on the first day of the 
 session Mr. Dodge, of Iowa, a Democrat, gave notice 
 of his purpose to introduce a "bill to organize a terri- 
 torial government for the Territory of Nebraska;" and 
 on December 14th, it was read and referred to the Com- 
 mittee on Territories, of which Stephen A. Douglas was 
 Chairman. 
 
The Missouri Compromise and its Repeal. 433 
 
 On the 4th of January, Mr. Douglas reported the bill 
 back with amendments, and accompanied by a special 
 report. 
 
 The report stated that having given the bill "that 
 serious and deliberate consideration which its great im- 
 portance demands :" "The principal amendments which 
 your committee deem it their duty to commend to the 
 favorable action of the Senate are those in which the 
 principles established by the Compromise measures of 
 1850, so far as they are applicable to territorial organiza- 
 tion, are proposed to be aflBrmed and carried into prac- 
 tical operation within the limits of the new Territory. 
 . In the judgment of your Committee, those 
 measures were intended to have a far more comprehen- 
 sive and enduring effect than the mere adjustment of the 
 difficulties arising out of the recent acquisition of Mexi- 
 can Territory. They were designed to establish certain 
 great principles, which would not only furnish adequate 
 remedies for existing evils, but, in all time to come, 
 avoid the perils of a similar agitation by withdrawing 
 the question of slavery from the halls of Congress and 
 the political arena, and committing it to the arbitrament 
 of those who were immediately interested in, and alone 
 responsible for, its consequences. With the view of con- 
 forming their action to what they regard the settled 
 policy of the Government, sanctioned by the approving 
 voice of the American people, your Committee have 
 deemed it their duty to incorporate and perpetuate, in 
 their territorial bill, the principles and spirit of these 
 measures. If any other considerations were necessary, 
 to render the propriety of this course imperative upon 
 the Committee, they may be found in the fact, that the 
 Nebraska country occupies the same relative position to 
 the slavery question, as did New Mexico and Utah, when 
 those Territories were organized. 
 
 "It was a disputed point whether slavery was pro- 
 hibited by law in the country acquired from Mexico." 
 28 
 
434 The True History of 
 
 (The points of the dispute are then stated, with which 
 the reader is already familiar.) The report proceeds: 
 "Such being the character of the controversy in respect 
 to the Territory acquired from Mexico, a similar ques- 
 tion has arisen in regard to the right to hold slaves in 
 the proposed Territory of Nebraska, when the Indian 
 laws shall be withdrawn and the country thrown open 
 to emigration and settlement." Quoting the 8th section 
 of the Missouri Act of 1820 :— 
 
 "Under this 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 enactment. The decision of this question in- 
 volves the constitutional power of Congress to pass laws 
 prescribing and regulating the domestic institutions of 
 the various Territories of the Union. In the opinion of 
 those eminent statesmen who hold that Congress is in- 
 vested with no rightful authority to legislate upon the 
 subject of slavery in the Territories, the 8th section of 
 the act preparatory to the admission of Missouri is null 
 and void, while the prevailing sentiment in a large por- 
 tion of the Union sustains the doctrine that the Constitu- 
 tion of the United States secures to every citizen an in- 
 alienable right to move into any of the Territories with 
 his property, of whatever kind and description, and to 
 hold and to enjoy the same under the sanction of law. 
 Your Committee do not feel themselves called upon to 
 enter into the discussion of these controverted questions. 
 They involve the same grave issues which produced the 
 agitation, the sectional strife, and the fearful struggle 
 of 1850. 
 
 "Congress deemed it wise and prudent to refrain from 
 deciding the matters in controversy then, either by af- 
 firming or repealing the Mexican laws, or by an act 
 declaratory of the true intent of the Constitution and the 
 extent of the protection afforded by it to slave property 
 in the Territories ; so your Committee are not prepared 
 now to recommend a departure from the course pursued 
 
The Missouri Compromise and its Repeal. 435 
 
 on that memorable occasion, either by affirming or re- 
 pealing the eighth section of the Missouri Act, or by any 
 act declaratory of the meaning of the Constitution in re- 
 spect to the legal points in dispute." 
 
 After giving the boundaries of the Territory which 
 they propose to constitute, they say that it shall "after- 
 ward be admitted as a State, with or without slavery, 
 as their Constitution may prescribe at the time of their 
 admission ; the power being reserved to the General Gov- 
 ernment to divide the Territory into two or more, as 
 Congress may deem proper." And the bill concludes 
 with the 21st section : 
 
 "Sec. 21. And he it further enacted, That, in order to 
 avoid all misconstruction, it is hereby declared to be the 
 true intent and meaning of this act, so far as the ques- 
 tion of slavery is concerned, to carry into practical op- 
 eration the following propositions and principles, estab- 
 lished by the Compromise measures of one thousand 
 eight hundred and fifty, to wit : 
 
 '^ First. That all questions pertaining to slavery in the 
 Territories, and in the New States to be formed there- 
 from, are to be left to the decision of the people residing 
 therein, through their appropriate representatives. 
 
 ^^ Second. That 'all cases involving title to slaves,' and 
 'questions of personal freedom,' are referred to the ad- 
 judication of the local tribunals, with the right of appeal 
 to the Supreme Court of the United States. 
 
 ^^ Third. That the provisions of the Constitution and 
 laws of the United States, in respect to fugitives from 
 service, are to be carried into faithful execution in all 
 the 'Organized Territories' the same as in the States." ^ 
 
 In other words, the policy was proposed to be the 
 same now as in 1850, strictly non-intervention. Judge 
 Douglas' bill was evidently intended to be in full ac- 
 cordance with the legislation of 1850 ; of which, as pre- 
 viously stated, he was the real author, and in which 
 
 * Senate Report, Sees. 1, 33d Congress, Vol. 1, No. 15. 
 
436 The True History of 
 
 Mr. Dixon had sustained Mr. Clay at the cost of defeat 
 to himself. But, whilst verbally the same, and no 
 doubt intended honestly to carry out the principle of 
 non-intervention, its failure to remove the previous act 
 of intervention by Congress, in shape of the act of 1820, 
 stamped it at once as superficial, inefRcient, and wholly 
 inadequate to carry into "practical operation" "the prin- 
 ciples of the Compromise measures of 1850," so far as 
 their application to the Territory in question was con- 
 cerned. 
 
 The statement in the report that "the Nebraska coun- 
 try occupies the same relative position to the slavery 
 question, as did New Mexico and Utah, when those Ter- 
 ritories were organized," was in itself a mistake ; and, 
 the premises being incorrect, the conclusion could not be 
 correct. In truth, the relative positions were entirely 
 different. The Mexican Territory was inhabited by a 
 people who had laws of their own, who hated slavery, 
 and had made laws against it ; and it would have been 
 an act of cruel and unrestrained power, entirely at war 
 with our system of government, to have legislated 
 slavery into a country where the people were opposed to 
 it. On the contrary, Nebraska was inhabited by wild 
 tribes of savage Indians, who were never acknowledged 
 as citizens, who had no recognized laws of their own, 
 and who would yield their Territory by treaty to the 
 United States for occupation by citizens and emigrants 
 from those States — the only law ever made for that 
 country, excepting those for the control of the Indians, 
 being the act of March 6, 1820, which was designed for 
 the purpose of excluding, from any practical possession 
 of it, the citizens of one entire section of the United 
 States ; although such citizens possessed an equal and 
 inalienable right in that Territory, and of which right 
 they were deprived by this unjust, arbitrary, and un- 
 constitutional exercise of power on the part of Congress. 
 Non-intervention as to the existing laws of Mexico meant 
 self-government to its inhabitants already occupying the 
 
The Missouri Compromise and its Repeal. 437 
 
 country. Non-intervention as to the act of 1820, Ne- 
 braska's only law, meant simply the deprivation to the 
 citizens of the Southern section of all property or right 
 in that Territory ; it meant its appropriation by the 
 Northern section solely, to the exclusion of the Southern, 
 who owned it equally with the North, and felt it not 
 only a wrong, but an indignity, to be so excluded. The 
 "relative positions," therefore, of the Nebraska Terri- 
 tory, and that of New Mexico and Utah, were in reality 
 entirely different — the legislation of 1850 having to do 
 with a conquered country whose people already had laws 
 of their own, and through its non-intervention leaving 
 to them the right of self-government ; whilst that of 
 1854 had to do with a Territory acquired by a definite 
 treaty of purchase, whose inhabitants, as citizens, were 
 as yet in futuro, but were already pre-ordained to the 
 deprivation of that right, and under the ban of a pre- 
 existing ordinance in the making of which they would 
 have had no part nor lot — which ordinance not only vio- 
 lated the stipulations of the treaty of purchase, but also 
 the principle of the equal rights of the States, as well 
 as the right of occupancy by one-half of the citizens of 
 the United States. 
 
 Mr. Dixon's keen legal acumen made it impossible for 
 him not to discern the deficiency in this bill, apparently 
 so fair ; and with the bold directness of purpose which 
 characterized him, and which is utterly incompatible 
 with "intrigues" or "plots," he determined to secure 
 the absolute repeal of the restriction, so as to leave the 
 Territories open to the South equally with the North, 
 and then let climate, soil, and natural emigration de- 
 termine the character of the settlers therein, who should 
 decide for themselves the question of slavery or no 
 slavery. To the best of my belief and knowledge, Mr. 
 Dixon consulted no one in this matter. A life-long 
 Whig, a determined States-rights man, as well as a de- 
 voted Unionist, as much opposed to forcing slavery on a 
 people who did not want it, as he was to having emanci- 
 
438 The True History of 
 
 pation forced on the people of Kentucky by their Con- 
 vention, and a strict believer in the equality of the 
 States, he saw clearly what was due to the South, and 
 believed that the justice denied her in 1850 could now 
 be procured for her from Congress. A bold and original 
 thinker, accustomed to lead and to command by the 
 force of a will which bore down all obstacles, and a 
 courage that was dauntless, he asked no advice on a 
 point that was as clear to him as daylight. He knew 
 the nature of the Missouri Compromise ; he knew it was 
 no sacred compact, but simply an act of Congress, 
 which, unjust as it was, the South had submitted to 
 through her devoted love for the Union ; he knew that 
 it was intervention, and, as such, utterly opposed to the 
 true principle of non-intervention, for which he had made 
 such a gallant fight in the State of Kentucky. 
 
 He believed that the principle of non-intervention, 
 being the right principle, and so acknowledged and 
 accepted by Congress, should be applied to Nebraska as 
 well as to California and New Mexico ; otherwise, it was 
 not a principle at all, but only an expedient, a make- 
 shift. He saw that Judge Douglas' bill, though seem- 
 ingly framed on the plan of non-intervention, would not 
 in reality carry out that principle at all ; that so far as 
 any practical participation of the Southern people in 
 those Territories was concerned, the Wilmot Proviso, 
 which had been steadily rejected by Congress in 1850, 
 could not more effectually exclude them than they were 
 already excluded by the Act of 1820 ; for the Wilmot 
 Proviso could only have prohibited slavery forever in all 
 the territory to which it might have been applied. The 
 Act of 1820 did the same as to the Territory in question ; 
 and, until it should be directly repealed, it would ef- 
 fectually and practically preclude the Southern people 
 from settling in Kansas and Nebraska, whilst they were 
 Territories, by the exclusion of their slaves, their labor- 
 ing class, the labor to which they were accustomed, 
 which they preferred, to which they were entitled under 
 
The Missouri Compromise and its Repeal. 439 
 
 the Constitution ; without which they -would not go to 
 settle up new lands, and which they believed they had a 
 perfect right to carry with them into any and all of the 
 Territories of the United States — they being the common 
 property of the people of all the States. 
 
 If the Southern people, therefore, were to be virtually 
 precluded from possession of the country during its ter- 
 ;'itorial phase, what advantage could they derive from 
 the permission to those Territories to "be admitted as 
 States, with or without slavery, as their Constitutions 
 might prescribe at the time of their admission?" If 
 they were to be effectually, even though indirectly, ex- 
 cluded from entering upon these Territories, what good 
 would it do them that there was in the twenty-first sec- 
 tion a provision that "all questions pertaining to slavery 
 in the Territories and new States to be formed therefrom 
 are to be left to the decision of the people residing 
 therein, through their appropriate representatives?" 
 Cui bono? When they were to be no part of "the peo- 
 ple" — when they would have no voice in choosing the 
 representatives through whom the question should be 
 decided — when they were practically to be kept out of 
 these Territories by law — by a law that was intervention 
 of the most forcible kind to a law-abiding people. So 
 long as that act of intervention was in force, it was a 
 farce to talk of non-intervention by Congress, for Con- 
 gress had already intervened. Such non-intervention 
 was only a sham ; to make it a reality, to carry out the 
 principle fairly and squarely, that act of intervention 
 must be done away with. 
 
 Mr. Dixon believed that the Act of 1820 was an un- 
 constitutional act ; he knew that Mr. Clay was not the 
 author of it ; that it was proposed by a Northern man, 
 and was acceded to by the South solely from a fear of 
 the disruption of the Union to which she was then most 
 devotedly attached ; he knew it was not a compact in 
 any sense of the word, and not regarded as such when 
 made (for it was repudiated by the Northern majority 
 
440 The True History of 
 
 in less than a year after it was passed) , but only an act 
 of Congress which any future Congress could repeal at 
 its will ; he knew that it had been rejected as a settle- 
 ment of the California question again and again, and 
 the principle of non-intervention adopted in its stead ; 
 he believed, from the election of Franklin Pierce on the 
 platform of non-intervention, that the Northern people 
 were now ready to do that justice to the South which 
 Mr. Clay had claimed for her in 1850, but declared could 
 not then be obtained ; he believed in the patriotism and 
 sense of justice of the North, and that the intelligence 
 and patriotism of the many would control the folly and 
 fanaticism of the few ; he felt that to allow such a pre- 
 tense and sham of non-intervention to take the place of 
 that broad reality for which he had contended with all his 
 might in his own State in 1851, would be to stultify him- 
 self ; it would be accepting the shadow for the substance 
 and sacrificing the rights of an entire section as well as 
 the principle he had contended for so strongly, and to 
 the support of which he had pledged himself. Justice, 
 good faith, and fealty to this great principle demanded 
 of him to see it fairly carried out in reality ; that Con- 
 gress should not, as he quoted in a letter to the Louis- 
 ville Courier in 1854, "keep the word of promise to the 
 ear and break it to the hope." He knew that non-inter- 
 vention was founded on the idea that, as Mr. Clay had 
 said in 1850, "justice to the South required, if slavery 
 were prohibited north of a line, it should be admitted south 
 of that line — but, as every one knew, not twenty votes 
 in either House could be gotten for the recognition of 
 slavery south of 36° 30' — so he thought non-legislation 
 best for the South, best for all parties." If this propo- 
 sition were true, its converse was equally so ; if slavery 
 were not admitted south of a line, it should not be pro- 
 hibited north of it. 
 
 Mr. Dixon saw plainly the speciousness of the propo- 
 sition that the new States might come in "with or with- 
 out slavery, as their Constitution may prescribe at the 
 
The Missouri Compromise and its Repeal. 441 
 
 time of their admission," when not a slave-holder could 
 enter the Territory with his property until after the Con- 
 stitution of the State had been made, permitting 
 slavery — and what possible chance would there be for 
 such a provision in any Constitution made exclusively 
 by people who owned no slaves? Mr. Dixon saw that 
 only by the removal of the restriction of 1820 could the 
 South be restored to her equal rights in the Territories 
 of the United States, and non-intervention be made to 
 mean something more than a mere phrase ; and until 
 this legislation, this act of intervention, should be re- 
 moved, it was a farce to say that these Territories were 
 organized on the principle of non-intervention, of equality 
 between all the people of all the States. 
 
 Nor was this principle a mere abstraction. It was an 
 absolute necessity to the South to have some place of 
 exodus for the large yearly increase of her slave popula- 
 tion, which in time threatened to make of her a second 
 San Domingo ; and it was also a necessity to her to ac- 
 quire more slave States in order to protect herself from 
 the acquirement by the Northern States of that three- 
 fourths majority in legislation, which would enable 
 them, constitutionally, to set the slaves of the South free, 
 without deportation, without compensation to their 
 owners, and under whatever laws that majority might 
 choose to enact. 
 
 There was at that time no place of exodus for the 
 negroes of the South within the United States ; the free 
 States had all (or with rare exception) passed laws for- 
 bidding the freed slaves to enter their borders — the 
 Mexican Territories were closed to them, free and slave, 
 by force of the laws of nature ; and the Louisiana Terri- 
 tory, from which the slaves were excluded by Act of 
 Congress of 1820, was the only Territory possible for the 
 purpose of their removal. 
 
 The repeal of this act would open this great Territory 
 to the South equally with the North, so far as inter- 
 vention by Congress was concerned, and this repeal 
 
442 The True History of 
 
 was demanded by the necessity for self-preservation on 
 the part of the Southern people, as well as by the prin- 
 ciple of equality of the States. 
 
 Not only was Mr. Dixon actuated by his sense of 
 right, of necessity, of justice, and fealty to principle, 
 but he also believed firmly that it would be far better 
 for the peace of the country to remove the whole ques- 
 tion of slavery to the Territories, to be there settled by 
 the people themselves, and as soil and climate might 
 dictate, entirely free from any intervention by Congress ; 
 and so prevent all discussion of it by Congress. For he 
 saw what was patent to any observer ; that Washington 
 City, nay, the Capitol itself, was the center of section- 
 alism, the very hot-bed of disunion. The radicals of the 
 northern section declaring they would not remain in a 
 Union with slave-holders ; the radicals of the southern 
 section declaring they would prefer disunion to aboli- 
 tion ; the enmity between the Northern and Southern 
 members growing in bitterness each day, and the inter- 
 change of courtesies more scant. 
 
 In the Capitol contemptuous and cutting sarcasms, 
 personal scorn, and personal hatred were day by day 
 widening the breach between North and South. Seeing 
 all these things, Mr. Dixon believed that peace could be 
 preserved, to the whole country, only by the removal of 
 the cause of irritation, viz : the question of slavery ; and 
 at the same time carrying out the principle of non-inter- 
 vention fairly and squarely, so as to do justice on both 
 sides. 
 
 This was his idea and these his motives. 
 
 To a man of his lofty integrity, his high sense of jus- 
 tice, his unshrinking courage, but one course was open — 
 to claim for the South what she was fairly entitled to, a 
 practical and real equality in the Union of the States. 
 
 With him to know his duty was to do it. 
 
 The evening before Mr. Dixon gave notice of his 
 amendment to the Nebraska bill, he requested me to 
 get my pen and paper, as he wished me to do some 
 
The Missouri Compromise and its Repeal. 443 
 
 writing for him. Walking up and down the room with 
 his hands behind him, a favorite attitude, he dictated to 
 me his motion for the repeal of so much of the act of 
 1820 as prohibited slavery north of the line of 36° 30'. 
 Knowing at that time nothing whatever of the question, 
 being in fact another edition of Dora holding the pens, 
 I had great difficulty in following his rapid dictation, 
 and had to write and rewrite it a number of times. At 
 last, however, I succeeded in getting it written so as to 
 be satisfactory to him. He copied the draft which I 
 made, but whether that evening or the next day I do not 
 remember. 
 
 In the morning he showed the paper to Governor 
 Jones, of Tennessee, a Whig Senator, and his warm 
 personal friend. 
 
 The same day, January 16, 1854, he gave notice to the 
 Senate that "when the bill to establish a territorial gov- 
 ernment in the Territory of Nebraska should come up 
 for consideration, he should offer the following amend- 
 ment : ' 
 
 " Sec. 22. And be it further enacted, That so much of 
 the 8th section of an act approved March 6, 1820, en- 
 titled "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," as declares "That in all 
 that territory ceded by France to the United States, 
 under the name of Louisiana, which lies north of 
 thirty-six degrees thirty minutes north latitude, slavery 
 and involuntary servitude, otherwise than in the punish- 
 ment of crimes whereof the parties shall have been duly 
 convicted shall be forever prohibited," shall not be so 
 construed as to apply to the Territory contemplated by 
 this act, or to any other Territory of the United States ; 
 but that the citizens of the several States and Terri- 
 
 ^ Of which the facsimile is given herewith. 
 
444 The True History of 
 
 tories shall be at liberty to take and hold their slaves 
 within any of the Territories of the United States, or of 
 the States to be formed therefrom, as if the said act, en- 
 titled as aforesaid and approved as aforesaid, had never 
 been passed." 
 
 The next day, not feeling well, Mr. Dixon remained 
 at home ; and, then, for the first time, I began to com- 
 prehend that the paper I had written out contained 
 something very unusual. Our parlor was crowded all 
 day with visitors ; members of Congress, Whigs and 
 Democrats ; all congratulatory, all expressing a delighted 
 surprise. 
 
 The announcement of Mr. Dixon's proposal to repeal 
 the prohibitory section of the act of 1820, created an in- 
 tense excitement not only in Washington, but over the 
 whole country, being hailed with delight at the South, 
 and denounced fiercely at the North by both Whigs and 
 Abolitionists, whilst Northern Democrats at first stood 
 aghast, even those who had condemned the restriction 
 as unconstitutional ; for they suspected that it was a 
 bomb-shell thrown by a Whig into the Democratic camp 
 in order to destroy their party. 
 
 The Kentucky delegation was a unit in enthusiasm 
 over the repeal. I remember in especial. Gen. Wm. 
 Preston, the Whig member from Louisville, and John C. 
 Breckinridge. As Gen. Preston opened the door, about 
 half way, which his generous breadth and height of fig- 
 ure almost filled, he exclaimed, with that peculiar smile 
 of his (which those who knew him will recall) lighting 
 up every feature — "Eureka," and then shook hands 
 with Mr. Dixon in the warmest manner. While stand- 
 ing there, John C. Breckinridge, a Democrat, came in, 
 walked up to Mr. Dixon, and holding his hand, said in 
 the most impressive way, and with the greatest empha- 
 sis, "Governor, why did none of us ever thinh of this 
 before?'' 
 
 In the afternoon, I think, of the next day, or it may 
 have been the day after, Judge Douglas called to see 
 
The Missouri Compromise and its Repeal. 445 
 
 Mr. Dixon, and asked him to drive out with him, so that 
 they might have the opportunity to talk uninterruptedly. 
 Upon Mr. Dixon's return he told me of the conversation 
 between them, and of the arguments he had used — and 
 that finally Judge Douglas had said of the repeal — "By 
 G-d, sir, you are right, and I will incorporate it in my 
 bill, though I know it will raise a hell of a storm." 
 
 Now the above are the simple facts, as I personally 
 know them, of the motion for the repeal of the Missouri 
 Compromise. 
 
 Mr. Dixon relates a part of this conversation in a let- 
 ter to Hon. H. S. Foote, of Mississippi, who had asked 
 his views as to the political situation. Mr. Foote had 
 taken an active part in the Compromise of 1850, as Sena- 
 tor from Mississippi, was a Democrat and a devoted 
 Unionist. The letter is dated October 1, 1858, and was 
 published in the Louisville Democrat. After declaring 
 his approbation of Judge Douglas' views in every thing 
 that he regarded as "material," and expressing his deep 
 interest in his success ; after scoring Mr. Buchanan for 
 his departure from the principle of non-intervention in 
 the Kansas-Le Compton matter (in which he attempted 
 to force slavery upon the people of Kansas against the 
 expressed will of the majority) ; and for his course towards 
 Douglas in the celebrated Senatorial contest then going 
 on, between Douglas and Lincoln — Mr. Dixon says : 
 "Of Judge Douglas personally, I have a few words to 
 utter which I could not withhold, without greatly wrong- 
 ing my own conscience : 
 
 "When I entered the United States Senate a few years 
 since, I found him a decided favorite with the political 
 party then dominant both in the Senate and the country. 
 My mind had been greatly prejudiced against him, and 
 I felt no disposition whatever to sympathize, or to co- 
 operate with him. It soon became apparent to me, as to 
 others, that he was upon the whole, far the ablest Demo- 
 cratic member of the body. In the progress of time 
 my respect for him, both as a gentleman and a states- 
 
446 The True History of 
 
 man, greatly increased. I found him sociable, affable, 
 and in the highest degree entertaining and instructive in 
 social intercourse. His power as a debater, seemed to 
 me unequaled in the Senate. He was industrious, ener- 
 getic, bold and skillful in the management of the con- 
 cerns of his party. 
 
 "He was the acknowledged leader of the Democratic 
 party in the Senate, and, to confess the truth, seemed to 
 me to bear the honors which encircled him with sufficient 
 meekness. Such was the palmy state of his reputation 
 and popularity on the day he reported to the Senate his 
 celebrated Kansas and Nebraska bill. 
 
 "On examining that bill, it struck me that it was de- 
 ficient in one material respect : it did not in terms repeal 
 the restrictive provision in regard to slavery embodied 
 in the Missouri Compromise. 
 
 "This, to me, was a deficiency that I thought it im- 
 peratively necessary to supply. I accordingly offered 
 an amendment to that effect. 
 
 "My amendment seemed to take the Senate by sur- 
 prise, and no one appeared more startled than Judge 
 Douglas himself. He immediately came to my seat and 
 courteously remonstrated against my amendment, sug- 
 gesting that the bill which he had introduced was almost 
 in the words of the territorial acts for the organization 
 of Utah and New Mexico ; that they being a part of the 
 compromise measures of 1850, he had hoped that I, a 
 known and zealous friend of the wise and patriotic ad- 
 justment which had then taken place, would not be in- 
 clined to do any thing to call that adjustment in ques- 
 tion or weaken it before the country. I replied that it 
 was precisely because I had been, and was, a firm and 
 zealous friend of the compromise of 1850, that I felt 
 bound to persist in the movement which I had origi- 
 nated ; that I was well satisfied that the Missouri re- 
 striction, if not expressly repealed, would continue to 
 operate in the Territory to which it had been applied, 
 thus negativing the great and salutary principle of non- 
 
The Missouri Compromise and its Repeal. 447 
 
 intervention wliich constituted the most prominent and 
 essential feature of the plan of settlement of 1850. We 
 talked for some time amicably, and separated. Some 
 days afterwards, Judge Douglas came to my lodgings, 
 whilst I was confined by physical indisposition, and 
 urged me to get up and take a ride with him in his 
 carriage, 
 
 "I accepted his invitation and rode out with him. 
 During our short excursion we talked on the subject of 
 my proposed amendment, and Judge Douglas, to my 
 high gratification, proposed to me that I should allow 
 him to take charge of the amendment and engraft it on 
 his territorial bill. I accepted the proposition at once ; 
 whereupon a most interesting interchange occurred be- 
 tween us. On this occasion, Judge Douglas spoke to me 
 in substance thus : 
 
 " 'I have become perfectly satisfied that it is my duty, 
 as a fair-minded national statesman, to co-operate with 
 you as proposed in securing the Repeal of the Missouri 
 Compromise restriction. 
 
 " 'It is due to the South ; it is due to the Constitution, 
 heretofore palpably infracted ; it is due to that character 
 for consistency which I have heretofore labored to main- 
 tain. The Repeal, if we can effect it, will produce 
 much stir and commotion in the free States of the Union 
 for a season. I shall be assailed by demagogues and 
 fanatics there without stint or moderation. Every op- 
 probrious epithet will be applied to me. I shall be, 
 probably, hung in effigy in many places. It is more 
 than probable that I may become permanently odious 
 among those whose friendship and esteem I have hereto- 
 fore possessed. This proceeding may end my political 
 career. But acting under the sense of duty which ani- 
 mates me, I am prepared to make the sacrifice. I will 
 doit.' 
 
 "He spoke in the most earnest and touching manner, 
 and I confess that I was deeply affected. I said to him 
 in reply : 
 
448 The True History of 
 
 " 'Sir, I once recognized you as a demagogue, a mere 
 party manager, selfish and intriguing. I now find you 
 a warm-hearted and sterling patriot. 
 
 " 'Go forward in the pathway of duty as you propose, 
 and though all the world desert you, I will never.' 
 
 "The subsequent course of this extraordinary person- 
 age is now before the country. His great speeches on 
 this subject, in the Senate and elsewhere, have since 
 been made. As a true national statesman — as an inflex- 
 ible and untiring advocate and defender of the Constitu- 
 tion of his country — as an enlightened, fair-minded, and 
 high-souled patriot, he has fearlessly battled for princi- 
 ple ; he has, with singular consistency, pursued the 
 course which he promised to pursue when we talked to- 
 gether in Washington, neither turning to the right nor 
 to the left. Though sometimes reviled and ridiculed by 
 those most benefited by his labors, he has never been 
 heard to complain. Persecuted by the leading men of 
 the party he has so long served and sustained, he has 
 demeaned himself, on all occasions, with moderation 
 and dignity ; he has been ever earnest in the perform- 
 ance of duty, energetic in combatting and overcoming 
 the obstacles which have so strangely beset his pathway, 
 and always ready to meet and overcome such adversaries 
 as have ventured to encounter him. He has been faithful 
 to his pledge ; he has been true to the South and to the 
 Union, and I intend to be faithful to my own pledge. I 
 am sincerely grateful for his public services. 
 
 "I feel the highest admiration for all his noble quali- 
 ties and high achievements, and I regard his reputation 
 as part of the moral treasures of the Nation itself. And 
 now, in conclusion, permit me say that the Southern peojDle 
 can not enter into unholy alliance for the destruction of 
 Judge Douglas, if they are true to themselves, for he has 
 made more sacrifice to sustain Southern institutions than 
 any man now living. Southern men may, and doubt- 
 less have, met the enemies of the South in the Councils 
 of the Nation, and sustained, by their votes and speeches, 
 
The Missouri Com,promise and its Repeal. 449 
 
 her inalienable rights under the Constitution of our com- 
 mon country ; Northern men may have voted that those 
 rights should not be wrested from us ; but it has re- 
 mained for Judge Douglas alone, Northern man as he is, 
 to throw himself 'into the deadly imminent breech,' 
 and like the steadfast and everlasting rock of the ocean, 
 to withstand the fierce tide of fanaticism, and drive back 
 those angry billows which threatened to engulf his 
 country's happiness. 
 
 "I have the honor to be very respectfully and cordi- 
 ally your friend and fellow-citizen, 
 
 "Archibald Dixon." 
 
 To one who knows any thing of the history of those 
 times, it is easy to comprehend why Mr. Dixon gladly 
 accepted Judge Douglas' proposition to "take charge of 
 his amendment and engraft it on his bill." He knew, 
 as did Douglas, that while Southern Whigs, as well 
 as Democrats, would be in favor of the amendment. 
 Northern Whigs would be solidly against it, for they 
 were, even then, fast drifting to Abolitionism ; but if the 
 Northern Democracy would give it their support, with 
 the aid of the South, it was bound to succeed. Being 
 only anxious for the success of the measure, which he 
 had offered on principle and not for any self-advance- 
 ment, he was glad to place it in the hands of so able a 
 champion as Judge Douglas, who supported it with all 
 the fire of his genius, the energy of his enthusiasm, and 
 the courage of his convictions, from the moment he 
 undertook to right what he saw to be a great wrong ; 
 and who, as the leader of the Democratic party, was in 
 a position to do so far more successfully than any one 
 else could have done. 
 
 That Judge Douglas was influenced solely by a con- 
 viction of right, Mr. Dixon never doubted for an instant, 
 and preserved for him always that respect which one 
 29 
 
450 The True History of 
 
 honest man feels for another whom he believes to be 
 equally so. 
 
 It is unquestionable that this conviction on the part of 
 Douglas was forced upon him by the clear and able pre- 
 sentment to his mind, by Mr. Dixon, of the injustice, 
 unfairness and inconsistency of the Missouri Compromise 
 under all the circumstances, as well as the unconstitu- 
 tionality of the Act itself. 
 
 Judge Douglas had accepted the theory of the "sacred- 
 ness" of that Compromise at second hand, as did the 
 Northern people generally, without knowing the facts in 
 the case. When, however, he investigated them for 
 himself, he changed his whole views, and did not hesi- 
 tate to proclaim them boldly and unreservedly. Here 
 are his conclusions in his own language. In a debate 
 with Mr. Seward of March 3, 1854 — he says : 
 
 "I stated that the North in the House of Representa- 
 tives voted against admitting Missouri into the Union 
 under the Act of 1820, and caused the defeat of that 
 measure ; and he (Seward) said that they voted against 
 it on the ground of the free-negro clause in her constitu- 
 tion, and not upon the ground of slavery, Now, I have 
 shown by the evidence that it was upon the ground of 
 slavery, as well as upon the other ground ; and that a 
 majority of the North required not only that Missouri 
 should comply with the compact of 1820, so-called, but 
 that she should go further, and give up the whole con- 
 sideration which the Senator says the South received 
 from the North for the Missouri Compromise. The 
 compact, he says, was that, in consideration of slavery 
 being permitted in Missouri, it should be prohibited in 
 the Territories. After having procured the prohibition 
 in the Territories, the North, by a majority of her votes, 
 refused to admit Missouri as a slave-holding State, and, 
 in violation of the alleged compact, required her to pro- 
 hibit slavery as a further condition of her admission. 
 This repudiation of the alleged compact by the North is 
 recorded by yeas and nays, 61 to 33, and entered upon 
 
The Missouri Compromise and its Repeal. 451 
 
 the Journal as an imperishable evidence of the fact. 
 With this evidence before us, against whom should the 
 charge of perfidy be preferred? 
 
 "Sir, if this was a compact, what must be thought of 
 those who violated it almost immediately after it was 
 formed? I say that it is a calumny upon the North to 
 say that it was a compact. I should feel a flush of 
 shame upon my cheek, as a Northern man, if I were to 
 say that it was a compact, and that the section of the 
 country to which I belong received the consideration, 
 and then repudiated the obligation in eleven months after 
 it was entered into. I deny that it was a compact in 
 any sense of the term. But if it was, the record proves 
 that faith was not observed — that the compact was never 
 carried into effect — that after the North had procured 
 the passage of the act prohibiting slavery in the Terri- 
 tories, with a majority in the House large enough to pre- 
 vent its repeal, Missouri was refused admission into the 
 Union as a slave-holding State in conformity with the 
 Act of March 6, 1820. If the proposition be correct, as 
 contended for by the opponents of this bill — that there 
 was a solemn compact between the North and South 
 that, in consideration of the prohibition of slavery in 
 the Territories, Missouri was to be admitted into the 
 Union in conformity with the Act of 1820 — that contract 
 was repudiated by the North, and rescinded by the joint 
 action of the two parties within twelve months from its 
 date. Missouri was never admitted under the Act of 
 the 6th of March, 1820. She was refused admission 
 under that act. She was voted out of the Union by 
 Northern votes, notwithstanding the stipulation that 
 she be received ; and, in consequence of these facts, a 
 new compromise was rendered necessary, by the terms 
 of which Missouri was to be admitted into the Union 
 conditionally, admitted on a condition not embraced in 
 the Act of 1820, and in addition to a full compliance 
 with all the provisions of said act. ... I think I 
 have shown that to call the Act of the 6th of March, 
 
452 The True History of 
 
 1820, a compact, binding in honor, is to charge the 
 Northern States of this Union with an act of perfidy 
 unparalleled in the history of legislation or of civiliza- 
 tion." 
 
 Of the Act of 1821 and the clauses in the Constitu- 
 tion of Missouri, to which objection was made, he says : 
 
 "If they did conflict with the Constitution of the 
 United States, they were void ; if they were not in con- 
 flict, Missouri had a right to put them there and to pass 
 all laws necessary to carry them into effect. Whether 
 such conflict did exist is a question which, by the Con- 
 stitution, can only be determined authoritatively by the 
 Supreme Court of the United States. Congress is not 
 the appropriate and competent tribunal to adjudicate 
 and determine questions of conflict between the Consti- 
 tution of a State and that of the United States. Had 
 Missouri been admitted without any condition or re- 
 striction, she would have had an opportunity of vindi- 
 cating her Constitution and rights in the Supreme 
 Court, the tribunal created by the Constitution for that 
 purpose. 
 
 "By the condition imposed upon Missouri, Congress 
 not only deprived that State of a right which she be- 
 lieved she possessed under the Constitution of the 
 United States, but denied her the privilege of vindicat- 
 ing that right in the appropriate and constitutional 
 tribunals by compelling her, ' by a solemn public act,' 
 to give an irrevocable pledge never to exercise or claim 
 the right. Therefore, Missouri came in under a humili- 
 ating condition — a condition not imposed by the Con- 
 stitution of the United States, and which destroys the 
 principle of equality which should exist, and by the Con- 
 stitution does exist, between all the States of this Union. 
 This inequality results from Mr. Clay's compromise in 
 
 1821, and is the principle upon which that compromise 
 was constructed. . . . I have before me the 'solemn 
 public act' of Missouri to this fundamental condition. 
 Whoever will take the trouble to read it will find it the 
 
The Missouri Compromise and its Repeal. 453 
 
 richest specimen of irony and sarcasm that has ever been 
 incorporated into a solemn public act."^ 
 
 (On February 14, 1854, an allusion being made to the 
 same "solemn public act" by Mr. Badger, of North Caro- 
 lina, Mr. Everett asked : 
 
 "Mr. Everett: Did not Mr. Clay draw up that pro- 
 vision ? 
 
 "Mr. Badger: I do not know. I think I recollect 
 hearing Mr. Clay once on this floor say, in substance, 
 that he laughed in his sleeve at the idea that people 
 were so easily satisfied. 
 
 "Mr. Butler : I heard him say it.'"^ 
 
 One can easily imagine that Mr. Clay could laugh in 
 his sleeve to see men pretending to be "satisfied" with, 
 and glad to take refuge under, a political sarcasm never 
 equaled, and a political irony which he, of course, fully 
 appreciated when he placed it before them.) 
 
 Douglas further said in this same debate : 
 
 "Mr. President, I have also occupied a good deal of 
 time in exposing the cant of these gentlemen about the 
 sanctity of the Missouri Compromise, and the dishonor 
 attached to the violation of plighted faith. I have ex- 
 posed these matters in order to show that the object of 
 these men is to withdraw from public attention the real 
 principle involved in the bill. They well know that the 
 abrogation of the Missouri Compromise is the incident 
 and not the principle of the bill. They well understand 
 that the report of the committee and the bill propose to 
 establish the principle in all territorial organizations, 
 that the question of slavery shall be referred to the peo- 
 ple to regulate for themselves, and that such legislation 
 should be had as was necessary to remove all legal ob- 
 structions to the free exercise of this right by the people. 
 
 "The eighth section of the Missouri act standing in 
 the way of this great principle must be rendered inop- 
 erative and void, whether expressly repealed or not, in 
 
 1 App. Cong. Globe, Vol. 29, p. 329-331. » Idem, p. 147. 
 
454 The True History of 
 
 order to give the people the power of regulating their 
 own domestic institutions in their own way, subject only 
 to the Constitution. 
 
 "Now, sir, if these gentlemen have entire confidence 
 in the correctness of their position, why do they not meet 
 the issue boldly and fairly, and controvert the soundness 
 of this great principle of popular sovereignty in obedi- 
 ence to the Constitution? They know full well that this 
 was the principle upon which the Colonies separated 
 from the crown of Great Britain ; the principle upon 
 which the battles of the Revolution were fought ; and 
 the principle upon which our republican system was 
 founded. They can not be ignorant of the fact that the 
 Revolution grew out of the assertion of the right on the 
 part of the imperial Government to interfere with the 
 internal affairs and domestic concerns of the Colonies. 
 The Missouri Compromise was interference ; 
 the compromise of 1850 was non-interference, leaving 
 the people to exercise their rights under the Constitution. 
 The Committee on Territories were compelled to act on 
 this subject. I, as their chairman, was bound to meet 
 the question. I chose to take the responsibility, regard- 
 less of consequences personal to myself."^ 
 
 Nothing can be added to Judge Douglas' own declara- 
 tions that would make them stronger or more unequivo- 
 cal as regards the Missouri Compromise ; and as regards 
 his position on non-intervention, it was identical with 
 that of Henry Clay, who adopted, as his own, Douglas' 
 bill in 1850 ; and who, it can not be doubted, would 
 have taken exactly the same view that Douglas took in 
 1854 after the facts, as they really existed, had been pre- 
 sented to his mind. 
 
 1 App. Cong. Globe, Vol. 29, p. 337. 
 
The Missouri Compromise and its Repeal. 455 
 
 CHAPTER XVIII. 
 
 1854 — President Pierce's position — Letter from Hon. Jefferson Davis — 
 Free Soilers' Address — Speech by Douglas. 
 
 On the 17tli of January, Mr. Douglas gave notice that 
 on the next Monday he would ask the Senate to take up 
 the bill to organize the Territory of Nebraska. 
 
 On the same day, Mr. Sumner gave notice that he 
 would offer an amendment, "That nothing herein con- 
 tained shall be construed to abrogate or in any way con- 
 travene the act of March 6, 1820, etc." ^ 
 
 On the 23d, the Monday following, Mr. Douglas sub- 
 mitted a report from his Committee to the Senate, which 
 proposed as a further amendment the bill (or a substitute, 
 rather,) to create two Territories in place of one — one 
 to be called Kansas. And then — 
 
 "The section providing for the election of a Delegate 
 is amended by adding to the words, 'that the Constitu- 
 tion, and all the laws of the United States which are not 
 locally inapplicable, shall have the same force and effect 
 within the said Territory as elsewhere in the United 
 States,' the following: 
 
 " 'Except the eighth section of the act preparatory to 
 the admission of Missouri into the Union, approved 
 March 6, 1820, which was superseded by the principles 
 of the legislation of 1850, commonly called the Com- 
 promise measures, and is declared inoperative.' " ^ 
 
 It is to be noted that this amendment, which practi- 
 cally incorporated the amendment proposed by Mr. 
 Dixon, was reported exactly seven days after notice was 
 given by him of his motion to repeal the eighth section 
 of the act of 1820, and not over five days after the con- 
 versation between Mr. Dixon and Judge Douglas, as 
 
 ' Cong. Globe, Vol. 28, p. 186. » Idem, p. 222. 
 
45G The True History of 
 
 heretofore related. Truth is said to be stranger than 
 fiction ; truth is, also, often simpler than fiction, and 
 carries its evidence on its face. 
 
 Many various statements as to President Pierce's po- 
 sition towards Judge Douglas' Kansas-Nebraska bill hav- 
 ing been made, to the effect that his administration was 
 secretly opposed to the Repeal of the Missouri Act, and 
 that Judge Douglas forced it upon his party, a letter is 
 here given from Hon. Jefferson Davis, in response to 
 one of inquiry from the writer, which settles those 
 questions, he being Secretary of War at that time and in 
 a position to know whereof he speaks, and a man, more- 
 over, whose word has never been doubted by even his 
 bitterest enemies. 
 
 This letter of inquiry was addressed to Mr. Davis, in 
 consequence of an article in the Courier-Journal upon 
 the unveiling of Douglas' monument, in Chicago, in 
 1878 
 
 Speaking of Douglas, it said : "He became the main- 
 stay of the Administration, which, under the inspiration 
 of Jefferson Davis, then Secretary of War, devised a 
 measure for the Repeal of the Missouri Compromise. 
 Away down at the bottom of this scheme lay a plan to 
 make a Territory west of Missouri, which would send 
 old David Atchison, who had lost his seat, back to the 
 Senate of the United States, in order that he might con- 
 tinue the agreeable game of whist and the somewhat 
 prosy classic discussions which had been going on for 
 years between him and old Mason, of Virginia, and that 
 particular clique of ponderous respectabilities. It took 
 an amount of hauling to drag Douglas in ; but the 
 united efforts of the Administration, and the urgency of 
 General Robert Armstrong, the owner of the Washing- 
 ton Union — a man of great personal influence and pop- 
 ularity in those days, and the father-in-law of Arnold 
 Harris, Douglas' chief friend — prevailed. Being iu, the 
 Little Giant, with Alexander H. Stephens as his lieuten- 
 ant in the House, made a great and successful fight, 
 
The Missouri Compromise and its Repeal. 457 
 
 laying the foimdation for the war of secession, and pro- 
 curing his own political ruin. 
 
 "His career was a failure. Brief and brilliant, its 
 mark was effaced in blood. It will live in history only 
 as a half-told tale." 
 
 August 5, 1878, the same paper published a letter 
 from the writer, which briefly stated the facts in the 
 case, and, among other things, said: "Neither the Ad- 
 ministration, nor Mr. Davis, nor yet General Armstrong, 
 was consulted with regard to the acceptance by Judge 
 Douglas of the amendment, unless, perhaps, after his 
 decision. It was reached exactly as I tell you, from a 
 conviction of right and justice. 
 
 ". . . If his career was a failure, it was because 
 men more wild — because when the storms of sectional 
 hatred and jealousy raged most fiercely he steadily held 
 up the beacon-light of the Constitution and would not 
 desert his principles — because he was one against whom 
 his ablest assailant, Mr. Benjamin, of Louisiana, could 
 find no greater charge than that 'he adhered too closely 
 to his principles ; he was too consistent I ' " ^ 
 
 Some time after the publication of this letter, the 
 writer addressed one to Mr. Davis, and received the 
 reply here given : 
 
 "Beauvoir p. O., Harrison, Co., Miss. 
 
 ''27th Sept., 1879. 
 
 "My Dear Mrs. Dixon : Though this acknowledgment 
 of your letter has been long delayed, believe me it has 
 not arisen from any want of sympathy in your purpose, 
 or willingness to protect the memory of your true hearted 
 husband from the injustice to which you refer. I was 
 not a member of the Senate when the Kansas-Nebraska 
 bill was introduced, and enacted. Of the preliminary 
 action, my engrossing duties in the War Office rendered 
 me but little attentive, and my books, papers, and letters 
 
 ^ Louisville Courier-Journal, August 5, 1878. 
 
458 The True History of 
 
 were so extensively pillaged during, as well as after, the 
 war, that I have but little to which I can refer to refresh 
 my memory of events occurring at the period to which 
 your inquiries tend. What I do know, and distinctly 
 remember, I will relate : 
 
 "On Sunday morning, before the hour of church. 
 Judge Douglas, with a number of members of the Sen- 
 ate, and Ho. of Rep's, came to my residence and explained 
 to me that the Committee on Territory of the Senate and 
 House, had agreed upon a bill which Judge Douglas as 
 Chairman of the Committee on Territories would report 
 the next morning to the Senate, simultaneously with a 
 like report in the House, if the bill should receive the 
 sanction, and be supported by the President. 
 
 "After considering the terms of the bill, and seeing in 
 them nothing which I could not aj)prove, or from which 
 I believed the President would dissent, I told the gentle- 
 men that they were either a day too late or too early, 
 that the President received no visitors on Sunday, but 
 that they could readily consult him to-morrow. It was 
 then explained that the morrow, Monday, was the day 
 on which the Committee of the House could report, and 
 to loose that opportunity would involve much delay, and 
 that they had therefore come to me to secure for them 
 an interview with the President. I went with them, left 
 them in his audience chamber, and after explaining to 
 him the circumstances of the visit, he returned with me 
 to meet the gentlemen waiting. When the bill had been 
 fully explained to him, its text, its intent, and its pur- 
 pose, he, as anticipated, declared his opinion in its favor, 
 and the gentlemen left him with the assurance they 
 came to obtain before testing the question of their bill 
 before the two Houses of Congress. 
 
 "All the stories which attribute to President Pierce 
 the inauguration of the Kansas-Nebraska bill, as well 
 as those which would make him first oppose and then 
 approve it, are utterly false. His course in the U. S. 
 Senate, to all who had marked and pondered it, sulii- 
 
The Missouri Compromise and its Repeal. 459 
 
 ciently foreshadowed his action upon any question in- 
 volving the power of the Federal Government, and the 
 people of the States. As to myself, I have stated at 
 what stage I became acquainted with the Kansas-Ne- 
 braska bill, but the gentlemen who came to visit me 
 knew sufficiently well my opinion as to the rights of the 
 people of the States in the common property, the Terri- 
 tories of the United States, to come to me for aid as far 
 as I could render it, to promote the purpose then declared 
 — the fulfillment of the Compromise of 1850, the recog- 
 nition of the equal rights of all the people of the States, 
 and the repeal of a law discriminating specially against 
 one section of the Union. The States Rights doctrine of 
 the Constitution, the creed of the men who won our In- 
 dependence and formed the Union, had no abler or more 
 faithful advocate than your honored husband, Archibald 
 Dixon, at that time Senator of Kentucky. He who in- 
 troduced the provision into the Constitution of Kentucky, 
 protecting the rights of property against the power of 
 Legislature or Conventions, might well have been looked 
 to for such an amendment as that which he is reported 
 to have offered to the bill of Mr. Douglas in its original 
 form. 
 
 "When in 1850, the proposition was made to extend 
 the line of 36° 30', called the Missouri Compromise line, 
 it was opposed on the ground that the Government had 
 no delegated power to control the institutions of the 
 States, and that the Territory should be left free as 
 embryo States, to mold themselves as climate and pro- 
 duction might decide. This being, as Mr. Douglas used 
 to express it, the true intent and meaning of the action 
 of 1850, the resulting consequence, as any honest mind 
 must admit, was the repeal of the Missouri Compromise 
 in regard to all the Territory of the United States. Mr. 
 Dixon did not require any other motive than that which 
 integrity and constitutional law so plainly dictated, but if 
 he had, the motive assigned in connection with the Hon. 
 Mr. Atchison is wanting in that consistency which truth 
 
460 The True History of 
 
 always possesses. Those who knew that gentleman inti- 
 mately, knew that he left the Senate with no desire to 
 return, and that neither his pride nor his principle would 
 have allowed him to accept a position obtained as this 
 story would represent to have been contemplated. 
 "I am, Madam, yours faithfully, 
 
 "Jefferson Davis." 
 
 It will be seen from this letter that President Pierce 
 did not hesitate a moment to do what he believed his 
 duty called him to do — what was not only entirely con- 
 sistent with his past record as a statesman, but a refusal 
 to do which would have stamped him as recreant to all 
 his own pledges to sustain the principles of the Compro- 
 mise of 1850. And Judge Douglas went into the Senate 
 Chamber on that Monday morning, armed with the 
 double panoply of right and justice, and sustained by 
 the entire power of approval of the Administration. 
 
 On the next day, the 24th, Mr. Douglas moved that 
 the Senate proceed to the consideration of the bill to or- 
 ganize the Territories of Kansas and Nebraska. Mr. 
 Chase, Mr. Sumner, and some others expressed the wish 
 to postpone it for a week or more, and Mr. Douglas sub- 
 mitted a "motion that the bill be postponed to, and 
 made the special order of the day for, Monday next, 
 and be the special order from day to day until disposed 
 of." 
 
 "Mr. Dixon : I hope the motion of the Senator from 
 Illinois will prevail. I think it due to the Senate that 
 they should have an opportunity of understanding pre- 
 cisely the bearings and the effect of the amendment 
 which has been recently incorporated into the bill as 
 originally reported by the Committee — I mean that por- 
 tion of the amendment which alludes to slavery within 
 the Territories proposed to be organized — Nebraska and 
 Kansas. So far as I am individually concerned, I am 
 perfectly satisfied with the amendment reported by the 
 Senator from Illinois, and which has been incorporated 
 
The Missouri Compromise and its Repeal. 461 
 
 into the bill. If I understand it, it reaches a point 
 which I am most anxious to attain — that is to say, it 
 virtually repeals the Act of 1820, commonly called the 
 Missouri Compromise Act, declaring that slavery should 
 not exist north of the line of 36° 30', north latitude. 
 
 "I here take occasion to remark, merely with a view 
 of placing myself right before the Senate, that I think 
 my position in relation to this matter has been somewhat 
 misunderstood. 
 
 "I have been charged, through one of the leading 
 journals of this city, with having proposed the amend- 
 ment which I notified the Senate I intended to offer, 
 with a view to embarrass the Democratic party. It was 
 said that I was a Whig from Kentucky, and that the 
 amendment proposed by me should be looked upon with 
 suspicion by the opposite party. Sir, I merely wish to 
 remark that, upon the question of slavery, I know no 
 Whiggery, and I know no Democracy. I am a pro- 
 slavery man. I am from a slave-holding State ; I repre- 
 sent a slave-holding constituency ; and I am here to 
 maintain the rights of that people whenever they are 
 presented before the Senate. 
 
 "The amendment, which I notified the Senate that I 
 should offer at the proper time, has been incorporated 
 by the Senator from Illinois into the bill which he has 
 reported to the Senate. The bill, as now amended, 
 meets my views, and I have no objection to it. I shall, 
 at the proper time, as far as I am able to do so, aid and 
 assist the Senator from Illinois, and others who are 
 anxious to carry through this proposition, with the 
 feeble abilities I may be able to bring to bear upon it. 
 I think it due to myself to make this explanation, be- 
 cause I do not wish it to be understood that upon a 
 question like this, I have, or could have, any motive 
 except that which should influence a man anxious to 
 secure what he believes to be a great principle — that is, 
 congressional non-interference in all the Territories, so 
 far as this great question of slavery is concerned. 
 
462 The True History of 
 
 "I never did believe in the propriety of passing the 
 Missouri Compromise. I thought it was the result of 
 necessity. I never thought that the great Senator from 
 Kentucky, Mr. Clay, when he advocated that measure,^ 
 did so because his judgment approved it, but because it 
 was the result of a combination of circumstances which 
 drove him to the position he assumed ; and I have never 
 thought that that measure received the sanction either 
 of his heart or of his head. 
 
 "The amendment, then, which I gave notice that I 
 would propose, and which I intended to have proposed, 
 if it had not been rendered wholly unnecessary by the 
 amendment reported by the Senator from Illinois, from 
 the Committee on Territories, of which he is the hon- 
 ored Chairman — I intended to offer, under the firm con- 
 viction that I was carrying out the principles settled in 
 the compromise acts of 1850 ; and which leave the 
 whole question of slavery with the people, and without 
 any congressional interference. For, over the subject of 
 slavery, either in the States or Territories of the United 
 States, I have always believed, and have always con- 
 tended, that Congress had no power whatever ; and that 
 consequently, the Act of 1820, commonly known as the 
 Missouri Compromise Act, is unconstitutional ; and at 
 the proper time I shall endeavor to satisfy the Senate 
 and the country of the truth of these propositions." 
 
 "Mr. Douglas : As this discussion has begun, I feel it 
 to be my duty to say a word in explanation. I am glad 
 to hear the Senator from Kentucky say that the bill, 
 as it now stands, accomplishes all that he desired to ac- 
 complish by his amendment, because his amendment 
 seemed to myself, and to some with whom I have con- 
 sulted, to mean more than what he now explains it 
 
 ' It appears that Mr. Dixon also labored under the mistaken impres- 
 sion that Mr. Clay had " advocated " the Act of 1820— in common with 
 the public generally — which he really never did do at all, as the writer 
 has shown. 
 
The Missouri Compromise and its Repeal. 463 
 
 to mean, and what I am glad he did not intend to 
 mean, 
 
 "We supposed that it not only wiped out the legisla- 
 tion which Congress had heretofore adopted excluding 
 slavery, but that it affirmatively legislated slavery into 
 the Territory. The object of the committee was neither 
 to legislate slavery into nor out of the Territories ; 
 neither to introduce nor exclude it ; but to remove what- 
 ever obstacles Congress had put there, and apply the 
 doctrine of congressional non-intervention, in accordance 
 with the principles of the Compromise measures of 
 1850, and allow the people to do as they pleased upon 
 this, as well as all other matters affecting their in- 
 terests. 
 
 "The explanation of the honorable Senator from 
 Kentucky shows that his meaning was not what many 
 supposed it to be, who judged simply from the phrase- 
 ology of the amendment ; I deem this explanation due 
 to the Senator and to myself," 
 
 "Mr. Dixon : I am obliged to the Senator from Illinois 
 for placing me right on that point. Surely the phrase- 
 ology of the amendment which was proposed by me 
 would not authorize any such construction as that 
 which seems to have been given it — that it would legis- 
 late slavery within the limits of the Territory now pro- 
 posed to be organized. Now, sir, the language of that 
 amendment is, that the law itself shall not be so con- 
 strued as to prevent persons from taking their slaves 
 into that Territory, but that they shall have the same 
 right to do so as if the law had never been passed. It 
 does not secure to them any right at all by legislative 
 enactment here, but merely removes an obstacle which 
 legislative enactment here had thrown in the way of the 
 slave-holder in taking his property within the proposed 
 limits. If it were construed otherwise, it never could 
 have been my intention to act on the principle which is 
 suggested ; for I will here take leave to remark, that I 
 have always believed and maintained, as a sound propo- 
 
464 The True History of 
 
 sition, and expect to maintain, in the discussion of this 
 case, that the power of Congress never did exist at all 
 over the subject of slavery, either within or without the 
 limits of the Territories." 
 
 "The motion of Mr. Douglas was agreed to." 
 
 On the 22d day of January, some of the "Free Boil- 
 ers, "styling themselves "Independent Democrats," pre- 
 pared an "Address to the people of the United States," 
 in which they denounced Judge Douglas and the Re- 
 peal of the Missouri Compromise in most unmeasured 
 terms — declaring of his bill that — "It is a bold scheme 
 against American liberty, worthy of an accomplished 
 architect of ruin. 
 
 "We arraign this bill as a gross violation of a sacred 
 pledge ; as a criminal betrayal of precious rights ; as 
 part and parcel of an atrocious plot to exclude from a 
 vast unoccupied region immigrants from the Old World, 
 and free laborers from our own States, and convert it 
 into a dreary region of despotism, inhabited by masters 
 and slaves. 
 
 "Take your maps, fellow-citizens, we entreat you, 
 and see what country it is which this bill, gratuitously 
 and recklessly, proposes to open to slavery. . . . 
 
 "Nothing is more certain in history than the fact that 
 Missouri could not have been admitted as a slave State 
 had not certain members from the free States been 
 reconciled to the measure by the incorporation of this 
 prohibition into the act of admission. Nothing is more 
 certain than that this prohibition has been regarded and 
 accepted by the whole country as a solemn compact 
 against the extension of slavery into any part of the 
 territory acquired from France, lying north of 36° 30', 
 and not included in the new State of Missouri. The same 
 act — let it be ever remembered — which authorized the 
 formation of a Constitution for the State, without a 
 
 ' Cong. Globe, Vol. 28, pp. 239, 240. 
 
The Missouri Compromise and its Repeal. 465 
 
 clause forbidding slavery, consecrated, beyond question, 
 and beyond honest recall, the whole remainder of the terri- 
 tory to freedom and free institutions forever. For more 
 than thirty years — during more than half the period of 
 our national existence under our present Constitution — 
 this compact has been universally regarded and acted 
 upon as inviolable American law. In conformity with 
 it, Iowa was admitted as a free State, and Minnesota 
 has been organized as a free Territory. 
 
 "It is a strange and ominous fact, well calculated to 
 awaken the worst apprehensions, and the most fearful 
 forebodings of future calamities, that it is now deliber- 
 ately purposed to repeal this prohibition, by implication or 
 directly — the latter certainly the manlier way — and thus 
 to subvert this compact, and allow slavery in all the yet 
 unorganized territory. 
 
 "In 1820, the slave States said to the free States: 
 'Admit Missouri with slavery and refrain from positive 
 exclusion south of 36° 30', and we will join you in per- 
 petual prohibition north of that line.' The free States 
 consented. In 1854, the slave States say to the free 
 States : 'Missouri is admitted ; no prohibition of slavery 
 south of 36° 30' has been attempted ; we have received 
 the full consideration of our agreement ; no more is to 
 be gained by adherence to it on our part ; we therefore 
 propose to cancel the compact.' If this be not Punic 
 faith, what is it? Not without the deepest dishonor 
 and crime can the free States acquiesce in this demand. 
 
 "We confess our total inability properly to delineate 
 the character or describe the consequences of this meas- 
 ure. Language fails to express the sentiments of in- 
 dignation and abhorrence which it inspires ; and no 
 vision less penetrating and comprehensive than that of 
 the All-seeing can reach its evil issues. . . . 
 
 "We appeal to the people. We warn you that the 
 dearest interests of freedom and the Union are in immi- 
 30 
 
466 The True History of 
 
 nent peril. Demagogues may tell you that the Union 
 can be maintained only by submitting to the demands 
 of slavery. We tell you that the safety of the Union 
 can only be assured by the full recognition of the just 
 claims of freedom and man. The Union was formed to 
 establish justice and secure the blessings of liberty. 
 When it fails to accomplish these ends, it will be worth- 
 less ; and when it becomes worthless, it can not long 
 endure. 
 
 "We entreat you to be mindful of that fundamental 
 maxim of Democracy — equal rights and exact jus- 
 tice FOR ALL MEN ! Do not submit to become agents 
 in extending legalized oppression and systematized in- 
 justice over a vast Territory, yet exempt from these ter- 
 rible evils. 
 
 "We implore Christians and Christian ministers to 
 interpose. Their divine religion requires them to be- 
 hold in every man a brother, and to labor for the ad- 
 vancement and regeneration of the human race. 
 
 "Whatever apologies may be offered for the toleration 
 of slavery in the States, none can be urged for its ex- 
 tension into Territories where it does not exist, and 
 where that extension involves the repeal of ancient law 
 and the violation of solemn compact. Let all protest, 
 earnestly and emphatically, by correspondence, through 
 the press, by memorials, by resolutions of public 
 meetings and legislative bodies, and in whatever 
 other mode may seem expedient, against this enormous 
 crime. 
 
 "For ourselves, we shall resist it by speech and vote, 
 and with all the abilities which God has given us. 
 Even if overcome in the impending struggle, we shall 
 not submit. We shall go home to our constituents, 
 erect anew the standard of freedom, and call on the 
 people to come to the rescue of the country from the 
 domination of slavery. We will not despair, for the 
 cause of human freedom is the cause of God." 
 
The Missouri Compromise and its Repeal. 467 
 
 The address, from which the above extracts are taken, 
 was signed by 
 
 S. P. Chase, Senator from Ohio. 
 Charles Sumner, Senator from Mass. 
 
 J. R. GiDDINGS, ) .J, r^x.' 
 
 T. TTi iTr i Representatives from Ohio, 
 
 Ben J. F. Wade, ) ^ 
 
 Gerritt Smith, Representative from N. York. 
 
 Alex. De Witt, Representative from Mass. 
 
 In a note which was appended, it was declared that 
 "This amendment is a manifest falsification of the truth 
 of history, as is shown in the body of the foregoing ad- 
 dress. Not a man in Congress, or out of Congress, in 
 1850, pretended that the compromise measures would 
 repeal the Missouri prohibition. Mr. Douglas himself 
 never advanced such a pretense until this session. His 
 own Nebraska bill of last session rejected it. It is a 
 sheer afterthought. To declare the prohibition inopera- 
 tive, may, indeed, have effect in law as a repeal, but it 
 is a most discreditable way of reaching the object. 
 Will the people permit their dearest interests to be thus 
 made the mere hazards of a presidential game, and de- 
 stroyed by false facts and false inferences?"^ 
 
 It is easy to understand how an address so plausible, 
 so solemn in its terms, so alarming in its predictions, 
 would have a powerful effect upon the Northern people 
 generally, especially as there were but few of them who 
 really knew any thing of the actual history of the Mis- 
 souri Compromise ; and they were therefore disposed to 
 accept all these extravagant statements in good faith and 
 without doubt. Whereas, really, in all Abolition litera- 
 ture, there never was compressed in so small a space 
 more "falsification of the truth of history," more mis- 
 representation of facts, than in this address, which was 
 withheld from publication until the 24th, the day after 
 Judge Douglas had reported his bill incorporating the 
 Repeal. 
 
 » Cong. Globe, Vol. 28, p. 282. 
 
468 
 
 The True History of 
 
 On the next Monday, the 30th, when the bill, accord- 
 ing to agreement on the 24th, was taken up for consid- 
 eration, Douglas said : 
 
 "Mr. Douglas: Mr. President, when I proposed, on 
 Tuesday last, that the Senate should proceed to the con- 
 sideration of the 'bill to organize the Territories of Ne- 
 braska and Kansas, it was my purpose only to occupy 
 ten or fifteen minutes in explanation of its provisions. 
 I desired to refer to two points : first, as to those pro- 
 visions relating to the Indians ; and, second, to those 
 which might be supposed to bear upon the question of 
 slavery. 
 
 "The Committee, in drafting this bill, had in view the 
 great anxiety which had been expressed by some mem- 
 bers of the Senate to protect the rights of the Indians, 
 and prevent infringements upon them. By the provis- 
 ions of the bill, I think we have so clearly succeeded in 
 that respect as to obviate all possible objection upon that 
 score. The bill itself provides that it shall not operate 
 upon any of the rights of the lands of the Indians ; nor 
 shall they be included within the limits of those Terri- 
 tories, until they shall, by treaty with the United States, 
 expressly consent to come under the operations of the 
 act, and be incorporated within the limits of those Ter- 
 ritories. This provision certainly is broad enough, clear 
 enough, explicit enough, to protect all the rights of the 
 Indians as to their persons and their property. 
 
 "Upon the other point — that pertaining to the ques- 
 tion of slavery in the Territories — it was the intention 
 of the Committee to be equally explicit. We took the 
 principles established by the Compromise Acts of 1850 as 
 our guide, and intended to make each and every pro- 
 vision of the bill accord with those principles. Those 
 measures established, and rest upon, the great principle 
 of self-government — that the people should be allowed 
 to decide the questions of their domestic institutions for 
 themselves, subject only to such limitations and restric- 
 tions as are imposed by the Constitution of the United 
 
The Missouri Compromise and its Repeal. 469 
 
 States, instead of having tliem determined bj an arbi- 
 trary or geographical line. 
 
 "The original bill reported by the Committee, as a 
 substitute for the bill introduced by the Senator from 
 Iowa (Mr. Dodge) , was believed to have accomplished 
 this object. The amendment which was subsequently 
 reported by us was only designed to render that clear 
 and specific which seemed, in the minds of some, to 
 admit of doubt and misconstruction. In some parts of 
 the country the original substitute was deemed and con- 
 strued to be an annulment or a repeal of what has been 
 known as the Missouri Compromise, while in other parts 
 it was otherwise construed. As the object of the Com- 
 mittee was to conform to the principles established by 
 the Compromise measures of 1850, and to carry those 
 principles into effect in the Territories, we thought it 
 was better to recite in the bill precisely what we under- 
 stood to have been accomplished by those measures, viz : 
 That the Missouri Compromise, having been superseded 
 by the legislation of 1850, has become inoperative, and 
 hence we propose to leave the question to the people of 
 the States and the Territories, subject only to the limita- 
 tions and provisions of the Constitution. 
 
 "Sir, this is all that I intended to say, if the question 
 had been taken up for consideration on Tuesday last ; 
 but since that time occurrences have transpired which 
 compel me to go more fully into the discussion. It will 
 be borne in mind that the Senator from Ohio (Mr. 
 Chase) then objected to the consideration of the bill, 
 and asked for its postponement until this day, on the 
 ground that there had not been time to understand and 
 consider its provisions ; and the Senator from Massachu- 
 setts (Mr. Sumner) suggested that the postponement 
 should be for one week, for that purpose. These sug- 
 gestions seeming to be reasonable to Senators around me, 
 I yielded to their request, and consented to the postpone- 
 ment of the bill until this day. 
 
 "Sir, little did I suppose, at the time that I granted 
 
470 The True History of 
 
 that act of courtesy to those two Senators, that they 
 had drafted and published to the world a document, over 
 their own signatures, in which they arraigned me as 
 having been guilty of a criminal betrayal of my trust, 
 as having been guilty of an act of bad faith, and been 
 engaged in an atrocious plot against the cause of free 
 government. Little did I suppose that those two Sena- 
 tors had been guilty of such conduct when they called 
 upon me to grant that courtesy, to give them an oppor- 
 tunity of investigating the substitute reported from the 
 Committee. I have since discovered that on that very 
 morning the National Era, the Abolition organ in this 
 city, contained an address, signed by certain Abolition 
 confederates, to the people, in which the bill is grossly 
 misrepresented, in which the action of the members of 
 the Committee is grossly falsified, in which our motives 
 are arraigned, and our characters calumniated. And, 
 sir, what is more, I find that there was a postscript 
 added to the address, published that very morning, in 
 which the principal amendment reported by the Com- 
 mittee was set out, and then coarse epithets applied to 
 me by name. Sir, had I known those facts at the time 
 I granted that act of indulgence, I should have re- 
 sponded to the request of those Senators in such terms 
 as their conduct deserved, so far as the rules of the Sen- 
 ate and a respect for my own character would have per- 
 mitted me to do. In order to show the character of this 
 document — of which I shall have much to say in the 
 course of my argument — I will read certain passages : 
 
 "We arraign this bill as a gross violation of a sacred 
 pledge ; as a criminal betrayal of precious rights ; as 
 part and parcel of an atrocious plot to exclude from a 
 vast unoccupied region emigrants from the Old World, 
 and free laborers from our own States, and convert it 
 into a dreary region of depotism, inhabited by masters 
 and slaves." 
 
 "A Senator. By whom is the address signed? 
 
 "Mr. Douglas : It is signed 'S. P. Chase, Senator from 
 
The Missouri Compromise and its Repeal. 471 
 
 Ohio ; Charles Sumner, Senator from Massachusetts ; 
 J. R. Giddings and Benj. F. Wade, Representatives from 
 Ohio ; Gerritt Smith, Representative from New York ; 
 Alexander De Witt, Representative from Massachusetts,' 
 including, as I understand, all the Representatives of 
 the Abolition party in Congress. 
 
 "Then speaking of the Committee on Territories, 
 these confederates use this language : 
 
 ' 'The pretenses , therefore, that the territory covered by 
 the positive prohibition of 1820, sustains a similar rela- 
 tion to slavery with that acquired from Mexico, covered 
 by no prohibition except that of disputed constitutional 
 or Mexican law, and that the compromises of 1850 re- 
 quire the incorporation of the pro-slavery clauses of the 
 Utah and New Mexico bill in the Nebraska act, are 
 mere inventions, designed to cover up from public reprehen- 
 sion meditated bad faith. 
 
 "Mere inventions to cover up bad faith." Again : 
 
 "Servile demagogues may tell you that the Union can 
 be maintained only by submitting to the demands of 
 slavery. 
 
 ' 'Then there is a postscript added, equally offensive to my- 
 self, in which I am mentioned by name. The address goes 
 on to make an appeal to the Legislatures of the different 
 States, to public meetings, and to ministers of the Gospel 
 in their pulpits, to interpose and arrest the vile conduct 
 which is about to be consummated by the Senators who 
 are thus denounced. That address, sir, bears date Sun- 
 day, January 22, 1854. Thus it appears that, on the 
 holy Sabbath, while other Senators were engaged in at- 
 tending divine worship, these Abolition confederates 
 were assembled in secret conclave, plotting by what 
 means they should deceive the people of the United 
 States, and prostrate the character of brother senators. 
 This was done on the Sabbath day, and by a set of poli- 
 ticians, to advance their own political and ambitious 
 purposes, in the name of our holy religion. 
 
 "But this is not all. It was understood from the 
 
472 The True History of 
 
 newspapers that resolutions were pending before the 
 Legislature of Ohio, proposing to express their opinions 
 upon this subject. It was necessary for these confed- 
 erates to get up some exposition of the question, by 
 which they might facilitate the passage of the resolutions 
 through that Legislature. Hence, you find that on the 
 same morning that this document appears over the names 
 of those confederates in the Abolition organ of this city, 
 the same document appears in the New York papers — 
 certainly in the Tribune, Times, and Evening Post — in 
 which it is stated, by authority, that it is 'signed by the 
 Senators and a majority of the Representatives from the 
 State of Ohio ;' a statement which I have every reason 
 to believe was utterly false, and known to be so at the 
 time that these confederates api^ended it to the address. 
 It was necessary in order to carry out this work of decep- 
 tion, and to hasten the action of the Ohio Legislature, 
 under a misapprehension, to state that it was signed, not 
 only by the Abolition confederates, but by the whole 
 Whig representation and a portion of the Democratic 
 representation in the other House from the State of 
 Ohio." 
 
 "Mr. Chase : Mr. President, 
 
 "Mr. Douglas: Mr. President, I do not yield the 
 floor. A Senator who has violated all the rules of 
 courtesy and propriety — who showed a consciousness of 
 the character of the act he was doing by concealing from 
 me all knowledge of the fact — who came to me with a 
 smiling face, and the appearance of friendship, even 
 after that document had been uttered — who could get up 
 in the Senate and appeal to my courtesy in order to get 
 time to give the document a wider circulation before its 
 infamy could be exposed ; such a Senator has no right 
 to my courtesy upon this floor. 
 
 "Mr. Chase: Mr. President, the Senator mistates the 
 facts. 
 
 "Mr. Douglas : Mr. President, I decline to yield the 
 floor. 
 
The Missouri Compromise and its Repeal. 473 
 
 "Mr. Chase : And I shall make my denial pertinent 
 when the time comes. 
 
 "The President : Order. 
 
 "Mr. Douglas: Sir, if the Senator does interpose, 
 in violation of the rules of the Senate, to a denial of the 
 fact, it may be that I shall be able to nail that denial, as 
 I shall the statements here which are over his own sig- 
 nature, as a base falsehood, and prove it by the solemn 
 legislation of this country. 
 
 "Mr. Chase : I call the Senator to order. 
 
 "The President: The Senator from Illinois is cer- 
 tainly out of order. 
 
 "Mr. Douglas: Then I will only say that I shall 
 confine myself to this document, and prove its state- 
 ments to be false by the legislation of the country. Cer- 
 tainly that is in order. 
 
 "Mr. Chase : You can not do it. 
 
 "Mr. Douglas: ... I repeat, that in order to 
 rebut the presumption, as before stated, that the Mis- 
 souri Compromise was abandoned and superseded by 
 the principles of the compromise of 1850, these confed- 
 erates cite the following amendment, offered to the bill 
 to establish the boundary of Texas and create the Terri- 
 tory of New Mexico in 1850 : 
 
 " ^Provided, That nothing herein contained shall be 
 construed to impair or qualify any thing contained in 
 the third article of the second section of the joint reso- 
 lution for annexing Texas to the United States, ap- 
 proved March 1, 1845, either as regards the number of 
 States that may hereafter be formed out of the State of 
 Texas or otherwise.' 
 
 "After quoting this proviso, they make the following 
 statement, and attempt to gain credit for its truth by 
 suppressing material facts which appear upon the face 
 of the same statute, and, if produced, would conclusively 
 disprove the statement : 
 
 " 'It is solemnly declared in the very compromise acts 
 "That nothiny herein contained shall he construed to impair 
 
474 The True History of 
 
 or qualify''^ the prohibition of slavery north of 36° 30';' 
 and 3'-et, in the face of this declaration, that sacred pro- 
 hibition is said to be overthrown. Can presumption 
 further go ! " 
 
 "I will now proceed to show that presumption could 
 not go further than is exhibited in this declaration. 
 
 "They suppress the following material facts, which, if 
 produced, would have disproved their statement : They 
 first suppress the fact that the same section of the act 
 cuts off from Texas, and cedes to the United States, all 
 that part of Texas which lies north of 36° 30'. They 
 then suppress the further fact that the same section of 
 the law cuts off from Texas a large tract of country on 
 the west, more than three degrees of longitude, and 
 added it to the territory of the United States. They 
 then suppress the further fact that this territory thus 
 cut off from Texas, and to which the Missouri Compro- 
 mise line did apply, was incorporated into the Territory 
 of New Mexico. And then what was done? It was in- 
 corporated into that Territory with this clause : 
 
 " 'That when admitted as a State, the said Territory, 
 or any portion of the same, shall be received into the 
 Union, with or without slavery, as their Constitution 
 may prescribe at the time of its adoption.' 
 
 "Yes, sir, the very bill and section from which they 
 quote cuts off all that part of Texas which was to be 
 free by the Missouri Compromise, together with some 
 on the south side of the line, incorporates it into the 
 Territory of New Mexico, and then says that that Terri- 
 tory, and every portion of the same, shall come into the 
 Union with or without slavery, as it sees proper. 
 
 "What else does it do? The sixth section of the same 
 act provides that the legislative power and authority of 
 this said Territory of New Mexico shall extend to all 
 rightful subjects of legislation consistent with the Con- 
 stitution of the United States and the provisions of the 
 act, not excepting slavery. Thus the New Mexican bill, 
 from which they make that quotation, contained the 
 
The Missouri Compromise and its Repeal. 475 
 
 provision that New Mexico, including that part of Texas 
 which was cut off, should come into the Union with or 
 without slavery, as it saw proper ; and in the meantime 
 that the territorial Legislature should have all the au- 
 thority over the subject of slavery that they had over any 
 other subject, restricted only by the limitations of the 
 Constitution of the United States and the provisions of 
 the act. Now, I ask those Senators, do not those provi- 
 sions repeal the Missouri Compromise so far as it applied 
 to that country cut off from Texas ? Do they not annul it ? 
 Do they not supersede it? If they do, then the address, 
 which has been put forth to the world by these confeder- 
 ates, is an atrocious falsehood. If they do not, then what 
 do they mean when they charge me with having, in the 
 substitute first reported from the Committee repealed it, 
 with having annulled it, with having violated it, when I 
 only copied those precise words? I copied the precise 
 words into my bill as reported from the Committee 
 which were contained in the New Mexico bill. They 
 say my bill annuls the Missouri Compromise. If it 
 does, it had already been done by the Act of 1850, for 
 these words were copied from the Act of 1850. 
 
 "Mr. Wade : Why did you do it over again? 
 
 "Mr. Douglas: I will come to that point presently, 
 and explain why we did it over again. I am now deal- 
 ing with the truth and veracity of a combination of men 
 who have assembled in secret caucus upon the Sabbath 
 day, to arraign my conduct and belie my character. I 
 say, therefore, that their manifesto is a slander either 
 way ; for it says that the Missouri Compromise was not 
 superseded by the measures of 1850, and then it says 
 that the same words in my bill do repeal and annul it. 
 They must be judged guilty of one falsehood in order to 
 sustain the other assertion. 
 
 "Now, sir, I propose to go a little further, and show 
 what was the real meaning of the amendment of the 
 Senator from Virginia, out of which these gentlemen 
 have manufactured so much capital in the newspaper 
 
476 The True History of 
 
 press, and have succeeded by that misrepresentation in 
 procuring an expression of opinion from the State of 
 Rhode Island in opposition to this bill. I will state 
 what its meaning is. Did it mean that the States north 
 of 36° 30' should have a clause in their Constitutions 
 prohibiting slavery? I have shown that it did not 
 mean that, because the same act says that they might 
 come in with slavery if they saw proper. I say it could 
 not mean that for another reason. The same section 
 containing that proviso cut off all that part of Texas 
 north of 36° 30', and hence there was nothing for it to 
 operate upon. It did not, therefore, relate to the 
 country cut off. What did it relate to? Why, it meant 
 simply this : By the joint resolution of 1845 Texas was 
 annexed, with the right to form four additional States 
 out of her territory ; and such States as were south of 
 of 36° 30', were to come in, with or without slavery, as 
 they saw proper ; and in such State or States as were 
 north of that line, slavery should be prohibited. When 
 we had cut off all north of 36° 30', and thus circum- 
 scribed the boundary and diminished the Territory of 
 Texas, the question arose, how many States will Texas 
 be entitled to under this circumscribed boundary? Cer- 
 tainly not four, it will be argued. Why? Because the 
 original resolution of annexation provided that one of 
 the States, if not more, should be north of 36° 30'. It 
 would leave it, then, doubtful whether Texas was 
 entitled to two or three additional States under the cir- 
 cumscribed boundary. 
 
 "In order to put that matter to rest, in order to make 
 a final settlement, in order to have it explicitly under- 
 stood, what was the meaning of Congress, the Senator 
 from Virginia offered the amendment that nothing 
 therein contained should impair that provision, either as 
 to the number of States or otherwise ; that is, Texas 
 should be entitled to the same number of States with her 
 reduced boundaries as she would have been entitled to 
 under her larger boundaries ; and those States shall 
 
The Missouri Compromise and its Repeal. All 
 
 come in with or without slavery, being all south of 
 36° 30', and nothing to impair that right shall be in- 
 ferred from the passage of the act. Such, sir, was the 
 meaning of that proposition. Any other construction of 
 it would stultify the very character and purpose of its 
 mover, the Senator from Virginia. Such then, was not 
 only the intent of the mover, but such is the legal effect 
 of the law ; and I say that no man, after reading the 
 other sections of the bill, those to which I have referred, 
 can doubt that such was both the intent and the legal 
 effect of that law. 
 
 "Then I submit to the Senate if I have not convicted 
 this manifesto, issued by the Abolition confederates, of 
 being a gross falsification of the laws of the land, and by 
 that falsification that an erroneous and injurious impres- 
 sion has been created upon the public mind ? I am sorry 
 to be compelled to indulge in language of this severity ; 
 but there is no other language that is adequate to express 
 the indignation with which I see this attempt not only 
 to mislead the public, but to malign my character by de- 
 liberate falsification of the public statutes and the public 
 records. 
 
 "Sir, this misrepresentation and falsification does 
 not stop here. In order to give greater plausibility to 
 their statement, they go further, and state that, 'it is 
 solemnly declared, in the very Compromise acts, "That 
 nothing herein contained shall he construed to impair or 
 qualify'''' the prohibition of slavery north of 36° 30';' 
 and yet, in the face of this declaration, that sacred 
 prohibition is said to be overthrown. Can presumption 
 go further? 
 
 "In the very teeth of the statute, saying that they 
 should come in with or without slavery as they pleased, 
 these men declare that it is stated that it should be for- 
 ever prohibited. I repeat to them, 'Could presumption 
 go further?' Not only presumption in making these 
 statements, but the presumption that they could avoid 
 the exposure of their conduct. 
 
478 The True History of 
 
 "In order to give greater plausibility to this falsifica- 
 tion of the terms of the Compromise measures of 1850, 
 the confederates also declare in their manifesto that they 
 (the Territorial bills for the organization of Utah and 
 New Mexico) 'applied to the territory acquired from 
 Mexico, and to that only. They were intended as a 
 settlement of the controversy growing out of that acqui- 
 sition, and of that controversy only. They must stand or 
 fall by their own merits.' 
 
 "I submit to the Senate if there is an intelligent man 
 in America who does not know that that declaration is 
 falsified by the statute from which they quoted? They 
 say that the provisions of that bill were confined to the 
 territory acquired from Mexico, when the very section 
 of the law from which they quoted that proviso did pur- 
 chase a part of that very territory from the State of 
 Texas. And the next section of the law included that 
 territory in the new Territory of Mexico. It took a 
 small portion, also, of the old Louisiana purchase, and 
 added that to the new Territory of Mexico, and made 
 up the rest out of the Mexican acquisitions. Then, sir, 
 your statutes show, when applied to the map of the 
 country, that the Territory of New Mexico was com- 
 posed of territory acquired from Mexico, and also of 
 territory acquired from Texas, and out of territory ac- 
 quired from France ; and yet, in defiance of that statute, 
 and in falsification of its terms, we are told, in order 
 to deceive the people, that the bills were confined to the 
 purchase made from Mexico alone ; and in order to 
 give it greater solemnity, as was necessary while utter- 
 ing a falsehood, they repeat it twice, fearing that it 
 would not be believed the first time. What is more, 
 the Territory of Utah was not confined to the country 
 acquired from Mexico. That territory, as is well known 
 to every man who understands the geography of the 
 country, includes a large tract of rich and fertile coun- 
 try acquired from France in 1803, and to which the 
 eighth section of the Missouri Act applied in 1820. If 
 
The Missouri Compromise and its Repeal. 479 
 
 these confederates do not know to what country I allude, 
 I only reply that they should have known before they 
 uttered a falsehood, and imputed a crime to me. 
 
 "But I will tell you to what country I allude. By the 
 treaty of 1819, by which we acquired Forida, and fixed 
 a boundary between the United States and Mexico, the 
 boundary was made of the Arkansas River to its source, 
 and then the line ran due north of the source of the 
 Arkansas to the forty-second parallel, then along on the 
 forty-second parallel to the Pacific Ocean, That line, 
 due north from the head of the Arkansas, leaves the 
 whole Middle Park, described in such glowing, terms by 
 Col, Fremont, to the east of the line, and hence a part 
 of the Louisiana purchase. Yet, inasmuch as that 
 Middle Park is watered and drained by the waters flow- 
 ing into the Colorado, when we formed the territorial 
 limits of Utah, instead of running that air line, we ran 
 along the ridge of the mountains and cut off that part 
 from Nebraska, or from the Louisiana purchase, and 
 included it within the limits of the Territory of Utah. 
 
 "Why did we do it? Because we sought for a natural 
 boundary ; and it was more natural to take the moun- 
 tains as a boundary than by an air line cut the valleys 
 on one side of the mountains, and annex them to the 
 country on the other side. And why did we take these 
 natural boundaries, setting at defiance the old bound- 
 aries? The simple reason was, that so long as we acted 
 upon the principle of settling the slave question by a 
 geographical line, so long we observed those boundaries 
 strictly and rigidly ; but when that was abandoned, in 
 consequence of the action of Free-soilers and Abolition- 
 ists, when it was superseded by the Compromise meas- 
 ures of 1850, which rested upon a great universal prin- 
 ciple, there was no necessity for keeping in view the old 
 and unnatural boundary. For that reason, in making 
 the new territories, we formed natural boundaries irre- 
 spective of the source whence our title was derived. In 
 writing these bills, I paid no attention to the fact 
 
480 The True History of 
 
 whether the title was acquired from Louisiana, from 
 France, or from Mexico ; for what difference did it 
 make? The principle which we had established in the 
 bill would apply equally well to either. 
 
 "In fixing those boundaries, I paid no attention to 
 the fact whether they included old territory or not — 
 whether the country was covered by the Missouri Com- 
 promise or not. Why? Because the principle estab- 
 lished in the bills superseded the Missouri Compromise. 
 For that reason we disregarded the old boundaries, dis- 
 regarded the territory to which it applied, and disre- 
 garded the source from whence the title was derived. I 
 say, therefore, that a close examination of this act 
 clearly establishes the fact that it was the intent as well 
 as the legal effect of the Compromise measures of 1850 
 to supersede the Missouri Compromise and all geograph- 
 ical and territorial lines, 
 
 "Sir, in order to avoid any misconstruction, I will 
 state more distinctly what my precise idea is upon this 
 point. So far as the Utah and New Mexico bills in- 
 cluded the territory which had been subject to the Mis- 
 souri Compromise provision, to that extent they abso- 
 lutely annulled the Missouri Compromise. As to the 
 unorganized territory not covered by those bills, it was 
 superseded by the principles of the Compromise of 1850. 
 We all know that the object of the Compromise meas- 
 ures of 1850 was to establish certain great principles 
 which would avoid the slavery agitation in all time to 
 come. Was it our object simply to provide for a tempo- 
 rary evil? Was it our object just to heal over an old 
 sore, and leave it to break out again? Was it our ob- 
 ject to adopt a mere miserable expedient to apply to that 
 territory, and that alone, and leave ourselves entirely 
 at sea without compass when new territory was acquired, 
 or new territorial organizations were to be made? Was 
 that the object for which the eminent and venerable 
 Senator from Kentucky (Mr. Clay) came here and sac- 
 rificed his last energies upon the altar of his country? 
 
The Missouri Compromise and its Repeal. 481 
 
 Was that the object for which Webster, Clay, Cass, and 
 all the parties of that day, struggled so long and so 
 strenuously? Was it merely the application of a tem- 
 porary expedient in agreeing to stand by past and dead 
 legislation that the Baltimore platform pledged us to 
 sustain the Compromise of 1850? Was it the under- 
 standing of the Whig party, when they adopted the 
 Compromise measures of 1850 as an article of political 
 faith, that they were only agreeing to that which was 
 past, and had no reference to the future? If that was 
 their meaning — if that was their object — they palmed 
 off an atrocious fraud upon the American people. Was 
 it the meaning of the Democratic party, when we 
 pledged ourselves to stand by the Compromise of 1850, 
 that we spoke only of the past, and had no reference to 
 the future? If so, it was then a fraud. When we 
 pledged our President to stand by the compromise meas- 
 ures, did we not understand that we pledged him as to 
 his future action? Was it as to his past conduct? If it 
 had been in relation to past conduct only, the pledge 
 would have been untrue as to a very large portion of the 
 Democratic party. Men went into that convention who 
 had been opposed to the compromise measures — men 
 who abhorred those measures when they were pending — 
 men who never would have voted affirmatively on them.^ 
 But inasmuch as those measures had been passed, and 
 the country had acquiesced in them, and it was impor- 
 tant to preserve the principle in order to avoid agitation 
 in the future, these men said, we waive our past objec- 
 tions, and we will stand by you and with you in carrying 
 out these principles in the future. 
 
 "Such I understand to be the meaning of the two 
 great parties at Baltimore. Such I understand to have 
 been the effect of their pledges. If they did not mean 
 this, they meant merely to adopt resolutions which were 
 
 ' Hon. Jefferson Davis was one of those men. 
 31 
 
482 The True History of 
 
 never to be carried out, and which were designed to mis- 
 lead and deceive the people for the mere purpose of car- 
 rying an election, 
 
 "I hold, then, that as to the territory covered by the 
 Utah and New Mexico bills, there was an express annul- 
 ment of the Missouri Compromise ; and as to all the 
 other unorganized territories, it was superseded by the 
 principles of that legislation, and we are bound to apply 
 those principles in the organization of all new territo- 
 ries to all which we now own, or which we may hereafter 
 acquire. If this construction be given, it makes that 
 compromise a final adjustment. No other construction 
 can possibly impart finality to it. By any other con- 
 struction the question is to be reopened the moment you 
 ratify a new treaty acquiring an inch of country from 
 Mexico. By any other construction you reopen the issue 
 every time you make a new territorial government. 
 But, sir, if you treat the Compromise measures of 1850 
 in the light of great principles, sufficient to remedy 
 temporary evils, at the same time that they prescribe 
 rules of action applicable every-where in all time to 
 come, then you avoid the agitation forever, if you ob- 
 serve good faith to the provisions of these enactments, 
 and the principles established by them. 
 
 "Mr. President, I repeat, that so far as the question 
 of slavery is concerned, there is nothing in the bill under 
 consideration which does not carry out the principles of 
 the Compromise measures of 1850, by leaving the people 
 to do as they please, subject only to the provisions of the 
 Constitution of the United States. If that principle is 
 wrong, the bill is wrong. If that principle is right, the 
 bill is right. It is unnecessary to quibble about phrase- 
 ology or words ; it is not the mere words ; the mere 
 phraseology that our constituents wish to judge by. 
 They wish to know the legal effect of our legislation. 
 
 "The legal effect of this bill, if it be passed as reported 
 by the Committee on Territories, is neither to legislate 
 slavery into these territories nor out of them, but to leave 
 
The Missouri Compromise and its Repeal. 483 
 
 the people to do as they please under the provisions and 
 subject to the limitations of the Constitution of the 
 United States. Why should not this principle prevail? 
 Why should any man, North or South, object to it? I 
 will especially address the argument to my own section 
 of the country, and ask why should any Northern man 
 object to this principle? If you will review the history 
 of the slavery question in the United States, you will 
 see that all the great results in behalf of free institutions 
 which have been worked out, have been accomplished 
 by the operation of this principle, and by it alone. 
 
 "Let me ask you where have you succeeded in exclud- 
 ing slavery by an act of Congress from one inch of the 
 American soil? You may tell me that you did it in the 
 North-west Territory by the Ordinance of 1787. I will 
 show you by the history of the country that you did not 
 accomplish any such thing. You prohibited slavery 
 there by law, but you did not exclude it in fact. Illinois 
 was a part of the North-west Territory. With the ex- 
 ception of a few French and white settlements, it was a 
 vast wilderness filled with hostile savages, when the Or- 
 dinance of 1787 was adopted. Yet, sir, when Illinois 
 was organized into a territorial government, it established 
 and protected slavery, and maintained it in spite of your 
 ordinance, and in defiance of its express prohibition. It 
 is a curious fact, that so long as Congress said the Terri- 
 tory of Illinois should not have slavery, she actually had 
 it ; and on the very day on which you withdrew your 
 congressional prohibition, the people of Illinois, of their 
 own free will and accord, provided for a system of 
 emancipation. 
 
 "They talk about the bill being a violation of the 
 Compromise measures of 1850. Who can show me a 
 man in either House of Congress who was in favor of 
 the Compromise measures of 1850, and who is not now 
 in favor of leaving the people of Nebraska and Kansas 
 to do as they please upon the subject of slavery accord- 
 
484 The True History of 
 
 ing to the provisions of my bill? Is there one? If so, 
 I have not heard of him. This tornado has been raised 
 by Abolitionists alone. They have made an impression 
 upon the public mind in the way in which I have men- 
 tioned, by a falsification of the law and the facts ; and 
 this whole organization against the Compromise measures 
 of 1850 is an Abolition movement. I presume they had 
 some hope of getting a few tender-footed Democrats into 
 their plot : and, acting on what they supjDOsed they 
 might do, they sent forth publicly to the world the false- 
 hood that their address was signed by the Senators and 
 a majority of the Representatives from the State of Ohio ; 
 but when we come to examine signatures, we find no 
 one Whig there, no one Democrat there ; none but pure, 
 unmitigated, unadulterated Abolitionists. 
 
 "Much effect, I know, has been produced by this cir- 
 cular, coming as it does with the imposing title of a rep- 
 resentation of a majority of the Ohio delegation. What 
 was the reason for its effect? Because the manner in 
 which it was sent forth implied that all the Whig mem- 
 bers from that State had joined it; that part of the 
 Democrats had signed it ; and then that the two Aboli- 
 tionists had signed it, and that made a majority of the 
 delegation. By this means it frightened the Whig party 
 and the Democracy in the State of Ohio, because they 
 supposed their own Representatives and friends had 
 gone into the negro movement, when the fact turns out 
 to be that it was not signed by a single Whig or Demo- 
 cratic member from Ohio. 
 
 " Now, I ask the friends and the opponents of this 
 measure to look at it as it is. Is not the question in- 
 volved a simple one, whether the people of the terri- 
 tories shall be allowed to do as they please upon the 
 question of slavery, subject only to the limitations of 
 the Constitution? This is all the bill provides; and it 
 does so in clear, explicit and unequivocal terms. I 
 know there are some men, Whigs and Democrats, who, 
 not willing to repudiate the Baltimore platform of their 
 
The Missouri Compromise and its Repeal. 485 
 
 own party, would be willing to vote for this principle, 
 provided they could do so in such equivocal terms that 
 they should deny that it means what it was intended to 
 mean in certain localities. I do not wish to deal in any 
 equivocal language. If the principle is right, let it be 
 avowed and maintained. If it is wrong, let it be repudi- 
 ated. Let all this quibbling about the Missouri Com- 
 promise, about the territory acquired from France, 
 about the Act of 1820, be cast behind you ; for the 
 simple question is, will you allow the people to legislate 
 for themselves upon the subject of slavery? Why should 
 you not? 
 
 "When you propose to give them a territorial govern- 
 ment, do you not acknowledge that they ought to be 
 erected into a political organization ; and when you 
 give them a legislature, do you not acknowledge that 
 they are capable of self-government? Having made 
 this acknowledgment, why should you not allow them 
 to exercise the rights of legislation? Oh, these Abolition- 
 ists say they are entirely willing to concede all this, with 
 one exception. They say they are willing to trust the 
 territorial legislature, under the limitations of the Con- 
 stitution, to legislate upon the rights of inheritance, to 
 legislate in regard to religion, education and morals, 
 to legislate in regard to the relations of husband and 
 wife, of parent and child, of guardian and ward, upon 
 every thing pertaining to the dearest rights and interests 
 of white men, but they are not willing to trust them 
 to legislate in regard to a few miserable negroes. 
 That is their single exception. They acknowledge that 
 the people of the territories are capable of deciding for 
 themselves concerning white men, but not in relation to 
 negroes. The real gist of the matter is this : Does it re- 
 quire any higher degree of civilization, and intelligence, 
 and learning, and sagacity, to legislate for negroes than 
 for white men? If it does, we ought to adopt the abo- 
 lition doctrine, and go with them against this bill. If 
 it does not — if we are willing to trust the people with 
 
486 
 
 The True History of 
 
 the great, sacred, fundamental right of prescribing their 
 own institutions, consistent with the Constitution of the 
 country, we must vote for this bill as reported by the 
 Committee on Territories. That is the only question in- 
 volved in the bill. I hope I have been able to strip it 
 of all the misrepresentation, to wipe away all of that 
 mist and obscurity with which it has been surrounded 
 by this Abolition address."^ 
 
 To this most able and eloquent, as well as fiery and 
 impassioned speech of Douglas, Mr. Chase responded in 
 bitter terms — alluding ironically to "the gigantic stature 
 of the Senator" — (Douglas was a man of short stature, 
 though powerfully built, Chase a tall and large man) 
 and reaffirming that the Missouri Compromise was a 
 sacred compact, etc., with all the other allegations con- 
 tained in the address. 
 
 Whilst Mr. Sumner characterized the Repeal of the 
 Compromise as "a soulless, eyeless monster — horrid, un- 
 shapely, and most fitly pictured in the verse of the poet : 
 
 ' Monstrum, horrendum, informe, ingens, cui lumen, ademptum,' 
 
 and this monster is now let loose upon the country."^ 
 
 This was but the beginning of the bitterest and most 
 fiercely contested of all congressional struggles, hitherto 
 made. 
 
 1 Cong. Globe, Vol. 28, pp. 275-280. 
 
 "^ Idem, p. 282. 
 
The Missouri Compromise and its Repeal. 487 
 
 CHAPTER XIX. 
 
 1854 — Chase's amendment— He attacks President Pierce and Mr, Doug- 
 las in his speech — Extracts from speeches of Hon. Archibald Dixon, 
 Gov. Jones (of Tennessee), Hon. Ben. Wade (of Ohio), and Hon. 
 Wm. H. Seward (of New York). 
 
 The Repeal of the Missouri Compromise was now 
 fairly launched on its stormy voyage. The Southern 
 Whigs, with a few exceptions, were warmly in favor of 
 it ; as was the entire Democratic party, excepting its 
 Free-soil wing, which could scarcely, however, be 
 deemed a part of the Democracy. Nothing could ex- 
 ceed the virulence of denunciation, by the Free-soil 
 Democrats and Abolition Whigs, of the President, of 
 Douglas, and of the Repeal. 
 
 On February 3d, Mr. Chase offered an amendment to 
 Judge Douglas' substitute, to strike out "from section 
 14 these words : 'was superseded by the principles of the 
 legislation of 1850, commonly called the Compromise 
 measures, and' — 
 
 "So that clause will read : 
 
 " 'That the Constitution, and all laws of the United 
 States which are not locally inapplicable, shall have the 
 same force and effect within the said Territory of Ne- 
 braska as elsewhere within the United States, except the 
 eighth section of the act preparatory to the admission of 
 Missouri into the Union, approved March 6, 1820.' "^ 
 
 It would then stand as a simple repeal, without any 
 reason given for it. 
 
 In Mr. Chase's argument in support of his motion, he 
 arraigned the President as having violated his pledge, 
 given in his message, to preserve "the repose of the 
 country ;" he declared that it was untrue that the Com- 
 
 1 Cong. Globe, Vol. 28, p. 329. 
 
488 The True History of 
 
 promise of 1850 has superseded the Act of 1820; he 
 quoted from Mr. Atchison's remarks in 1853, that he 
 "had no hope of the Repeal of the Missouri Compro- 
 mise," as though to demonstrate that this lack of hope 
 on Mr. Atchison's part converted the Repeal into a 
 crime ; and from Mr. Douglas' report, to show that 
 when he wrote it, he had not thought it "wise and pru- 
 dent" to enter into the discussion of "these controverted 
 questions;" and therefore the Repeal was a crime. He 
 states that : 
 
 "The Senator from Kentucky (Mr. Dixon), on the 
 16th of January, submitted an amendment which came 
 square up to repeal, and to the claim. ^ That amend- 
 ment, probably, produced some fluttering and some con- 
 sultation. It met the views of Southern Senators, and 
 probably determined the shape which the bill has finally 
 assumed. Of the various mutations which it has under- 
 gone, I can hardly be mistaken in attributing the last to 
 the amendment of the Senator from Kentucky. That 
 there is no effect without a cause, is among our earliest 
 lessons in physical philosoj)hy, and I know of no cause 
 which will account for the remarkable changes which 
 the bill underwent after the 16th of January, other than 
 that amendment, and the determination of Southern 
 Senators to support it, and to vote against any provision 
 recognizing the right of any territorial legislature to 
 prohibit the introduction of slavery."^ 
 
 He says the doctrine of supersedure is a novelty — "a 
 plant of but ten days' growth" — that such a proposition 
 was never asserted until "it made its appearance in the 
 Senator's bill." This statement differs so widely from 
 the impression made by the talk between Messrs. Howe 
 and Giddings in March, 1853, that one necessarily asks, 
 "Could Mr. Chase have believed what he said?" 
 
 He goes on to state, speaking of Texas and New Mex- 
 
 ^ The " slave-holding claim." — Author. 
 ^^ App. Cong. Globe, Vol. 29, p. 135. 
 
The Missouri Compromise and its Repeal. 489 
 
 ico, in regard to the prohibition of slavery north of 
 36° 30' : "There was a compact between two States" — 
 and twists the articles of annexation in 1845 and the 
 measures of 1850 all around in order to show that the 
 Compromise of 1850 did not supersede the Act of 1820. 
 It could scarcely have been ignorance that impelled so 
 able a man as Mr. Chase to argue from the stand-point 
 of absolute perversion of fact, as he certainly did on 
 this question. Was it merely the argumentum ad igno- 
 rantiam, designed solely for home effect? For he could 
 not have supposed that such a bald misstatement would 
 be accepted by his brother Senators as that "There was 
 a compact between two States" — when he must have 
 known that they knew that New Mexico was not only not 
 a State in 1850, but was organized as a Territory by the 
 very bill of which he declares as to one of its provisions, 
 "There was a compact between two States;" when, 
 also, it was well and generally known that one of the 
 main features of the Compromise of 1850 was the pur- 
 chase by the United States from Texas of all her terri- 
 tory that lay north of 36° 30' ; that nearly the whole of 
 this purchase was then attached to New Mexico, and 
 that under the bill for her organization as a Territory, 
 she was to come into the Union "as a State, with or 
 without slavery, as her people may decide." Where, 
 then, was any compact between two States? 
 
 Do not such reckless misstatements as this, and those 
 contained in the "Address," on the part of a man of 
 Mr. Chase's ability, argue that he knew the position of 
 the Abolitionists to be untenable in the face of fact? 
 
 We have seen how, in 1852, the Democracy, the Union, 
 the Constitution, and non-intervention had triumphed 
 over higher law, disunion, and Abolition. Strong as 
 was the sentiment against slavery (and it was not only 
 intense, but world-wide), yet the Northern people, as a 
 majority, had seemed fully to appreciate that the South 
 was, de facto, under the burden and incubus of the pres- 
 ence among them of a race that could be rendered en- 
 
490 The True History of 
 
 durable members of society, only, by being kept in a 
 state of absolute control ; and the Abolitionists had long 
 been held in scorn and detestation by them. For these 
 Abolitionists had from the first hooted at the idea of the 
 colonization of the negroes in Liberia, and insisted on 
 their being set free at once, without deportation, as with- 
 out compensation to their owners. The Northern people 
 had, however, realized the monstrous injustice and 
 cruelty to the South of setting free this race among her 
 citizens, and were in favor mostly of leaving the South- 
 ern people to manage their own affairs. 
 
 When the original proposition to repeal the Act of In- 
 tervention of 1820 was made by Senator Dixon, it was 
 recognized as the bold, direct, and straightforward action 
 of a bold, direct, and straightforward man. 
 
 When the deficiency in his bill was pointed out to 
 Judge Douglas by Mr, Dixon, he saw the force of his 
 reasoning, and did not hesitate a moment as to the course 
 it was his duty to pursue. He acknowledged the justice 
 of the claim of the Southern States to an equality in the 
 Union, and he determined at once to do what he was 
 convinced was right and just. From this determination 
 he never swerved, but held to it through revilement of 
 enemies and desertion of those who should have re- 
 mained his friends. His Free-soil, Abolition opponents 
 saw plainly that they could not rout him by any fair ar- 
 gument, for all law, all fact, all justice, all Constitu- 
 tional right, were on his side ; and this was the reason 
 why they resorted to perversion of fact, and to all man- 
 ner of inventions of "bold schemes against American 
 liberty" — "atrocious plots" — etc., declaring that there 
 was some hidden and dangerous meaning underneath 
 this plain above-board motion to repeal a most unjust 
 and arbitrary act of Congress. 
 
 When Mr. Dixon turned his proposition over to Judge 
 Douglas, it was with the purpose of insuring its success ; 
 and, when Douglas took it up and presented it substan- 
 tially in his bill, it became, to all intents and purposes, 
 
The MissoxLri Compromise and its Repeal. 491 
 
 his measure, and the measure of the Democratic party. 
 Mr. Dixon no longer laid claim to it, because, as a "Whig, 
 the Democrats naturally would not be willing to follow 
 his lead ; the rivalry between the two parties still existing 
 and influencing the politics of the country, although the 
 Whigs had become so disorganized as a national party. 
 
 It seems to be evident that Mr. Chase understood that 
 Judge Douglas had been influenced by Mr. Dixon to alter 
 his bill, but he seems not to have been willing to credit 
 Douglas with any honest motive in the matter, but at 
 once accused him of making a bid for the Presidency. 
 As it is a trait of mankind to measure other people's mo- 
 tives by their own, it is just possible to suppose that 
 Mr. Chase himself may have had the same office in 
 view when he put forth that "Address" which contained 
 so many fictions of the imagination. Politicians, who 
 are themselves used to scheming, are slow to credit others 
 with any other or higher views. Whilst he might re- 
 gard Mr. Dixon's action as natural to a Southern man, 
 he seems to have been unable to comprehend that Judge 
 Douglas, a Northern man, could act purely from his 
 sense of justice and of right — that he could rise above 
 all sectionalism, all personal ambition and party in- 
 trigues ; that he could be just to the South simply from 
 a high and lofty sense of duty. So far from the Consti- 
 tion and its pledges had Abolition grown, that justice 
 to the South, under these pledges, was declared by its 
 votaries to be a violation of every law, human and 
 divine. 
 
 In the absence of facts on which to base their argu- 
 ments, and of Constitutional right and justice to sustain 
 them, the Abolition leaders resorted to inventions of 
 plots and intrigues ; appealed in the most solemn manner 
 to the passions and feelings of the people ; misrepre- 
 sented facts with equal solemnity ; and by thus skillfully 
 addressing themselves to the pride, the humanity, the 
 ignorance, the love of country, the avarice, and the re- 
 ligious sentiment common to mankind ; above all, to the 
 
492 The True History of 
 
 abhorrence of slavery and hatred of the slave-holder, 
 they succeeded to a fearful extent in arousing these pas- 
 sions and in preparing the way for the war between the 
 States seven years later — that war which should never 
 have been, and which might never have been, but for 
 the action of these same Abolition leaders. For, had 
 they, instead of exciting hatred and prejudice against the 
 people of the South as they did, impressed upon the minds 
 of the masses of the Northern people their mutual obli- 
 gations and mutual privileges as citizens of a common 
 country ; had the people of the North correctly under- 
 stood and properly appreciated those obligations, there 
 would have been no war. But, on the contrary, they 
 were inflamed and blinded, deceived and misled, and the 
 hecatombs of slain may lay their blood upon the heads 
 of those men who did so mislead them — misled those 
 who trusted them, believed them, and followed them in 
 utter confidence as to their motives, their purposes, and 
 their knowledge of what was right — followed them in 
 a storm of passion, a whirlwind of sentiment that 
 drew into its vortex many of the coolest, shrewdest, 
 clearest headed, and most honest hearted of all the 
 Northern people. It became a storm irresistible in its 
 might — a whirlwind that those who evoked it could not 
 control or still, however they might tremble at its fear- 
 ful and far-reaching consequences. 
 
 The writer has thus far endeavored to place the repeal 
 of the Act of 1820 in its true light, has given the real 
 motives of its author, and the reasons and manner of its 
 adoption by Judge Douglas. The actors in this drama 
 should now tell their own story — each man for himself — 
 the reader being judge, jury, and audience. No com- 
 posite picture was ever yet a success ; and when the his- 
 torian attempts to give the true expression of the feel- 
 ings, the motives, and the forces that actuated all the 
 various living opposing characters of the past in his 
 own language entirely, it is apt to be as great a failure 
 as a composite picture, which conveys no real expression 
 
The Missouri Compromise and its Repeal. 493 
 
 or character at all, but, in blending the whole, loses the 
 individual likeness of each and all of its subjects. To 
 one who really wishes to comprehend the course of 
 events, and to trace the causes that finally led up to the 
 war between the States, nothing could be so satisfactory 
 as to hear from the speakers themselves their motives 
 and views, and out of their own words to weave together 
 that wondrous fabric which we call history, whose 
 colors, thus presented, will retain their vividness 
 through the centuries, and whose figures will stand out 
 striking and distinct as individual photographs. But as 
 my hoped-for publishers object to the length of such a 
 method, only some extracts are given from the speeches 
 made on this subject. 
 
 On February 4th, Mr. Dixon spoke in support of 
 Judge Douglas' bill. There had been an immense 
 throng to hear Mr. Chase the day before, and so intense 
 was the interest in the subject, there was even a greater 
 crowd to hear Mr. Dixon. His physical condition, how- 
 ever, was such as to prevent his speaking with his ac- 
 customed force and power, and he was compelled to 
 leave untouched some very important points : 
 
 *'EXTB,ACTS FROM THE SpEECH OF HoN. A. DiXON, OF 
 
 Kentucky, 
 In the Senate, February 4-, 185 4. 
 "The Senate, having under consideration the bill to 
 organize the Territories of Nebraska and Kansas — 
 "Mr. Dixon said : 
 
 '■'■Mr. President — But for the peculiar position I occupy 
 in relation to that section of the bill which refers to the 
 act of Congress passed in the year 1820, commonly 
 known by the name of the Missouri Compromise act, I 
 should be content to give a silent vote upon the proposi- 
 tion, rather than trouble the Senate with any remarks 
 which I may have to make upon the merits of the bill. 
 'The Committee on Territories, to whom the bill 
 
 It' 
 
494 The True History of 
 
 originally introduced by the Senator from Iowa, Mr. 
 Dodge, was referred, reported a substitute for it. That 
 substitute proposed to repeal, to a limited extent, the act 
 prohibiting slavery north of 36° 30' north latitude, in the 
 territory now proposed by this bill to be organized into 
 a territorial government. The substitute declared that 
 it should be within the power of the States hereafter to 
 be organized out of the territories, to declare, through 
 their appropriate representatives, whether they would or 
 would not have slavery. It also extended to the people 
 of the territories the right, through their representatives, 
 to determine the same subject. It will at once be per- 
 ceived that although this did not repeal the entire pro- 
 visions of the Missouri Compromise act, it did repeal 
 that act to the extent of giving to the State the right 
 to have slavery or not as she might think proper, and of 
 giving to the people of the territories living within the 
 limits prescribed by the bill the power to determine that 
 question also for themselves. 
 
 "I did not like the bill as it was then presented, be- 
 cause I thought it would be wholly inoperative, so far as 
 respected the placing of the people of the different States 
 of this Union upon an equal footing, in relation to their 
 right to carry into the proposed territory and State the 
 property which they might possess, whether that prop- 
 erty consisted in slaves or any thing else. I saw that 
 the effect of that bill, as thus presented, would necessa- 
 rily exclude every slave-holder until a particular time, 
 and that time was the meeting of the representatives of 
 the territory to declare that slavery should or should not 
 exist within its limits. The bill, therefore, gave the 
 right to determine this question, exclusively, as I under- 
 stood, to the people who did not possess slaves. It gave 
 the right to people who live within States where no 
 slavery existed. It gave it to foreigners who might emi- 
 grate to the territory, and exercise the right and privi- 
 lege of voting upon a question like this. It excluded 
 the slave-holder from the territory ; and, as a necessary 
 
The Missouri Compromise and its Repeal. 495 
 
 consequence, that decision could only be made by those 
 who had no interest at all in the subject of slavery but 
 to exclude it. 
 
 "Taking that view of the question, then, Mr. Presi- 
 dent, I gave notice to the Senate that I would, at the 
 proper time, offer an amendment ; which was read to 
 the Senate, and which proposed to repeal, in direct lan- 
 guage, the act laying the restriction upon the people of 
 the slave-holding States in the carrying of their property 
 within the territory. That amendment, which I pro- 
 posed to offer to the bill, was subsequently, at least in 
 substance, accepted by the Committee on Territories, 
 and incorporated into the bill itself. The amendment, 
 as incorporated into the bill, as far as it repeals the Mis- 
 souri Compromise, meets my approbation. Sir, I give 
 it a hearty support. It meets my approbation because 
 it repeals that act, and because it places the people of all 
 the States within this Union upon an equal footing, so 
 far as respects the right to settle the territory in ques- 
 tion, and to carry their property along with them, and 
 when there to be protected, as well in their property as 
 in their persons. 
 
 "The Senator from Ohio (Mr. Chase) seems, however, 
 to think that that amendment of the bill, which was re- 
 ported by the able Senator from Illinois, as the Chair- 
 man of the Committee on Territories, was incorporated 
 into it for some sinister purpose ; that it was not placed 
 there with a view that the question might be taken 
 fairly by the Senate upon the merits of the bill ; but 
 that it was intended rather to deceive the Senate, as it 
 was intended also to impose upon the public. Well, sir, 
 I did honestly think that the construction which was 
 given to the conduct and motives of the Committee on 
 Territories was not warranted at all by the usual parlia- 
 mentary course which is pursued in matters of this kind. 
 It is in the province of a committee to amend its bill. 
 It is in the province of a committee to perfect its bill. 
 It is the duty of a committee to do that which it set out 
 
496 The True History of 
 
 with the purpose of doing, and when it has failed in the 
 original draft of a bill, so to change it and so to amend 
 it as to accomplish the object which was intended. 
 
 "What do I understand to have been the purpose and 
 intention of the Committee on Territories? . 
 What could have been the motives which influenced them 
 to act upon this question? It was a consciousness on 
 their part that the act which had been passed, laying its 
 restriction on the people living within the limits of the 
 slave-holding States, was an unjust act ; that it struck 
 down the rights of the people of a particular section of 
 the Union, and, therefore, that it ought to be repealed. 
 The proposition to repeal this act comes not from the 
 slave-holding States, but from the States where there is 
 no slavery. It comes from men who are acting upon 
 great principles of public justice and magnanimity. It 
 comes from those who look far and wide over this vast 
 extent of territory of ours — from those, in fact, who look 
 to the equality of the States and of the people. It comes 
 from them with a view that all may stand upon an equal 
 footing, so far as respects the great rights which were 
 intended to be secured by the Federal Union. Yes, sir ; 
 it comes not from the slave-holders, but from those hav- 
 ing no slaves. It is true that the slave-holding States 
 have looked upon this restriction as a wrong to them, 
 yet they have waited patiently that the move might be 
 made by those, in fact, whose motives and conduct could 
 not be misinterpreted ; that it should be made by those 
 who have no slaves, that it might carry with it the sanc- 
 tion of that high authority which those who are interested 
 never give to a measure which they propose. 
 
 "That, sir, was the feeling which influenced the com- 
 mittee to act upon this great question. The committee 
 were under the impression that, according to the provis- 
 ion of the acts of 1850, the principle settled by those acts, 
 which are called the great compromise measures, was 
 intended to be a finality in regard to this question of 
 slavery. They were of that opinion, and I am of that 
 
The Missouri Compromise and its Repeal. 497 
 
 opinion ; and I think the whole country is of that opin- 
 ion ; notwithstanding the Senator from Ohio, who seems 
 to think that tlie country is agitated from one end of it to 
 the other with the alarm of a violation of the public faith. 
 I say that the whole country, in my opinion, believe that 
 the Missouri Compromise act was a palpable wrong, 
 originally done to the people of the slave-holding States, 
 and that it ought to be repealed, and that it is incon- 
 sistent with the principles laid down in the acts of 1850. 
 
 "I understand, then, that the committee, in the meas- 
 ure proposed by them to the Senate, act upon this prin- 
 ciple — that the provisions of the act of 1850 are incon- 
 sistent with the further existence of the act of 1820. 
 
 "Sir, it can not be doubted that the provisions of the 
 act extend, as well to the people of the States formed out 
 of the territories, as to those living within the territories 
 before such States are formed. And that so far as re- 
 gards the restriction it imposes upon the people of a 
 sovereign State, it is unconstitutional and void ; and 
 that such restrictions will never be observed, and can 
 never be enforced. You can not admit a State, formed 
 out of this territory, to come into the Union without re- 
 pealing this law. For the very moment she is admitted 
 the Federal Constitution throws its strong arms around 
 her, and clothes her with all the attributes of sover- 
 eignty enjoyed by the most favored States and the peo- 
 ple, with all the rights and privileges belonging to such 
 sovereignty. Then, sir, if, after a State formed out of 
 such territory comes into the Union, the law would be 
 unconstitutional, would it not be equally so before her 
 admission? To say that it would not be, involves the 
 monstrous absurdity of a law being constitutional to-day 
 and unconstitutional to-morrow. 
 
 "Sir, the act of 1820 declares that slavery north of 
 
 36° 30' north latitude shall be forever prohibited. That 
 
 act extends, as well to the people who live within the 
 
 territory embraced within the law as to the people within 
 
 32 
 
498 The True History of 
 
 the States, when States shall hereafter be organized out 
 of such territory. It extends to both. It lays the pro- 
 hibition upon the people of the territory, and it lays it 
 upon the people of the State, after States are organized ; 
 for its language is, that slavery shall be within the limits 
 of such territory forever prohibited. That act, in my 
 humble opinion, is void, for the reason which I have 
 heretofore given. It is a restraint upon the people of a 
 State, after they shall have been formed into a State out 
 of a territory, to determine for themselves whether they 
 will or will not have slavery. It does not stop in the 
 territory, but restrains them when they have become 
 organized into a State. If States are to come into this 
 Union upon equal rights, and upon a footing of equality, 
 nothing can be clearer to my mind than that the prohi- 
 bition extended to the people within the limits of the 
 State is unconstitutional, and that it ought to be re- 
 pealed, 
 
 "Sir, there is another reason why, in my humble opin- 
 ion, this law is unconstitutional. If you will look to 
 the clause of the Constitution which declares the power 
 of Congress over territories belonging to the United 
 States, you will see that that power is a limited power. 
 It does not extend to the property of the people. It 
 only extends to the property of the Government, and no 
 further. I read from the third section of article four of 
 the Constitution : 
 
 '"The Congress shall have power to dispose of and make 
 all needful rules and regulations respecting the territory 
 and other property belonging to the United States ; and 
 nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to 
 prejudice any claims of the United States, or of any par- 
 ticular State.' 
 
 "That is but a limited power. What is it? It 
 is to make all needful rules and regulations respect- 
 ing the territory and other property belonging to the 
 United States ; not to make needful rules and regu- 
 lations respecting the property of the citizens of the 
 
The Missouri Compromise and its Repeal. 499 
 
 United States living within the limits of the territory. 
 Such a power is not given to Congress ; and if it be ex- 
 ercised at all, it is exercised by construction, and not be- 
 cause there is any express grant of it. I think there 
 can be nothing clearer than this. You can not give to 
 Congress the right to deprive a citizen of his slaves 
 within the limits of the territory, unless you can give 
 to Congress the right and power to deprive me of my 
 horses, or cattle, or any other property which I might 
 think proper to carry there. The Senator from Ohio, it 
 is true, declared yesterday on this floor, that there was 
 no property in slaves. He declared that the Constitu- 
 tion of the United States does not recognize property as 
 existing in slaves. Sir, the Senator is laboring under a 
 great error in that particular. Surely he has not ex- 
 amined the decisions of the Supreme Court of the United 
 States on this question of whether property may or may 
 not exist in slaves. It was, in the first place, recognized 
 in the Constitution, though not declared to exist, and in 
 the decisions which have been pronounced by the Su- 
 preme Court of the United States, when this question of 
 property came up, they declared that it is property, and 
 that the right of the owner to the slave is as ample and 
 complete as it is to his lands, or horses, or any thing 
 else which he may possess. Then it is property — prop- 
 erty recognized by the Constitution and by the Supreme 
 Court of this great Republic — property which is held 
 every-where by people living within the limits of the 
 slave States — property which has existed from the com- 
 mencement of this Government to the present period of 
 its existence. 
 
 "If it then be property, where is the power to lay re- 
 straint upon it? . . . The principle of this Govern- 
 ment, which reserves to the States all the rights not 
 expressly granted to the Federal Government, surrounds 
 and shields the citizens of the country in the right to 
 hold property, and to have it protected by the State 
 
500 The True Histcyry of 
 
 government in which they live. That is the true and 
 only great principle. 
 
 "What says the great statesman, who has been re- 
 ferred to by the honorable Senator from Ohio, in relation 
 to the common right of all the people to the territories 
 thus purchased from Spain and from France? I will 
 read to you what was said by the great Senator from 
 Kentucky ; for he was great — and he was great, not in 
 a limited sense of the word ; not in a sectional sense ; 
 but he was great as was the Republic of which he 
 was the glorious representative. His mind extended, 
 not only to a State, not only to a section ; it passed over 
 this broad, extended Union of ours, taking in and pro- 
 tecting every interest, except when by the force of cir- 
 cumstances, as in the passage of the Missouri Compro- 
 mise act, he was compelled to surrender, upon the altar 
 of faction, the great rights which had been secured to 
 the people of all the States, of settling in the territories, 
 whether they came from one section or another. What 
 does he say in relation to the public land which was pur- 
 chased from France, a portion of which is proposed to 
 be organized into a territory by the bill under the con- 
 sideration of the Senate? The price paid for it, I 
 believe, was fifteen million dollars. What does Mr. 
 Clay say upon this question? 
 
 " 'The large pecuniary considerations thus paid to a 
 foreign power were drawn from the treasury of the 
 people of the United States, and consequently the 
 countries for which they formed an equivalent, ought to 
 be held and deemed for the common benefit of all the 
 people of the United States. To divert the lands from 
 that general object, will be to misapply, or sacrifice, or 
 surrender, or cast them away, and would be alike sub- 
 versive of the interests of the United States, and con- 
 trary to the plain dictates of duty by which the General 
 Government stands bound to the State and the whole 
 people.' 
 
 "There is the position assumed by Mr. Clay in that 
 
The Missouri Compromise and its Repeal. 501 
 
 celebrated report of his upon the question of appropri- 
 ating the proceeds of the public lands to the different 
 States. What does he declare? That all these lands 
 which were purchased from France, all this land upon 
 which the prohibitory restriction exists, was acquired 
 by the blood and common treasure of the people of the 
 United States, and that it was held in trust by the Gov- 
 ernment of the United States for the benefit of all the 
 people ; not for the people within the limits of the free 
 States alone, but for the people living within the limits 
 of the slave States also. Can any thing be clearer? 
 The money which was paid for these lands was the 
 money of the people of the United States. And, sir, 
 being the money of the people of the United States, the 
 land became the common property of all of them, and 
 ought not, therefore, to be confined in their settlement 
 to a particular section of the people, or, in the language 
 of the Senator from Ohio, to foreigners or emigrants of 
 Europe, for that would be a violation of that solemn 
 compact thus created by the act of the Government in 
 appropriating the money of the people to the purchase 
 of the lands. Such a principle should be repudiated by 
 those who look to the great principles of the Constitu- 
 tion. . . . We ask but an act of justice. We ask 
 to be placed upon the broad platform upon which we 
 have a right to stand, as declared not only in the Con- 
 stitution, but in the deeds of cession, and in the great 
 principles laid down by Mr. Clay himself, in relation to 
 the settlement of these territories. That is what we 
 ask. And now, when the people of the North seem dis- 
 posed almost unanimously to remove this restriction, are 
 we to refuse to accede to its removal? 
 
 "What do we ask to be done? Do we ask any thing 
 to the prejudice of the people of the North? Do we ask 
 that we may encroach on any right of theirs? Do we 
 seek to deprive them of any rights that they may have un- 
 der the Constitution of this great Confederacy? No, sir ; 
 all that we ask is that we may exercise our own rights, 
 
502 The True History of 
 
 and settle in the territories — not that we will exclude 
 them, but that thej shall not exclude us — that we may 
 both go unrestrained, without any unconstitutional re- 
 striction whatever — that they may go on and carry with 
 them their property ; and that both may be protected, in 
 persons and property, under the broad mantle of the 
 Constitution of the United States. That is all we ask ; 
 and yet the Senator from Ohio, because the Northern 
 people seem disposed to grant us this, says that there is 
 to be a great excitement in the country, which is to 
 shake the Union to the foundation. Sir, I believe in no 
 such excitement. I have too much confidence in the 
 moral justice of the people of the North, and the people 
 every-where within the broad limits of this great Repub- 
 lic, to believe that, when they are doing a mere act of 
 justice, they are going in their strength to break up the 
 Union of the States. 
 
 ". . . Do the people of the North suppose that 
 we, when this proposition is made, will fold our arms 
 and turn a deaf ear to the proposition? Surely, if we 
 agreed with the North to make the compact, we may 
 agree to annul it. If we agreed to the existence of the 
 compact, we may agree that it shall no longer be bind- 
 ing. We agree to the proposition ; we receive it in the 
 spirit in which it is tendered — the spirit of justice, the 
 spirit of magnanimity, the spirit which lies at the 
 foundation of the acts of 1850 — that of striking away 
 all consressional restrictions in relation to the settle- 
 ment of the territories by the people of the States. We 
 receive it in that spirit, and we return our grateful 
 acknowledgments for this noble act of justice. These 
 are the feelings which prompt us. 
 
 "Mr. President, I have not strength to continue this dis- 
 cussion of this subject. . . . Exhausted from disease, 
 and sinking almost under its influence, I have neverthe- 
 less thought it due to myself, due to my constituents, due 
 to the country of which I am a citizen, to contribute my 
 feeble aid to remove this blot, as I consider it to be, 
 
The Missouri Compromise and its Repeal. 503 
 
 upon the statutes of tne country, and which has placed 
 a restriction there in violation of the moral pledge made 
 by the Federal Government to the people of the States — 
 that it would hold in trust all these lands for the com- 
 mon benefit. I say, I have risen to contribute my mite 
 to the removal of that obstruction, and to open the door 
 to all the people of the United States, whether living in 
 one section of the Union or another, for the settlement 
 of these territories, which are the common property of 
 all."' 
 
 Bluff old Ben Wade, of Ohio, obtained the floor next, 
 and, without question, he spoke from his sincere be- 
 liefs and convictions. 
 
 Extracts. 
 
 "Here is a territory large as an empire; as large, I 
 believe, as all the free States together. It is pure as 
 nature ; it is beautiful as the garden of God. 
 
 "My colleague stated the other day that it was a mat- 
 ter of fact, which every body knew, that the peculiar in- 
 terest which we had at the North to prevent slavery en- 
 croaching upon this great territory, is, that the moment 
 you cover it over with persons occupying the relation of 
 master and slave, the free man of the North can not go 
 there. He announced that great truth in this body. 
 Gentlemen know it to be a truth, and they do not gain- 
 say it. Gentlemen know that the high-minded free man 
 of the North, although not blessed with property, has, 
 nevertheless, a soul, and that he can not stoop to labor 
 side by side with your miserable serf. He never has 
 done it — he never will do it. 
 
 "Your finality resolutions that were debated here so 
 long, all that you could say here or elsewhere, your de- 
 terminations to resist all agitation of this subject, never 
 stirred me to opposition : but when you come in here, 
 by law attempting to legalize slavery in half a conti- 
 
 1 App. Cong. Globe, Vol. 29, pp. 140-145. 
 
504 The True History of 
 
 nent, and to bring it into this Union in that way, and 
 when, in doing so, you are guilty of the greatest perfidy 
 you can commit, I must enter my indignant protest 
 against it, 
 
 "But, Mr. President, this is also an exceedingly dan- 
 gerous issue. I know the Senator from Kentucky said 
 he did not think there would be very much of a storm 
 after all. He was of the opinion that the Northern 
 mind would immediately lie down under it, and that the 
 North would do as they have frequently done, submit 
 to it, and finally become indifferent in regard to it. But 
 I tell the gentleman that I see indications entirely ad- 
 verse to that. I see a cloud, a little bigger now than a 
 man's hand, gathering in the North, and in the West, 
 and all around, and soon the whole Northern heavens 
 will be lighted up with a fire that you can not quench. 
 The indications of it are rife now in the heavens, and 
 any man who is not blind can see it. There are meet- 
 ings of the people in all quarters ; they express their 
 alarm, their dismay, their horror at the proposition 
 which has been made here. You can not make them 
 believe that the thing is seriously contemplated here. 
 How is it? You of the South, all of you, propose to go 
 for repudiating this obligation. Do you not see that 
 you are about to bring slavery and freedom face to face, 
 to grapple for the victory, and that one or the other 
 must die? I do not know that I ought to regret it, but 
 I say to gentlemen you are antedating the time when 
 that must come. It has always been my opinion that 
 principles so entirely in opposition to each other, so 
 utterly hostile and irreconcilable, could never exist long 
 in the same Government. But, sir, with mutual for- 
 bearance and good will, with no attempt on either side 
 to take advantage of the other, perhaps we might have 
 lived in happiness and peace for many years ; but when 
 you come boldly forth to overthrow the time-honored 
 guarantees of liberty, you show us that the principles of 
 slavery are aggressive, incorrigibly aggressive ; that 
 
Th,e Missouri Compromise and its Repeal. 505 
 
 they can no more be at ease than can a guilty conscience. 
 If you show us that — and you are fast pointing the road 
 to such a state of things — how can it be otherwise than 
 that we must meet each other as enemies, fighting for 
 the victory ; for the one or the other of these principles 
 must prevail. 
 
 "I tell you, sir, if you precipitate such a conflict as 
 that, it will not be liberty that will die in the nineteenth 
 century. No, sir, that will not be the party that must 
 finally knock under. This is a progressive age ; and if 
 you will make this fight, you must be ready for the con- 
 sequences. I regret it. I am an advocate for the con- 
 tinuance of this Union ; but, as I have already said, I 
 do not believe this Union can survive ten years the act 
 of perfidy that will repudiate the great Compromise of 
 1820."^ 
 
 The misfortune was, that such a speech as this 
 from such a man as Mr. Wade, in whom his constituents 
 had most implicit confidence, would have the effect to 
 bring about the very events he so deprecated. Mr. 
 Wade was followed by Gov. Jones, of Tennessee, who, 
 as a Whig, had fought shoulder to shoulder with "Old 
 Ben" in other days, but whose path now became far 
 separated from him in politics, though always respect- 
 ing his honesty and the sincerity of his views. 
 
 "Mr. Jones: . . . The only question before us 
 now is this : Is there a conflict between the Compromise 
 measures of 1850 and the Compromise of 1820? I will 
 not pretend that the Compromise measures of 1850 re- 
 pealed the Compromise of 1820, because I do not think 
 it is maintainable ; but this is what I do assert and 
 maintain, and what I think I can prove, that the spirit, 
 the intention, and the principles of the Compromise 
 measures of 1850 are inconsistent with the act of 1820. 
 In what docs that inconsistency exist? It consists in 
 this : The act of 1820 prohibits, not only during its 
 
 1 Cong. Globe, Vol. 28, pp. 337, 338, 339, 340. 
 
506 The True History of 
 
 territorial existence, but forever, the introduction of 
 slavery into the territory north of 36° 30'. It is a per- 
 petual, unending, undying prohibition. The whole spirit 
 of the acts of 1850 declares that this is a question which 
 the people themselves have a right to settle. The doc- 
 trine contained in the act of 1820 directly invades and 
 positively infringes upon the rights and sovereignty of 
 the States. 
 
 "Mr. President, in conclusion, I say to the Senator 
 from Ohio, and to all men, that I have had no motive 
 connected with this measure other than an honest desire 
 to vindicate what I believe to be the rights and the in- 
 terests of the people whom I have the honor, in part, to 
 represent on this floor. "Tis strange, 'tis passing 
 strange,' to my mind that the honorable Senator should 
 expect me, or any man representing the South, to refuse 
 to accept an act of justice which has been so long, long 
 delayed. Sir, I can tell the honorable Senator that, if 
 the storm which he seems to invoke does come — and it 
 is one which I would deprecate — if one so unworthy as 
 myself dare send up one petition to the Throne of 
 Heaven, it would be to preserve us from the wildness of 
 reckless fanaticism, whether of the North or of the 
 South, and to preserve pure, spotless, and untarnished, 
 to the latest generation, this glorious inheritance of 
 public liberty which we now enjoy." ^ 
 
 Upon the conclusion of Gov. Jones' speech, the vote 
 was taken on Mr. Chase's motion to strike out, and it 
 was defeated by 30 to 13.^ 
 
 There was such a difference of opinion, however, be- 
 tween the honorable Senators as to which was, as Sam 
 Wellersaid, "the more properer word," "superseded by," 
 or "inconsistent with," that Judge Douglas asked leave 
 to prepare a substitute — which he offered February 7th. 
 
 "Mr. Douglas: I stated last evening, before we ad- 
 journed, that I would confer with the Senators friendly 
 
 1 Cong. Globe, Vol. 28, pp. 341-343. ^ Idem, p. 343. 
 
The Missouri Compromise and its Repeal. 507 
 
 to this bill, and propose an amendment to obviate the 
 objections which had been made in reference to the 
 phraseology of that portion of the bill relating to the 
 Compromise measures of 1850, and yet to carry out the 
 idea and intention of the framers of the bill. I have 
 drawn an amendment which I believe meets the general 
 approbation of the friends of the measure. I therefore 
 now move to amend the 14th section of the substitute 
 reported, by striking out the words, 'which (the Mis- 
 souri Compromise Act) was superseded by the principles 
 of the legislation of 1850, commonly called the Compro- 
 mise measures, and is hereby declared inoperative,' and 
 inserting, 'which being inconsistent with the principles 
 of non-intervention by Congress with slavery in the 
 States and Territories, as recognized by the legislation 
 of 1850, commonly called the Compromise measures, is 
 hereby declared inoperative and void, it being the true 
 intent and meaning of this act not to legislate slavery 
 into any Territory or State, nor to exclude it therefrom ; 
 but to leave the people thereof perfectly free to form and 
 regulate their domestic institutions in their own way, 
 subject only to the Constitution of the United States.' 
 
 "I move that amendment, with the general concur- 
 rence of the friends of the measure. It will apply to 
 both territories."^ 
 
 The amendment was ordered to be printed, that Sen- 
 ators might have full opportunity to consider it. After 
 numerous discussions and speeches, the question was 
 taken on Mr. Douglas' amendment, and it passed by a 
 vote of 35 to 10. 
 
 Resolutions from meetings in various of the Northern 
 States against the passage of the Nebraska bill had been 
 reported to the Senate and laid on the table. 
 
 February 17th, Mr. Seward stated that, "having re- 
 ceived from his Excellency, the Governor of the State 
 of New York, the resolutions of the Senate and Assem- 
 
 ' Cong. Globe, Vol. 28, pp. 352, 353. 
 
508 
 
 The True History of 
 
 bly of that State, remonstrating against the passage of 
 this bill, I ask leave to present them now, and ask that 
 they may be read, and ordered to be printed. 
 
 "The resolutions were read, and ordered to be printed. 
 
 "Mr. Seward then addressed the Senate at length in 
 opposition to the Nebraska and Kansas Territorial bill, 
 and against any interference with the Missouri Com- 
 promise." 
 
 EXTRACTS. 
 
 "The slave-holding States already possess the mouths 
 of the Mississippi, and their territory reaches far north- 
 ward along its banks, on one side of the Ohio, and on 
 the other, even to the confluence of the Missouri. They 
 stretch their dominion now from the banks of the Dela- 
 ware, quite around bay, headland, and promontory, to 
 the Rio Grande. They will not stop, although they now 
 think they may, on the summit of the Sierra Nevada ; 
 nay, their armed pioneers are already in the Sonora, and 
 their eyes are already fixed, never to be taken off, on the 
 island of Cuba, the Queen of the Antilles. If we of the 
 non-slave-holding States surrender to them now the 
 eastern slope of the Rocky Mountains, and the very 
 sources of the Mississippi, what territory will be secure, 
 what territory can be secure hereafter, for the creation 
 and organization of free States, within our ocean-bound 
 domain? What territories on this continent will remain 
 unappropriated and unoccupied for us to annex? What 
 territories, even if we are able to buy or conquer them 
 from Great Britain or Russia, will the slave-holding 
 States suffer, much less aid, us to annex to restore the 
 equilibrium which, by this unnecessary measure, we 
 shall have so unwisely, so hurriedly, so suicidally sub- 
 verted? 
 
 "Nor am I to be told that only a few slaves will enter 
 into this vast region. One slave-holder in a new terri- 
 tory, with access to the executive ear at Washington, 
 exercises more political influence than five hundred free- 
 men. It is not necessary that all or a majority of the 
 
The Missouri Compromise and its Repeal. 509 
 
 citizens of a State shall be slave-holders, to constitute a 
 slave-holding State. Delaware has only two thousand 
 slaves, against ninety-one thousand freemen ; and yet 
 Delaware is a slave-holding State. The proportion is 
 not substantially different in Maryland and in Missouri ; 
 and yet they are slave-holding States. These, sir, are 
 the stakes in this legislative game, in which I lament to 
 see, that while the representatives of the slave-holding 
 States are unanimously and earnestly playing to win, so 
 many of the representatives of the non-slave-holding 
 States are with even greater zeal and diligence playing 
 to lose. 
 
 "Senators from the slave-holding States! You, too, 
 suppose you are securing peace as well as victory in this 
 transaction. I tell you now, as I told you in 1850, that 
 it is an error, an unnecessary error, to suppose that be- 
 cause you exclude slavery from these halls to-day, that 
 it will not revisit them to-morrow. You buried the 
 Wilmot proviso here then, and celebrated its obsequies 
 with pomp and revelry. And here it is again to-day, 
 stalking through these halls, clad in complete steel as 
 before. Even if those whom you denounce as faction- 
 ists in the North would let it rest, you yourselves must 
 evoke it from the grave. The reason is obvious. Say 
 what you will, here, the interests of the non-slave- 
 holding States and of the slave-holding States remain 
 just the same ; and they will remain just the same, until 
 you cease to cherish and defend slavery, or we shall 
 cease to honor and love freedom ! You will not cease to 
 cherish slavery. Do you see any signs that we are be- 
 coming indifferent to freedom? On the contrary, that 
 old, traditional, hereditary sentiment of the North is 
 more profound and more universal now than it ever was 
 before. The slavery agitation you deprecate so much, 
 is an eternal struggle between conservatism and progress, 
 between truth and error, between right and wrong. 
 You may sooner, by act of Congress, compel the sea to 
 suppress its upheavings, and the round earth to extin- 
 
510 The True History of 
 
 guish its internal fires, than oblige the human mind to 
 cease its inquirings, and the human heart to desist from 
 its throbbings. 
 
 "The institutions of our country are so framed, that 
 the inevitable conflict of opinion on slavery, as on every 
 other subject, can not be otherwise than peaceful in its 
 course and beneficial in its termination. 
 
 "Nor shall I 'bate one jot of heart or hope' in main- 
 taining a just equilibrium of the non-slave-holding States, 
 even if this ill-starred measure shall be adopted. The non- 
 slave-holding States are teeming with an increase of free- 
 men, educated, vigorous, enlightened, enterprising free- 
 men ; such freemen as neither England, nor Rome, nor 
 even Athens ever reared. Half a million of freemen from 
 Europe annually augment that increase ; and ten years 
 hence, half a million, twenty years hence, a million of free- 
 men from Asia will augment it still more. You may ob- 
 struct, and so turn the direction of those peaceful armies 
 away from Nebraska. So long as you shall leave them 
 room on hill or prairie ; by river side or in the mountain 
 fastnesses, they will dispose of themselves peacefully and 
 lawfully in the places you shall have left open to them ; 
 and there they will erect new States upon free soil, to 
 be forever maintained and defended by free arms, and 
 aggrandized by free labor. American slavery, I know, 
 has a large and ever-flowing spring, but it can not pour 
 forth its blackened tide in volumes like that I have de- 
 scribed. If you are wise, these tides of freemen and 
 slaves will never meet, for they will not voluntarily com- 
 mingle ; but if, nevertheless, through your own erroneous 
 policy, their repulsive currents must be directed against 
 each other, so that they needs must meet, then it is easy 
 to see, in that case, which of them will overcome the re- 
 sistance of the other, and w^hich of them, thus over- 
 powered, will roll back to drown the sources which sent 
 it forth. 
 
 " 'Man proposes, and God disposes.' You may legis- 
 late, and abrogate, and abnegate as you will ; but there 
 
The Missouri Compromise and its Repeal. 511 
 
 is a superior Power that overrules all your actions, and 
 all your refusals to act ; and I fondly hope and trust 
 overrules them to the advancement of the greatness and 
 glory of our country — that overrules, I know, not only 
 all your actions, and all your refusals to act, but all 
 human events, to the distant, but inevitable result of the 
 equal and universal liberty of all men."^ 
 
 This very extraordinary suggestion by Mr. Seward, of 
 a "million of freemen from Asia" "twenty years hence," 
 augmenting the increase of freemen of the non-slave- 
 holding States — "an increase of freemen, educated, 
 vigorous, etc.," "such as neither England, nor Rome, 
 nor even Athens ever reared," would not seem to indi- 
 cate the far-sightedness of the true statesman, nor yet 
 the prophetic vision of the seer. Twice twenty years 
 have passed, and the Northern freemen, while tolerating 
 in a small degree the presence of the Asiatic brother, 
 have yet not added him to their "increase" as a citizen, 
 nor given him that highest privilege of all freemen, nor 
 do they seem to regard his presence as an acquisition to 
 be desired. Mr. Seward's judgment was about as much 
 at fault in this instance as in his prediction that the 
 freedom of the negro would prove to be his annihilation. 
 Thirty years of the fifty he gave the race in which to 
 disappear, have passed — and they have grown from four 
 millions in 1865, to nine millions in 1895 — and the land 
 is still darkening with an ever-increasing multitude of 
 free Afro-American citizens. 
 
 ' Cong. Globe, Vol. 28, pp. 151-155. 
 
512 The True History of 
 
 CHAPTER XX. 
 
 1854 — The Eepeal under consideration — Mr. Badger (of North Carolina) 
 makes a statement to the Senate — Dixon and Chase — Debate of 
 March 2d and 3d — Mr. Badger's amendment — Douglas' great speech 
 — Kansas-Nebraska bill finally passed, May 25th — Was signed by 
 President Pierce, May 30th. 
 
 The discussion of the Kansas-Nebraska bill still con- 
 tinued with unabated heat and excitement on both sides 
 of the question, and every phase of it was debated by 
 the whole nation as well as by the Senate, and also the 
 House. 
 
 On the 2d of March, Mr. Chase, in a speech, said : 
 
 "Mr. President, what was the principle of the territo- 
 rial acts of 1850? The Committee on Territories in- 
 formed us what it was, distinctly and unequivocally. 
 In their report they left no doubt whatever on that sub- 
 ject. They told us that the principle was — what? 
 Non-intervention with existing laws. That was the princi- 
 ple of the acts of 1850."^ 
 
 Mr. Chase still pursued his plan of asserting what 
 every man who heard him, including himself, knew ab- 
 solutely was not the fact. Not a single advocate of the 
 measures of 1850 ever claimed the principle of non-in- 
 tervention to be "non-intervention with existing laws." 
 Its principle, clearly defined and openly proclaimed, was 
 non-intervention with the rights of the people of the 
 territories to make their own laws, subject only to the 
 Constitution of the United States. As applied to the 
 territories acquired from Mexico, this principle was non- 
 intervention with existing laws, simply because the 
 principle recognized the right of every community to 
 make its own laws, and the laws of these territories 
 
 1 Cong. Globe, Vol. 29, p. 280. 
 
The Missouri Compromise and its Repeal. 513 
 
 were already made when they were surrendered to the 
 United States in 1848. 
 
 When New Mexico was being organized, it will be re- 
 membered that Mr. Douglas, the great exponent of non- 
 intervention, made special objection to the clause that 
 her legislature should have no power either "to estab- 
 lish or prohibit American slavery ; " on the ground that 
 each territory should be free to make its own laws ; and 
 that this clause would be an interdict upon that right. 
 The clause was voted down. Mr. Chase must have 
 known all this. 
 
 Mr. Badger, in a speech opposing an amendment 
 offered by Mr. Chase, stated : 
 
 "Mr. President, the honorable Senator from Ohio, 
 together with other gentlemen who are upon this floor — 
 the honorable Senator from New York (Mr. Seward) 
 and the honorable Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. 
 Sumner) — is in the habit, as we all know, of daily lay- 
 ing upon the table papers which are called petitions or 
 remonstrances against this Nebraska bill. The Senate, 
 without inquiry or question, is in the habit of admit- 
 ting these papers upon the respect Avhich they pay to 
 the characters of the Senators who present them, and 
 suffering them to be laid upon the table. They are 
 never read. We know not what they contain. But, sir, 
 I see this stated in a daily paper, which I received this 
 morning, and which I suppose is accurate, because it 
 sympathizes with the honorable Senator from Ohio in 
 the view which he takes of this bill : 
 
 " 'Among the remonstrances presented to the Senate 
 to-day by Mr. Chase against the Nebraska bill were the 
 proceedings of a public meeting at Leesburg, Carroll 
 county, Ohio, one of the resolutions of which was as 
 follows :' 
 
 "Now I call the attention of Senators to the language 
 of this resolution, presented here by a member of our 
 body, and laid upon the table : 
 33 
 
514 The True History of 
 
 " ^Resolved, That each member of Congress who votes 
 for, or in any way gives countenance to, the passage of 
 the bill for the organization of the Nebraska Territory, 
 as reported by Senator Douglas, of Illinois, is a traitor 
 to his country, to freedom, and to God, worthy only of ever- 
 lasting infamy.'' 
 
 "Now, sir. the Senate is in the habit of receiving these 
 petitions and remonstrances upon a statement of their 
 general purport by the honorable Senator who happens 
 to present them, and they are laid upon our table with- 
 out inquiry or objection. Yet, sir, the honorable Sena- 
 tor, by presenting that paper without explanation, with- 
 out remark, knowing that it is not the practice of the 
 Senate, or of any other legislative body, to receive papers 
 which are insulting to the body, or insulting to the in- 
 dividual members of the body, has himself indorsed the 
 language of the resolution which I have read. 
 
 "Mr. Dixon: I desire to know of the Senator from 
 Ohio if he approves or indorses the statements which 
 are contained in the resolution which was read by the 
 honorable Senator from North Carolina? 
 
 "Mr. Chase: I have not the slightest difficulty in 
 answering that question. Sir, I do not. I am very far 
 from thinking that a Senator, who, in the performance 
 of what he conceives to be his public duty, intends to 
 vote for this bill, is, therefore, a traitor to his country. 
 Every Senator has a perfect right, and is in duty bound, 
 to consider every question which arises here, independ- 
 ently, and as a Senator ; and for the exercise of his de- 
 liberate judgment upon this subject, he is responsible 
 to no one but his own conscience, to his constituents, 
 and to his God. . . . 
 
 "And now, sir, let me reply directly to what the Sena- 
 tor from North Carolina has said. He says that it is 
 enough that a proposition proceed from one of us or 
 from me. 
 
 "Mr. Badger : I said from the Senator from Ohio. 
 
 "Mr. Chase : I am quite willing to accept the modi- 
 
The Missouri Compromise and its Repeal. 515 
 
 fication. It is enough, ha says, that a proposition pro- 
 ceeds from the Senator from Ohio to justify the rejection 
 of it by the friends of this bill. 
 
 "Mr. Badger: Exactly. 
 
 "Mr. Chase: Because, he says, it is intended evi- 
 dently to embarrass the bill. 
 
 "Mr. Badger: I said because the Senator from Ohio 
 is known to be opposed to the bill, and has announced, 
 by his votes and expressions, that he is bound by no 
 compact which may admit slavery south of 36° 30'. . . 
 
 "Mr. Chase: Have I ever disclaimed the obligation 
 of any compact on this floor? If so, let the Senator 
 from North Carolina show it. Have I ever said that the 
 people of this country would refuse to carry out the 
 Missouri compact? Never, sir. 
 
 "Mr. Dixon : Did not the Senator vote to repeal the 
 fugitive slave law? 
 
 "Mr. Chase: I am dealing with the Senator from 
 North Carolina. 
 
 "Mr. Dixon : I ask the Senator that question. 
 
 "Mr. Badger Certainly he did so vote, 
 
 "Mr. Chase : I do not yield the floor. 
 
 "Mr. Dixon: Will not the Senator answer the ques- 
 tion? 
 
 "The Presiding Officer (Mr. Weller in the chair) : 
 Does the Senator from Ohio yield the floor? 
 
 "Mr. Chase: No, sir. I am dealing now with the 
 Missouri compact, and I will come to the fugitive slave 
 law after awhile, if it will gratify the Senator from Ken- 
 tucky. 
 
 "In respect to the fugitive slave act I have no more to 
 say at present than this : I believe in the doctrine of 
 State-rights ; I believe that the Congress of the United 
 States has no power whatever to legislate upon any sub- 
 ject unless that power is conferred upon them by the 
 Constitution. I believe that the clause in reference to 
 the extradition of fugitive servants is a clause of compact 
 between the States as States, and that no power can be 
 
516 
 
 The True History of 
 
 derived from that clause to the General Government at 
 all. I can not, of course, go into the argument of this 
 question at present. 
 
 "Mr. Dixon : I desire to put one or two questions to 
 the Senator from Ohio, and I expect that Senator to an- 
 swer my questions candidly and directly to the point. I 
 desire to know whether that Senator understands that 
 the act of 1820, commonly called the Missouri Compro- 
 mise Act, was a compact which the North and the South 
 were bound to maintain. Will the Senator answer that 
 question? 
 
 "Mr. Chase : When the Senator closes his interroga- 
 tories I will reply. 
 
 "Mr. Dixon: I then desire to know of the Senator 
 from Ohio whether he understands the acts of 1850, 
 called the Compromise Acts, to be a compact between 
 the North and the South? Will the Senator answer me 
 that question? 
 
 "Mr. Chase: When you have closed your questions 
 I will answer. 
 
 "Mr. Dixon : Then I desire to ask the Senator another 
 question ; whether, if they are compacts, every Northern 
 man living in the North, and professing Northern prin- 
 ciples, is, or is not, bound sacredly to maintain them? 
 
 "Mr. Douglas : If this course of general inquiry and 
 reply is to be continued, I can not yield the floor. I 
 yield with great pleasure for a categorical answer — not 
 for an argument. 
 
 "Mr. Dixon : I wish the Senator from Ohio to answer 
 me categorically — yea or nay. 
 
 "Mr. Chase : I shall take my own mode of reply. 
 
 "Mr. Dixon : The Senator says he will take his own 
 course in reply. Will the Senator from Illinois allow 
 me a few minutes longer? 
 
 "Mr. Douglas : Certainly. 
 
 "Mr. Dixon : Will the Senator from Ohio answer the 
 questions? 
 
 "Mr. Chase: Certainly. 
 
"J 
 "1 
 
 The Missouri Compromise and its Repeal. 517 
 
 "Mr. Dixon : Then let the Senator answer them. 
 'Mr. Chase : Does the Senator yield the floor? 
 'Mr. Dixon : Yes, sir, with the understanding that 
 I shall have five minutes to respond. 
 
 "Mr. Douglas : I will yield the floor with the under- 
 standing that we are to have an answer to the questions, 
 not an argument upon them. 
 
 "Mr. Chase : I will not take the floor with any lim- 
 itation of any kind. 
 
 "Mr. Douglas: I see that the object is to make an 
 argument. I have a few words to say. 
 
 "Mr. Dixon : Then the Senator from Ohio will not 
 answer my questions. 
 
 "Mr. Chase: The Senator from Illinois does not 
 yield the floor, that I may answer. 
 
 "Mr. Dixon : But the Senator can say whether or not 
 he believes they were compacts. 
 
 "Mr. Chase: I shall answer according to my own 
 discretion, 
 
 "Mr. Dixon : Then, am I to consider that the Senator 
 from Ohio answers the question? What, can he not 
 speak? It must be hard with the Senator when he has 
 not a word to say. They are plain questions, and there 
 is no difficulty in saying whether he believes these com- 
 promises to be compacts or not, and whether or not he 
 is bound by them. He will not answer the question. 
 He will neither admit that he is bound, nor that he is not 
 bound ; yet the Senator from Ohio talks about the sa- 
 credness of compacts. The compact of 1820 is sacred 
 in his eye. Is the compact of 1850 sacred in the eye of 
 the Senator from Ohio? If it is sacred with him, I ask 
 him again, how did he vote when the proposition was 
 made to repeal that portion of the action of 1850 called 
 the fugitive slave law? Did the Senator vote for that 
 proposition? I suppose he will not answer that ques- 
 tion, except in his own way. Sir, there is always a 
 straightforward mode of answering a question. There 
 is always a straightforward mode of getting to a point, 
 
518 The True History of 
 
 and to a decision. When the Senator from Ohio will 
 not say that he believes the action of 1850 to be a com- 
 pact, and when he takes it upon himself to denounce us 
 as false to what he calls a compact which was entered 
 into in 1820, while the record shows that he himself is 
 false to the compact which was entered into in 1850, what 
 attitude does that Senator occupy on this floor? I must 
 say that it is any thing else than an enviable one. If it 
 be dishonorable, as the Senator seems to think it is, to 
 repeal the act of 1820, is it less so to repeal the acts of 
 1850? What is there that renders the one a compact 
 and sacred, and does not render the other equally a com- 
 pact, equally binding on the Northern people, and to be 
 held equally sacred by honorable men, whether living 
 in the North or South? If the act of 1820 was an 
 agreement between the North and South, were not the 
 acts of 1850 equally so? but the Senator from Ohio, de- 
 claring, as he has done, the sacredness of the act of 1820, 
 in violation of and in total disregard of the principle of 
 honor which he himself has labored so assiduously to 
 establish, coolly and deliberately, and with malice afore- 
 thought, voted at the last session of Congress to repeal 
 one of the acts of 1850 — the one called the Fugitive 
 Slave bill. 
 
 "Sir, with what consistency can the Senator talk of 
 honor, with this act of his staring him in the face, and 
 this brand of violated faith burning on his brow? He 
 comes here and presents — although I must do him the 
 justice to say that he denies that he had any knowledge 
 of what was contained in the resolution which was read 
 by the Senator from North Carolina — a petition contain- 
 ing charges against members of this body which, if true, 
 would exclude every member against whom the charge 
 is made from the seat which he here occupies. The 
 Senator says, however, that he knew nothing of what 
 was contained in the resolution. I will not, therefore, 
 hold him responsible for it. 
 
The Missouri Compromise and its Repeal. 519 
 
 t< 
 
 'Mr. Douglas : I will yield the floor generally, so as 
 to let this matter go on. 
 
 "Mr. Dixon: I shall not occupy more than a few 
 minutes. But, Mr. President, I confess I am incapable 
 of understanding the position of the Senator from Ohio. 
 I do not know really what he means when he comes here 
 with one hand holding a petition denouncing all the 
 members upon this floor who are in favor of the repeal 
 of the Missouri Compromise as traitors ; whilst, on the 
 other hand, he appears upon the record as having voted 
 himself to repeal that which we would suppose the Sen- 
 ator from Ohio would regard as a compact sacred in the 
 estimation of the people North and South — aye, sir, as 
 sacred as the act of 1820. That is the position which 
 he occupies, and it can be no other. The Senator from 
 Ohio is in favor of the solemnity and sacredness of com- 
 pacts, and yet he can put his foot upon a compact ; he 
 can violate a compact ; he can be faithless to a compact ; 
 he can denounce (to his friends, at least), as traitors, 
 those who are in favor of repealing what is considered a 
 most obnoxious restriction upon a great section of the 
 people of the United States. That is the position which 
 he seems to occupy. 
 
 "I merely wish that the Senator may place himself 
 right on this question. If he means to maintain that 
 the act of 1820 was a sacred compact, to be maintained 
 by the people of the North and the South, let him say 
 so. If he means that the acts of 1850 formed a solemn 
 compact, to be maintained by the people of the North 
 and the South, let him say so. If he means to say that 
 every Northern man is bound by these compacts, let him 
 say so. If he means to affirm that he is not bound by 
 them — that he has a right to denounce others for not 
 abiding by them, whilst he himself refuses the acknowl- 
 edgment of their obligations on himself — let him say so. 
 
 "These are the points to which I desire to call the 
 attention of the Senator from Ohio. Having done so, 
 I yield the floor, with the understanding that as he 
 
520 The True History of 
 
 would not answer my questions directly, he may do so 
 in that manner which suits his own judgment and his 
 own taste. 
 
 "Mr. Chase: If the honorable Senator from Ken- 
 tucky had done me the honor to listen to the remarks 
 which I addressed to the Senate before he took the floor, 
 he would have seen in them a direct and unequivocal 
 answer to each of his interrogatories ; and having once 
 before answered them, and having failed to reach his 
 understanding, not through any defect of that under- 
 standing, but from want of attention on the part of 
 that Senator, I say to him distinctly that ] regard the 
 act for the admission of Missouri as a compact, binding 
 upon the parties who were concerned in the making of 
 it, and those parties I have already stated to be the 
 North and the South. 
 
 "Then, in regard to his second interrogatory, "Were 
 the Compromises of 1850 a compact? I say, no; they 
 were not a compact. 
 
 "Mr. Dixon : That is what I wanted to know. 
 
 "Mr. Chase: That is precisely what I said before. 
 They were a series of measures, like any other measures, 
 subject to repeal. And now, with the permission of the 
 Senator, I will ask him a question. Does he regard the 
 acts of 1850 as a compact? 
 
 "Mr. Dixon : The Senator asks me whether I regard 
 them as a compact. I do not. I regard them as acts of 
 Congress which were passed to settle a great question, 
 and to quiet the agitation in the country, growing out of 
 that question. I regard the acts of 1850 as imposing an 
 obligation upon the people of the North and the South 
 to adhere to them. I do not regard the act of 1820 in 
 that light. I will explain to the Senator. In the first 
 place, I look upon the act of 1820 as a violation of the 
 Constitution of the United States ; and I do not admit 
 that the Congress of the United States has any power to 
 impose any restrictions upon the people of the United 
 States which are a violation of the Constitution. It at- 
 
The Missouri Compromise and its Repeal. 521 
 
 tempts to deprive a certain class of citizens of rights 
 which clearly belong to them under the Constitution, 
 and if carried into effect, converts the Government of 
 the United States into a despotism, and the people on 
 whom the restriction acts, slaves. 
 
 "In the next place, I look upon the act itself as a 
 violation and a breaking down of that equality which 
 exists between the different States ; for, whilst it secures 
 nothing to those who live south of 36° 30', it secures to 
 the people living north of 36° 30' the exclusive right to 
 settle the territory. The South gains nothing by it ; the 
 North gains the right to settle the territory. The con- 
 tract is in favor of the North ; it is not in favor of the 
 South. 
 
 "I will further remark to the Senator, that I do not 
 understand and never did understand, that that was the 
 agreement which was entered into between the North 
 and South. The real compromise and the only compro- 
 mise which could amount to any thing, was that which 
 was proposed by the great Senator from Kentucky (Mr. 
 Clay), upon the admission of Missouri into the Union. 
 That proposition has been read to the Senate, and the 
 Senate are familiar with it. I need not repeat it. That 
 was the true basis of the compact which was entered 
 into in regard to the admission of Missouri. So far as 
 regards that, I look upon it as binding, and I should 
 consider any effort to repeal it or to supersede it a viola- 
 tion of the sacred understanding which existed between 
 the North and the South ; but so far as regards the act 
 fixing the line of 36° 30', I look upon it as nudum pactum, 
 utterly void, because it violates the Constitution of the 
 United States ; utterly void, because the North received 
 every thing and the South nothing ; utterly void, be- 
 cause the North repudiated it in the next year after it 
 was passed and showed that she was faithless to it, at 
 least so far as regarded its being a compromise. Per- 
 haps I should not say that she was faithless to it ; but, 
 at any rate, she disregarded it, and did not understand 
 
522 The True History of 
 
 it as binding upon her, or as binding upon any body ; 
 because she afterwards refused to let Missouri into the 
 Union without annexing the condition which was pro- 
 posed by Mr. Clay. Then I answer the Senator's ques- 
 tion in the manner that I have done. 
 
 "Mr. Cass: Mr. President, I desire not to be mis- 
 understood upon this point ; therefore I hope the Senate 
 will pardon me for troubling them with a few words. 
 In the first place, the Senator from Ohio repudiates this 
 measure as not being an act of non-intervention. He 
 says it is not following out our own principles, but it is 
 intervention. The Senator and myself view the subject 
 very differently ; and he is either wrong, and very 
 wrong, or I am. The Compromise measure of 1820 
 was an intervention — nobody can deny that, for the 
 plainest of all reasons, because it altered the existing 
 state of things by the authority of Congress. Congress 
 did intervene to declare that the country north of the 
 Missouri Compromise line should have no slavery. It 
 did not touch the remainder of the country ceded from 
 France, but it intervened over a large portion of the ac- 
 quisition made by the treaty by which we acquired 
 Louisiana. There, then, was intervention, 
 
 "What is the proposition of the bill now? It is to 
 declare that intervention void. How can the honorable 
 Senator from Ohio call such a proposition intervention? 
 It is strict non-intervention ; it is putting us in a true 
 position from a false one. That is the effect of the re- 
 peal of the Missouri Compromise. It is a strict act of 
 non-intervention, declaring the great principle, that the 
 people of the local communities, whether called States 
 or Territories, and not the Congress of the United State, 
 shall exercise this great power of government. That is 
 the point. 
 
 "Mr. Stuart : Mr. President, I do not think that the 
 questions presented here are perfectly clear ; and for the 
 purpose of bringing us to where certainly the rules of 
 the Senate bring us, I want to call the attention of the 
 
The Missouri Compromise and its Repeal 523 
 
 Senate for a moment to what is the true condition of 
 this bill. 
 
 "Now, sir, I think there are some things proper to be 
 considered here. What have we heard? We have 
 heard gentlemen from the South, who belong to one 
 political organization, rise in their places in the Senate 
 and tell us that, in their opinion, the amendment last 
 offered by the Senator from Illinois, Mr, Douglas, which 
 has been incorporated into the bill, confers full power 
 in terms and in fact, under the Constitution, and in law, 
 upon the territorial authorities ; and we have heard 
 Senators equally distinguished from the South, but of 
 another political organization, deny that. 
 
 "I can stand, and I will stand, by the doctrine that 
 the people of the territories may adjust this matter to 
 suit themselves. We have stood upon that doctrine 
 heretofore. We have stood upon it until there was not 
 a murmur in a Northern State, until, sir, you could not 
 get up an Abolition meeting as big as your hat in oppo- 
 sition to it. 
 
 "Mr. President, I say again, I mean what I say. I 
 mean in this bill, if I support it at all, to vote for a bill 
 upon which, so far as the English language can be in- 
 terpreted, there shall be no two interpretations. But, 
 sir, I mean another thing. I call the attention of the 
 Senate to-day, and I call the attention of the country, to 
 the fact that the distinguished Senator from Delaware, 
 Mr. Clayton, who has addressed the Senate ably for the 
 past two days, has told you, as plainly as language can 
 tell you, that, prior to the enactment of 1820, in the 
 country covered by these territories, slavery existed, and 
 wat tolerated bylaw and custom. He has told you, also, 
 not in terms, but it is the legitimate inference from his 
 argument — and I presume that distinguished gentlemen 
 will not deny it ; and, if he does, I will thank him to 
 correct me — that, if you repeal the law of 1820, you will 
 leave the pre-existing law revived and in force. If the 
 Senator does not agree with me in that interpretation 
 
524 The True History of 
 
 of his remarks, I say, again, that I hope he will cor- 
 rect me. 
 
 "Now, sir, what am I to do, as a Northern man — and 
 God forbid that I should ever say or do any thing as a 
 Northern man which I would not do or say as a Southern 
 man? But what am I to do? I have drawn up an 
 amendment which I shall ask the Senate to append to 
 this bill, or I pledge myself here that I will never vote 
 for it, declaring that the repeal of the act of 1820 shall 
 not be deemed to revive any former law authorizing, es- 
 tablishing, or tolerating slavery in these territories. 
 Sir, it will not then do for some Senator to rise here and 
 tell me that there is no need of that provision ; for, as I 
 said before, if the Senate, if Congress, to-day or to-mor- 
 row, or at any future day, are about to obliterate the law 
 of 1820, and to place this matter under the full jurisdic- 
 tion of the people of the territories, let there be no room 
 for misconstruction. 
 
 "Sir, my object in rising, as I said, was to make the 
 point so that the Senate could come back to the true con- 
 dition of this bill, so that an amendment to the amend- 
 ment now pending might be properly offered, and the 
 distinct proposition put, because I do not desire to give 
 a vote which shall place me in a false position ; but I 
 shall vote for every proposition which renders clear, dis- 
 tinct and unequivocal the main object of this bill — to 
 confer upon the territorial organizations the power to 
 legislate upon the question of slavery, as well as all 
 others. 
 
 "Mr. Douglas : The Senator from Michigan thinks 
 that we ought to say, in so many words, they have 
 power to legislate upon the subject of slavery, either to 
 introduce or to exclude. Why, sir, there is no doubt but 
 that that is said in the bill now in as clear language as 
 man can use, except that the power is to be subject to 
 the limitations of the Constitution of the United States. 
 Can you make it any clearer? Do you not desire to have 
 your legislation subject to the Constitution? If you 
 
The Missouri Compromise and its Repeal. 525 
 
 leave out these words, will you confer any more power 
 than if you retain them? You have given the power 
 here in language as explicit and as comprehensive as 
 man can use, unless the exercise of the power is prohib- 
 ited by the Constitution. If the Constitution itself pro- 
 hibits it, how can you confer it? . 
 
 "Mr. Walker: The bill as it now stands, as it has 
 been amended on the motion of the Senator from Illi- 
 nois, proposes to declare that the legislation of 1820 
 being 'inconsistent with the principle of non-intervention 
 by Congress with slavery in the States and territories, as 
 recognized by the legislation of 1850, commonly called 
 the Compromise measures, is hereby declared inoperative 
 and void ; it being the true intent and meaning of this 
 act not to legislate slavery into any territory or State, 
 nor to exclude it therefrom, but to leave the people 
 thereof perfectly free to form and regulate their domestic 
 institutions in their own way, subject only to the Con- 
 stitution of the United States.' 
 
 "Now, I will appeal to two of the oldest lawyers in the 
 Senate as to the meaning of this provision. Let me ask 
 the same question which was put by the Senator from 
 Michigan, and which was only answered in so far as si- 
 lence gives consent by the Senator from Delaware. I 
 understood him to say in his speech that, prior to the 
 adoption of the Missouri Compromise line, the whole 
 territory acquired from France was slave territory, that 
 the law of slavery prevailed there. The Senator from 
 Michigan put to him this question, which I repeat : If 
 now the Missouri Compromise be abolished or repealed, 
 does he understand it as reviving the law of Louisiana 
 as it existed prior to the establishment of that compro- 
 mise line? 
 
 "Mr. Clavton : The honorable Senator can draw his 
 own inference. I stated, what I supposed to be the fact, 
 that in the territory acquired from France by the treaty 
 of 1803, and acquired before that by France from Spain, 
 slavery existed. The honorable Senator can draw his 
 
526 The True History of 
 
 own inference as to what would be the effect of the re- 
 peal of the Missouri Compromise line there. I do not 
 wish to interpose my own opinions on the subject, but I 
 think I disclose very clearly in the debate my own im- 
 pressions in regard to it. 
 
 "Mr. Walker: I do not wish to draw an inference 
 from the gentleman's position ; but I desire to have an 
 answer from the honorable Senator from Delaware, be- 
 cause of his known legal ability. 
 
 "Mr. Clayton: I have not the slightest objection to 
 saying to the gentleman that I consider that slavery did 
 exist in this territory under the treaty of 1803, and the 
 French and Spanish law which had previously prevailed 
 there, and I suppose that the repeal of the Missouri 
 Compromise line would leave things as they were before 
 it was enacted. 
 
 "Mr. Walker : Then, as I understand it, the answer is 
 that to repeal now the Compromise of 1820 would revive 
 the slave law in Nebraska. 
 
 "Mr. Butler: If the Senator from Wisconsin will 
 allow me, I wish to say a word. I have understood my 
 friend from Delaware to take the position that the Mis- 
 souri Compromise line was unconstitutional and void. 
 
 "Mr. Clayton. Yes, sir. 
 
 "Mr. Butler: And therefore any repeal of it would 
 have no effect whatever on the status quo ante helium. 
 
 "Mr. Clayton: Certainly. 
 
 "The passage of an unconstitutional law amounts to 
 nothing. 
 
 "Mr. Walker: We are get'ting at a uniformity of 
 opinion very fast now among those who advocate the 
 bill. The Senator from Delaware is of opinion that, by 
 repealing the Missouri Compromise, if it had any valid- 
 ity — and if it had none, we might just as well leave it 
 alone — we re-establish the French law creative of slav- 
 ery. He is concurred with in the abstract by the Sen- 
 ator from North Carolina. 
 
 "Then supposing that the repeal of the Missouri Com- 
 
The Missouri Compromise and its Repeal. 527 
 
 promise does re-establish and set up the laws of Louisi- 
 ana, which permit slavery, what do we find this opposi- 
 tion to amount to after all? Why, we are just now get- 
 ting to the discovery that this is a bill to establish slav- 
 ery in Nebraska. 
 
 "It does not mean non-intervention, but it is interven- 
 tion of the most pernicious kind. It is intervention, as 
 I understand, to introduce slavery." ^ 
 
 After a long and heated debate, Mr. Badger said : 
 
 "Before the question is taken on the pending amend- 
 ment of the Senator from Ohio, I wish to say, that when 
 that amendment is disposed of, if it shall be voted down, 
 I will propose the amendment which I hold in my hand, 
 to come in immediately after that portion of the bill to 
 which the Senator from Ohio proposes his amendment. 
 And I offer it for this purpose : I have supposed, as I 
 have stated, that the provision of the bill, as it stands, 
 is truly and strictly a non-intervention proposition ; 
 which, if adopted as it stands, will leave these territories 
 without any law on the subject at all, and will leave the 
 inhabitants of the territories to select their own law. 
 But, sir, as some doubts seem to be entertained by some 
 gentlemen on this subject, and as I certainly do not 
 wish, and as I am very sure that none of my Southern 
 friends wish that a law should be passed which, directly 
 or indirectly, by the power of Congress, should estab- 
 lish slavery in a territory ; and, as we want this proposi- 
 tion to be, and to be understood to be, exactly what we 
 take it to be as it stands, I will submit to the Senate this 
 proviso, which must remove all possible difficulty, either 
 real or imaginary upon this subject : 
 
 " 'Provided, That nothing contained in this act shall 
 be construed to revive or put in force any law or regula- 
 tion which may have existed prior to the act of the sixth 
 of March, 1820, either protecting, establishing, prohib- 
 iting, or abolishing slavery. 
 
 5 5 J 2 
 
 1 Cong. Globe, Vol. 29, pp. 281-291. ' Cong. Globe, Vol. ?8, p. 296. 
 
528 The True Hisotry of 
 
 Mr. Chase's amendment was rejected by 36 to 10. 
 
 Mr. Badger's amendment was then voted on and 
 adopted by 35 to 6. 
 
 Mr. Clayton then moved to amend by striking out 
 that portion of the substitute of the committee which 
 allows aliens to vote after having declared their inten- 
 tions. "I will make a very brief statement on this sub- 
 ject. The non-intercourse act of 1834 positively pro- 
 hibits aliens from going into this territory without a 
 passport. The reason of that must be apparent to Sen- 
 ators. British agents were supposed to have entered 
 there and stirred up the Indians ; or it was apprehended 
 there was danger of such persons going there to disturb 
 the Indians against the frontier settlers. In my opinion, 
 the Constitution demands, and every dictate of sound 
 policy demands, that the right of suffrage and holding 
 office in these territories should be restricted to citizens 
 of the United States. Unless this be done, these very 
 men to whom I have referred may go there and legis- 
 late. To avoid this, I move to strike out the words : 
 
 " 'And those who shall have declared, on oath, their 
 intention to become such, and shall have taken an oath 
 to support the Constitution of the United States and the 
 provisions of this act.' 
 
 "So that the proviso will read : 
 
 " ^ Provided^ That the right of suffrage and holding 
 ofiice shall be exercised only by citizens of the United 
 States.'"^ 
 
 This amendment having been agreed to, the bill was 
 then ordered to be engrossed for a third reading, by a 
 vote of 29 to 12. 
 
 On Friday, March 3d, the question was, "Shall the 
 bill pass?" 
 
 And now ensued a debate, as remarkable for its length 
 as for its impassioned earnestness, its excited and heated 
 discussions ; and which closed with a speech from Doug- 
 
 ^ App. Cong. Globe, Vol. 29, p. 297. 
 
The Missouri Compromise and its Repeal. 529 
 
 las, which has never been excelled in force of logic, in 
 power of arraying facts, and in boldness of denunciation 
 of those who had slandered him to the country, stigma- 
 tizing him as a traitor to her and plotter against her lib- 
 erties. His enemies quailed before his fiery eloquence, 
 before the truth, so plainly set forth. 
 
 Only a portion of this speech is given, as it is in part 
 a repetition and grouping together of facts already 
 known to the reader. 
 
 "Mr. Douglas : I wish to ask the Senator from New 
 York (Mr. Seward) a question. If I understood his re- 
 marks when he spoke, and if I understand his speech as 
 published, he averred that the Missouri Compromise 
 was a compact between the North and the South ; that 
 the North performed it on its part ; that it had done so 
 faithfully for thirty years ; that the South had received 
 all its benefits, and the moment these benefits had been 
 fully realized, the South disavowed the obligations un- 
 der which it had received them. Is not that his posi- 
 tion? 
 
 "Mr. Seward : I am not accustomed to answer ques- 
 tions put to me, unless they are entirely categorical, and 
 placed in such a shape that I may know exactly, and 
 have time to consider, their whole extent. The honor- 
 able Senator from Illinois has put a very broad question. 
 What I mean to say, however, and that will answer his 
 purpose, is, that his position, and that the position of 
 the South is, that this was a compromise ; and I say 
 that the North has never repudiated that compromise. 
 Indeed, it has never had the power to do so. Missouri 
 came into the Union under that compromise ; and what- 
 ever individuals may have contended, the practical 
 effect is, that the South has had all that she could get 
 by that compromise, and that the North is now in the 
 predicament of being obliged to defend what was left to 
 her. I believe that answers the question. 
 
 "Mr. Douglas: Now, Mr, President, I choose to 
 34 
 
530 The True History of 
 
 bring men directly up to the point. The Senator from 
 New York has labored in his whole speech to make it 
 appear that this was a compact ; that the North had 
 been faithful, and that the South acquiesced until she 
 got all its advantages, and then disavowed and sought 
 to annul it. This he pronounced to be bad faith ; and 
 he made appeals about dishonor. The Senator from 
 Connecticut (Mr. Smith) did the same thing, and so 
 did the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Sumner) , and 
 the Senator from Ohio (Mr. Chase) . That is the great 
 point to which the whole Abolition party are now direct- 
 ing all their artillery in this battle. Now, I propose to 
 bring them to the point. If this was a compact, and if 
 what they have said is fair, or just, or true, who was it 
 that repudiated the compact? 
 
 "Mr. Sumner: Mr. President, the Senator from Illi- 
 nois, I know, does not intend to misstate my position. 
 That position, as announced in the language of the 
 speech which I addressed to the Senate, and which I 
 now hold in my hand, is, 'that this is an infraction of 
 solemn obligations, assumed beyond recall by the South, 
 on the admission of Missouri into the Union as a slave 
 State,' which was one year after the act of 1820. 
 
 "Mr. Douglas: Mr. President, I shall come to that; 
 and I wish to see whether this was an obligation which 
 was assumed 'beyond recall.' If it was a compact be- 
 tween the two parties, and one party has been faithful, 
 it is beyond recall by the other. If, however, one party 
 has been faithless, what shall we think of them, if, while 
 faithless, they ask a performance? 
 
 "Mr. Seward : Show it. 
 
 "Mr. Douglas: That is what I am coming to. I 
 have already stated that, at the next session of Congress, 
 Missouri presented a Constitution in conformity with 
 the act of 1820 ; that the Senate passed a joint resolu- 
 tion to admit her, and that the House refused to admit 
 Missouri in conformity with the alleged compact ; and, 
 I think, on three distinct votes, rejected her. 
 
The Missouri Compromise and its Repeal. 531 
 
 "Mr. Seward : I beg mj honorable friend — for I de- 
 sire to call him so — to answer me frankly, whether he 
 would rather I should say what I have to say in this 
 desultory way, or whether he would prefer that I would 
 answer him afterwards ; because it is with me a rule in 
 the Senate never to interrupt a gentleman, except to help 
 him in his argument. 
 
 "Mr. Douglas : I would rather hear the Senator now. 
 
 "Mr. Seward: "What I have to say now — and I ac- 
 knowledge the magnanimity of the Senator from Illinois 
 in allowing me to say it — is, that the North stood by 
 that compact until Missouri came in with a Constitution, 
 one article of which denied the colored citizens of other 
 States the equality of privileges which were allowed to 
 all other citizens of the United States, and then the North 
 insisted on the right of colored men to be regarded as 
 citizens, and entitled to the privileges and immunities of 
 citizens. Upon that a new compromise was necessary. 
 I hope I am candid. 
 
 "Mr. Douglas: The Senator is candid, I have no 
 doubt, as he understands the facts ; but I undertake to 
 maintain that the North objected to Missouri because 
 she allowed slavery, and not because of the free-negro 
 clause alone. 
 
 'Mr. Seward : No, sir. 
 
 'Mr. Douglas : Now, I will proceed to prove that 
 the North did not object solely on account of the free- 
 negro clause ; but that, in the House of Representatives 
 at the time, the North objected as well because of slavery 
 as in regard to free negroes. Here is the evidence. In 
 the House of Representatives, on the 12th of February, 
 1821, Mr. Mallory, of Vermont, moved to amend the 
 Senate joint resolution for the admission of Missouri, as 
 follows : 
 
 " 'To amend the said amendment, by striking out all 
 thereof after the word respects, and inserting the follow- 
 ing : "Whenever the people of the said State by a 
 Convention, appointed according to the manner provided 
 
 
532 The True History of 
 
 by the act to authorize the people of Missouri to form a 
 Constitution and State government, and for the admis- 
 sion of such State into the Union on an equal footing 
 with the original States, and to prohibit slavery in cer- 
 tain territories, approved March 6, 1820, adopt a Con- 
 stitution conformably to the provisions of said act, and 
 shall, in addition to said provisions , further provide, in and 
 by said Constitution, that neither slavery nor involuntary 
 servitude shall ever be allowed in the State of Missouri, unless 
 inflicted as a punishment for crimes committed against 
 the laws of said State, whereof the party accused shall 
 be duly convicted. Provided, that the civil condition of 
 those persons who now are held to service in Missouri 
 shall not be affected by this last provision." ' 
 
 "Here I show that the proposition was made that 
 Missouri should not come in unless, in addition to com- 
 plying with the Missouri Compromise, so called, she 
 would go further, and prohibit slavery within the limits 
 of the State. 
 
 "Mr. Seward : Now, then, for the vote. 
 
 "Mr. Douglas: The vote was taken by yeas and 
 nays. I hold it in my hand. Sixty-one Northern men 
 voted for that amendment, and thirty-three against it. 
 Thus the North, by a vote of nearly two to one, ex- 
 pressly repudiated a solemn compact upon the very mat- 
 ter in controversy, to wit, that slavery should not be 
 prohibited in the State of Missouri. 
 
 "Mr. Weller: Let the Senator from New York an- 
 swer that. 
 
 "Mr. Douglas : I should like to hear his answer. 
 
 "Mr. Seward: I desire, if I shall be obtrusive by 
 speaking in this way, that Senators will at once signify, 
 or that any Senator will signify, that I am obtrusive. 
 But I make these explanations in this way, for the 
 reason that I desire to give the honorable Senator from 
 Illinois the privilege of hearing my answer to him as he 
 goes along. It is simply this : That this doctrine of 
 compromise is, as it has been held, that if so many 
 
The Missouri Compromise and its Repeal. 533 
 
 Noi'tliern men shall go with so many Southern men as 
 to fix the law, then it binds the North and South alike. 
 I therefore have but one answer to make, that the vote 
 for the restriction was less than the Northern vote 
 which was given against the whole compromise. 
 
 "Mr. Douglas: Well, now, we come to this point: 
 We have been told, during this debate, that you must 
 not judge of the North by the minority, but by her 
 majority. You have been told that the minority, who 
 stood by the Constitution and the rights of the South, 
 were dough-faces. 
 
 "Mr. Seward: I have not said so. I will not 
 say so. 
 
 "Mr. Douglas: You have all said so in your 
 speeches, and you have asked us to take the majority of 
 the North. 
 
 "Mr. Seward : I spoke of the practical fact. I never 
 said any thing about dough-faces. 
 
 "Mr. Douglas : You have asked us to take the ma- 
 jority instead of the minority. 
 
 "Mr. Seward : The majority of the country? 
 
 "Mr. Douglas : I am talking of the majority of the 
 Northern vote. 
 
 "Mr. Seward: No, sir. 
 
 "Mr. Douglas : I hope the Senator will hear me. I 
 wish to recall him to the issue. I stated that the North 
 in the House of Representatives voted against admitting 
 Missouri into the Union under the act of 1820, and 
 caused the defeat of that measure ; and he said that 
 they voted against it on the ground of the free-negro 
 clause in her Constitution, and not upon the ground of 
 slavery. Now I have shown by the evidence that it was 
 upon the ground of slavery, as well as upon the other 
 ground ; and that a majority of the North required not 
 only that Missouri should comply with the compact of 
 1820, so called, but that she should go further, and give 
 up the whole consideration which the Senator says the 
 South received from the North for the Missouri Compro- 
 
534 The True History of 
 
 mise. The compact, lie says, was that, in consideration 
 of slavery being permitted in Missouri, it should be pro- 
 hibited in the territories. After having procured the 
 prohibition in the territories, the North, by a majority 
 of her votes, refused to admit Missouri as a slave-hold- 
 ing State, and in violation of the alleged compact, re- 
 quired her to prohibit slavery as a further condition of 
 her admission. This repudiation of the alleged com- 
 pact by the North, is recorded by yeas and nays, 61 to 
 33, and entered upon the Journal, as an imperishable 
 evidence of the fact. With this evidence before us, 
 against whom should the charge of perfidy be pre- 
 ferred ? 
 
 "Sir, if this was a compact, what must be thought of 
 those who violated it almost immediately after it was 
 formed ? I say it is a calumny upon the North to say 
 that it was a compact. I should feel the flush of shame 
 upon my cheek, as a Northern man, if I were to say it 
 was a compact, and that the section of the country to 
 which I belong received the consideration, and then re- 
 pudiated the obligation in eleven months after it was 
 entered into. I deny that it was a compact in any sense 
 of the term. But if it was, the record proves that faith 
 was not observed — that the contract was never carried 
 into effect — that after the North had procured the pass- 
 age of the act prohibiting slavery in the territories, with a 
 majority in the House large enough to prevent its repeal, 
 Missouri was refused admission into the Union as a slave- 
 holding State, in conformity with the act of March 6, 1820. 
 If the proposition be correct, as contended for by the op- 
 ponents of the bill — that there was a solemn compact 
 between the North and South that, in consideration of 
 the prohibition of slavery in the territories, Missouri 
 was to be admitted into the Union, in conformity with 
 the act of 1820 — that compact was repudiated by the 
 North and rescinded by the joint action of the two 
 parties within twelve months from its date. Missouri 
 was never admitted under the act of March 6, 1820. 
 
The MissoiLri Compromise and its Repeal. 535 
 
 She was refused admission under that act. She was 
 voted out of the Union by Northern votes, notwithstand- 
 ing the stipulation that she should be received ; and, in 
 consequence of these facts, a new compromise was ren- 
 dered necessary, by the terms of which Missouri was to 
 be admitted into the Union conditionally — admitted on 
 a condition not embraced in the act of 1820, and, in ad- 
 dition to a full compliance with all the provisions of 
 said act. If then, the act of 1820, by the eighth section 
 of which slavery was prohibited in Missouri, was a com- 
 pact, it is clear to the comprehension of every fair- 
 minded man that the refusal of the North to admit 
 Missouri, in compliance with its stipulations, and with- 
 out further conditions, imposes upon us a high moral 
 obligation to remove the prohibition of slavery in the 
 territories, since it has been shown to have been procured 
 upon a condition never performed. 
 
 "Mr. President, inasmuch as the Senator from New 
 York has taken great pains to impress upon the public 
 mind of the North the conviction that the act of 1820 
 was a solemn compact, the violation or repudiation of 
 which, by either party, involves perfidy and dishonor, I 
 wish to call the attention of that Senator (Mr. Seward) 
 to the fact, that his own State was the first to repudiate 
 the compact and to instruct her Senators in Congress not 
 to admit Missouri into the Union, in compliance with it, 
 nor unless slavery should be prohibited in the State of 
 Missouri, 
 
 "Mr, Seward : That is so. 
 
 "Mr, Douglas: I have the resolutions before me, in 
 the printed Journal of the Senate. The Senator from 
 New York is familiar with the fact, and frankly admits 
 it: 
 
 " 'State of New York, 
 " 'Jn Assembly, November 13, 1820. 
 
 " ^Whereas, the legislature of this State, at the last ses- 
 sion, did instruct their Senators, and request their Rep- 
 resentatives in Congress, to oppose the admission, as a 
 
536 The True History of 
 
 State, into the Union, of any territory not comprised 
 within the original boundaries of the United States, 
 without making the prohibition of slavery therein an 
 indispensable condition of admission ; and whereas this 
 legislature is impressed with the correctness of the sen- 
 timent so communicated to our Senators and Representa- 
 tives : Therefore, 
 
 " 'Resolved (if the honorable Senators concur herein), 
 That this legislature does approve of the principles con- 
 tained in the resolutions of the last session ; and further, 
 if the provisions contained in any proposed Constitution 
 of a new State deny to any citizens of the existing States 
 the privileges and immunities of citizens of such new 
 State, that such proposed Constitution should not be ac- 
 cepted or confirmed ; the same, in the opinion of this 
 legislature, being void by the Constitution of the United 
 States. And that our Senators be instructed, and our 
 Representatives in Congress be requested, to use their 
 utmost exertions to prevent the acceptance and confir- 
 mation of any such Constitution.' 
 
 "It will be seen by these resolutions, that at the pre- 
 vious session the New York legislature had 'instructed' 
 the Senators /rom that State Ho oppose the admission, as a 
 State, into the Union, of any territory not comprised within 
 the original boundaries of the United States, without 
 making the prohibition of slavery therein an indispensable 
 condition of admission.'' 
 
 "These instructions are not confined to territory north 
 of 36° 30'. They apply, and were intended to apply, to 
 the whole country west of the Mississippi, and to all 
 territory which might hereafter be acquired. They deny 
 the right of Arkansas to admission as a slave-holding 
 State, as well as Missouri. They lay down a general 
 principle to be applied and insisted upon every- where, 
 and in all cases, and under all circumstances. These 
 resolutions were first adopted prior to the passage of the 
 act of March 6, 1820, which the Senator now chooses to 
 call a compact. But they were renewed and repeated 
 
The Missouri Compromise and its Repeal. 537 
 
 on the 13th of November, 1820, a little more than eight 
 months after the adoption of the Missouri Compromise, 
 as instructions to the New York Senators to resist the 
 admission of Missouri as a slave-holding State, notwith- 
 standing the stipulations in the alleged compact. Now, 
 let me ask the Senator from New York by what author- 
 ity he declared and published in his speech that the act 
 of 1820 was a compact which could not be violated or 
 repudiated without a sacrifice of honor, justice and good 
 faith? Perhaps he will shelter himself behind the reso- 
 lutions of his State, which he presented this session, 
 branding this bill as a violation of plighted faith. 
 
 "Mr. Seward : Will the Senator allow me a word of 
 explanation ? 
 
 "Mr. Douglas : Certainly, with a great deal of pleas- 
 ure. 
 
 "Mr. Seward : I wish simply to say that the State 
 of New York, for now thirty years, has refused to make 
 any compact on any terms by which a concession should 
 be made for the extension of slavery. But, by the prac- 
 tical action of the Congress of the United States, com- 
 promises have been made, which it is held by the honor- 
 able Senator from Illinois, and by the South, bind her 
 against her consent and approval. And therefore she 
 stands throughout this whole matter upon the same 
 ground — always refusing to enter into a compromise, 
 always insisting upon the prohibition of slavery within 
 the territories of the United States. But on this occa- 
 sion we stand here with a contract which has stood for 
 thirty years, notwithstanding our protest and dissent, 
 and in which there is nothing left to be fulfilled except 
 that part which is to be beneficial to us. All the rest 
 has been fulfilled, and we stand here with our old opin- 
 ions on the whole subject of compromise, demanding 
 fulfillment on the part of the South, which the Senator 
 from Illinois on the present occasion represents. 
 
 "Mr. Douglas: Mr. President, the Senator undoubt- 
 edly speaks for himself very frankly and very candidly. 
 
538 The True History of 
 
 "Mr. Seward : Certainly I do. 
 
 "Mr, Douglas: But I deny that on this point he 
 speaks for the State of New York. 
 
 "Mr. Seward: We shall see. 
 
 "Mr. Douglas : I will state the reason why I say so. 
 He has presented here resolutions of the State of New 
 York, which have been adopted this year, declaring the 
 act of March 6, 1820, to be a 'solemn compact.' 
 
 "I read from the second resolution : 
 
 "'But at the same time, duty to themselves and to 
 the other States of the Union demands that when an 
 effort is making to violate a solemn compact, whereby 
 the political power of the State, and the privileges as 
 well as the honest sentiments of its citizens, will be 
 jeoparded and invaded, they should raise their voice in 
 protest against the threatened infraction of their rights, 
 and declare that the negation or repeal by Congress of 
 the Missouri Compromise will be regarded by them as a 
 violation of right and of faith, and destructive of that 
 confidence and regard which should attach to the enact- 
 ments of the Federal legislature.' 
 
 "Mr. President, I can not let the Senator off on the 
 plea that I, for the sake of argument, in reply to him 
 and other opponents of this bill, have called it a com- 
 pact ; or that the South have called it a compact ; or 
 that other friends of Nebraska have called it a compact 
 which has been violated and rendered invalid. He and 
 his Abolition confederates have arraigned me for the 
 violation of a compact which, they say, is binding in 
 morals, in conscience, and honor. I have shown that the 
 legislature of New York, at its present session, has de- 
 clared it to be a 'solemn compact,' and that its repudia- 
 tion would be 'regarded by them as a violation of right, 
 and of faith, and destructive of confidence and regard.' 
 I have also shown that, if it be such a compact, the 
 State of New York stands self-condemned and self-con- 
 victed as the first to repudiate and violate it. 
 
 "But since the Senator has chosen to make an issue 
 
 I 
 
The Missouri Compromise and its Repeal. 539 
 
 with me in respect to the action of New York, with the 
 view of condemning my conduct here, I will invite the 
 attention of the Senator to another portion of these reso- 
 lutions. Referring to the fourteenth section of the Ne- 
 braska bill, the legislature of New York says : 
 
 " 'That the adoption of this provision would be in der- 
 ogation of the truth, a gross violation of plighted faith, 
 and an outrage and indignity upon the free States of the 
 Union, whose assent has been yielded to the admission 
 into the Union of Missouri and of Arkansas, with slavery, 
 in reliance upon the faithful observance of the provision 
 (now sought to be abrogated) , known as the Missouri 
 Compromise, whereby slavery was declared to be "for- 
 ever prohibited in all that territory ceded by France to 
 the United States, under the name of Louisiana, which 
 lies north of 36° 30' north latitude, not included within 
 the limits of the State" of Missouri.' 
 
 "I have no comment to make upon the courtesy and 
 propriety exhibited in this legitimate declaration, that a 
 provision in a bill, reported by a regular Committee of 
 the Senate of the United States, and known to be ap- 
 proved by three-fourths of the body, and which has since 
 received the sanction of their votes, is 'in derogation of 
 truth, a gross violation of plighted faith, and an outrage 
 and indignity,' etc. The opponents of this measure 
 claim a monopoly of all the courtesies and amenities, 
 which should be observed among gentlemen, and espe- 
 cially in the performance of official duties ; and I am free 
 to say that this is one of the mildest and most respectful 
 forms of expression in which they have indulged. But 
 there is a declaration in this resolution to which I wish 
 to invite the particular attention of the Senate and the 
 country. It is the distinct allegation that 'the free 
 States of the Union,' including New York, yielded their 
 'assent to the admission into the Union of Missouri and 
 Arkansas, with slavery, in reliance upon the faithful ob- 
 servance of the provision known as the Missouri Com- 
 promise.' 
 
540 The True History of 
 
 "Now, sir, since the Legislature of New York has gone 
 out of its way to arraign the Senate on matters of truth, 
 I will demonstrate that this paragraph contains two ma- 
 terial statements in direct 'derogation of truth.' I have 
 already shown beyond controversy, by the records of the 
 Legislature and by the Journals of the Senate, that New 
 York never did give 'her assent to the admission of Mis- 
 souri with slavery.' Hence, I must be permitted to say, 
 in the polite language of her own resolutions, that the 
 statement that 'New York yielded her assent to the ad- 
 mission of Missouri with slavery,' is in 'derogation of 
 truth;' and, secondly, the statement that 'such assent 
 was given in reliance upon the faithful observance of the 
 Missouri Compromise,' is equally 'in derogation of 
 truth.' New York never assented to the admission of 
 Missouri as a slave State, never observed its stipulations 
 as a compact, never has been willing to carry it out ; 
 but, on the contrary, has always resisted it, as I have 
 demonstrated by her own records. 
 
 "Mr. President, I have before me other journals, 
 records, and instructions, which prove that New York 
 was not the only free State that repudiated the Missouri 
 Compromise of 1820 within twelve months from its date. 
 I will not occupy the time of the Senate at this late 
 hour of the night by referring to them, unless some op- 
 ponent of the bill renders it necessary. In that event, I 
 may be able to place other Senators and their States in 
 the same unenviable position in which the Senator from 
 New York has found himself and his State. 
 
 "I think I have shown that to call the act of the 6th 
 of March, 1820, a compact, binding in honor, is to 
 charge the Northern States of this Union with an act of 
 perfidy unparalleled in the history of legislation or of 
 civilization. 
 
 "I do not deem it necessary to discuss the question 
 whether the conditions upon which Missouri was ad- 
 mitted were wise or unwise. It is sufficient for my 
 present purpose to remark that the 'fundamental condi- 
 
The Missouri Compromise and its Repeal. 541 
 
 tion' of her admission related to certain clauses in the 
 Constitution of Missouri in respect to the migration of 
 free negroes into that State ; clauses similar to those now 
 in force in the Constitutions of Illinois and Indiana, and 
 perhaps other States, causes similar to the provisions of 
 law in force at that time in many of the old States of the 
 Union, and, I will add, clauses which, in my opinion, 
 Missouri had a right to adopt under the Constitution of 
 the United States, It is no answer to this position to 
 say that those clauses in the Constitution of Missouri 
 were in violation of the Constitution. If they did con- 
 flict with the Constitution of the United States, they 
 were void ; if they were not in conflict, Missouri had a 
 right to put them there and to pass all laws necessary to 
 carry them into effect. Whether such conflict did exist 
 is a question which, by the Constitution, can only be de- 
 termined authoritatively by the Supreme Court of the 
 United States. Congress is not the appropriate and 
 competent tribunal to adjudicate and determine ques- 
 tions of conflict between the Constitution of a State and 
 that of the United States. Had Missouri been admitted 
 without any condition or restriction, she would have had 
 an opportunity of vindicating her Constitution and 
 rights in the Supreme Court, the tribunal created by the 
 Constitution for that purpose. 
 
 "By the condition imposed on Missouri, Congress not 
 only deprived that State of a right which she believed 
 she possessed under the Constitution of the United 
 States, but denied her the privilege of vindicating that 
 right in the appropriate and constitutional tribunals, by 
 compelling her, 'by a solemn public act,' to give an ir- 
 revocable pledge never to exercise or claim the right. 
 Therefore Missouri came in under a humiliating con- 
 dition — a condition not imposed by the Constitution of 
 the United States, and which destroys the principle of 
 equality which should exist, and by the Constitution 
 does exist, between all the States of this Union. This 
 inequality results from Mr. Clay's Compromise of 1821, 
 
542 The True History of 
 
 and is the principle upon which that compromise was 
 constructed. I own that the act is couched in general 
 terms and vague phrases, and therefore may possibly be 
 so construed as not to deprive the State of any right she 
 may possess under the Constitution. Upon that point I 
 wish only to say, that such a construction makes the 
 'fundamental condition' void, while the opposing con- 
 struction would demonstrate it to be unconstitutional. 
 I have before me the 'solemn public act' of Missouri to 
 this fundamental condition. Whoever will take the 
 trouble to read it will find it the richest specimen of 
 irony and sarcasm that has ever been incorporated into 
 a solemn public act. 
 
 "Sir, in view of these facts I desire to call the atten- 
 tion of the Senator from New York to a statement in his 
 speech, upon which the greater part of his argument 
 rested. His statement was, and is now being published 
 in every Abolition paper, and repeated by the whole 
 tribe of Abolition orators and lecturers, that Missouri 
 was admitted as a slave-holding State, under the act of 
 1820 ; while I have shown, by the President's proclama- 
 tion of August 10, 1821, that she was admitted in pur- 
 suance of the resolution of March 2, 1821. Thus it is 
 shown that the material point of this speech is contra- 
 dicted by the highest evidence — the record in the case. 
 The same statement, I believe, was made by the Senator 
 from Connecticut (Mr. Smith) , and the Senators from 
 Ohio (Mr. Chase and Mr. Wade) , and the Senator from 
 Massachusetts (Mr. Sumner) . Each of these Senators 
 made and repeated this statement, and upon the strength 
 of this erroneous assertion called upon us to carry into 
 effect the eighth section of the same act. The material 
 fact upon which their argument rested being over- 
 thrown, of course their conclusions are erroneous and 
 deceptive. 
 
 "Mr. Seward : I hope that the Senator will yield for 
 a moment, because I have never had so much respect for 
 him as I have to-night. 
 
 « 
 
The Missouri Compromise and its Repeal. 543 
 
 <{i 
 
 'Mr. Douglas : I see what course I have to pursue to 
 command the Senator's respect. I know now how to get 
 it. (Laughter.) 
 
 "Mr. Seward: Any man who meets me boldly com- 
 mands my respect. I say that Missouri would not have 
 been admitted at all into the Union by the United 
 States except upon the Compromise of 1820. When 
 that point was settled about the restriction of slavery, 
 and that all the rest of the Louisiana purchase, which is 
 now known as Nebraska, should be forever free from 
 slavery, Missouri adopted a constitution, which was 
 thought by the Northern States to infringe upon the 
 right of citizenship guaranteed by the Constitution of 
 the United States, which was a new point altogether ; 
 and upon that point debate was held, and upon it a new 
 compromise was made, and Missouri came into the 
 Union upon the agreement that, in regard to that 
 question, she submitted to the Constitution of the 
 United States, and so she was admitted into the Union. 
 
 "Mr. Douglas: Mr. President, I must remind the 
 Senator again that I have already proven that he was in 
 error in stating that the North objected to the admission 
 of Missouri merely on account of the free-negro clause 
 in her Constitution. I have proven by the votes that 
 the North objected to her admission because she toler- 
 ated slavery ; this objection was sustained by the North 
 by a vote of nearly two to one. He can not shelter him- 
 self, therefore, under the free-negro dodge so long as 
 there is a distinct vote of the North objecting to her ad- 
 mission because, in addition to complying with the act 
 of 1820, she did not also prohibit slavery, which was the 
 only consideration that the South was to have for agree- 
 ing to the prohibition of slavery in the territories. 
 Then, having deprived the Senator, by conclusive evi- 
 dence from the records, of that pretext, what do I drive 
 him to? I compel him to acknowledge that a new com- 
 promise was made. 
 
 "Mr. Seward : Certainly there was. 
 
544 The True History of 
 
 "Mr. Douglas : Then, I ask, why was it made? Be- 
 cause the North would not carry out the first one. And 
 the best evidence that the North did not carry out the 
 first one is the Senator's admission that the South was 
 compelled to submit to a new one. Then, if there was 
 a new compromise made, did Missouri come in under the 
 new one or the old one? 
 
 "Mr. Seward : Under both. 
 
 "Mr. Douglas : This is the first time, in this debate, it 
 has been intimated that Missouri came in under two 
 acts of Congress. The Senator did not allude to the 
 resolutions of 1821 in his speech ; none of the opponents 
 of this bill have said it. But it is now admitted that 
 she did not come into the Union under the act of 1820 
 alone. She had been voted out under the first com- 
 promise, and this vote compelled her to make a new one, 
 and she came in under the new one ; and yet the Senator 
 from New York, in his speech, declared to the world 
 that she came in under the first one. This is not an 
 immaterial question. His whole speech rests upon that 
 misapprehension or misstatement of the record. 
 
 "Mr. Seward : You had better say misapprehension. 
 
 "Mr. Douglas: Very well; we will call it by that 
 name. His whole argument depends upon that misap- 
 prehension. After stating that the act of 1820 was a 
 compact, and that the North performed its part of it in 
 good faith, he arraigns the friends of this bill for pro- 
 posing to annul the eighth section of the act of 1820 
 without first turning Missouri out of the Union, in order 
 that slavery may be abolished therein by an act of Con- 
 gress. He says to us, in substance : 'Gentlemen, if you 
 are going to rescind the compact, have respect for that 
 great law of morals, of honesty, and of conscience, which 
 compels you first to surrender the consideration which 
 you have received "under the compact. " ' I concur with 
 him in regard to the obligation to restore the considera- 
 tion when a compact is rescinded. And, inasmuch as 
 the prohibition in the territories north of 36° 30' was 
 
The Missouri Compromise and its Repeal. 545 
 
 obtained, according to his own statement, by an agree- 
 ment to admit Missouri as a slave-holding State on an 
 equal footing with the original States, 'in all respects 
 whatsoever,' as specified in the first section of the act of 
 1820 ; and, inasmuch as Missouri was refused admission 
 under said act, and was compelled to submit to a new 
 compromise in 1821, and was then received into the 
 Union on a fundamental condition of inequality, I call 
 on him and his Abolition confederates to restore the con- 
 sideration which they have received, in the shape of a 
 prohibition of slavery north of 36° 30', under a com- 
 promise which they repudiated, and refused to carry 
 into effect. I call on them to correct the erroneous 
 statement in respect to the admission of Missouri, and 
 to make restitution of the consideration by voting for 
 this bill. I repeat that this is not an immaterial state- 
 ment. It is the point upon which the Abolitionists rest 
 their whole argument. They could not get up a show 
 of pretext against the great principle of self-government 
 involved in this bill, if they could not repeat all the 
 time, as the Senator from New York did in his speech, 
 that Missouri came into the Union with slavery, in con- 
 formity to the compact which was made by the act of 
 1820, and that the South, having received the considera- 
 tion, is now trying to cheat the North out of her part of 
 the benefits. I have proven that, after Abolitionism has 
 gained its point, so far as the eighth section of the act 
 prohibited slavery in the territories, Missouri was de- 
 nied admission by Northern votes until she entered into 
 a compact by which she was understood to surrender 
 an important right now exercised by several States of the 
 Union. 
 
 "Mr. President, I did not wish to refer to these things. 
 I did not understand them fully in all their bearings at 
 the time I made my first speech on this subject ; and, so 
 far as I was familiar with them, I made as little refer- 
 ence to them as was consistent with my duty ; because 
 35 
 
546 The True History of 
 
 it was a mortifying reflection to me, as a Northern man, 
 that we had not been able, in consequence of the Aboli- 
 tion excitement at the time, to avoid the appearance of 
 bad faith in the observance of legislation, which has 
 been denominated a compromise. There were a few 
 men then, as there are now, who had the moral courage 
 to perform their duty to the country and the Constitu- 
 tion, regardless of consequences personal to themselves. 
 There were ten Northern men who dared to perform 
 their duty to the country and the Constitution, regard- 
 less of consequences personal to themselves. There 
 were ten Northern men who dared to perform their duty 
 by voting to admit Missouri into the Union on an equal 
 footing with the original States, and with no other re- 
 striction than that imposed by the Constitution. I am 
 aware that they were abused and denounced as we are 
 now — that they were branded as dough-faces — traitors to 
 freedom, and to the section of the country whence they 
 came. 
 
 "Mr. Geyer : They honored Mr. Lanman, of Connec- 
 ticut, by burning him in effigy. 
 
 "Mr. Douglas : Yes, sir; these Abolitionists honored 
 Mr. Lanman in Connecticut just as they are honoring 
 me in Boston, and other places, by burning me in 
 effigy. 
 
 "Mr. Cass : It will do you no harm. 
 
 "Mr. Douglas: Well, sir, I know it will not; but 
 why this burning in effigy? It is the legitimate conse- 
 quence of the address which was sent forth to the world 
 by certain Senators whom I denominated, on a former 
 occasion, as the Abolition confederates. , The Senator 
 from Ohio presented here the other day a resolution — he 
 says unintentionally, and I take it so — declaring that 
 every Senator who advocated this bill was a traitor to 
 his country, to humanity, and to God ; and even he 
 seemed to be shocked at the results of his own advice 
 when it was exposed. Yet he did not seem to know that 
 it was, in substance, what he had advised in his address. 
 
The Missouri Compromise and its Repeal. 547 
 
 over his own signature, when he called upon the people 
 to assemble in public meetings, and thunder forth their 
 indignation at the criminal betrayal of precious rights ; 
 when he appealed to ministers of the gospel to desecrate 
 their holy calling, and attempt to influence passions, and 
 fanaticism, and prejudice against Senators who would 
 not consider themselves very highly complimented by 
 being called his equals? And, yet, when the natural 
 consequences of his own action and advice came back 
 upon him, and he presents them here, and is called to 
 an account for the indecency of the act, he professes his 
 profound regret and surprise that any thing should have 
 occurred which could possibly be deemed unkind or dis- 
 respectful to any member of this body ! 
 
 "Mr, Sumner: I rise merely to correet the Senator 
 in a statement in regard to myself, to the effect that I 
 had said that Missouri came into the Union under the 
 act of 1820, instead of the act of 1821. I forbore to 
 designate any particular act under which Missouri came 
 into the Union, but simply asserted, as the result of the 
 long controversy with regard to her admission, and as 
 the end of the whole transaction, that she was received 
 as a slave State ; and that on being so received, whether 
 sooner or later, whether under the act of 1820 or 1821, 
 the obligations of the compact were fixed — irrevocably 
 fixed — so far as the South is concerned. 
 
 "Mr. Douglas: The Senator's explanation does not 
 help him at all. He says he did not state under what 
 act Missouri came in ; but he did say, as I understood 
 him, that the act of 1820 was a compact ; and that, ac- 
 cording to that compact, Missouri was to come in with 
 slavery, provided slavery should be prohibited in certain 
 territories, and did come in in pursuance of the com- 
 pact. He now uses the word 'compact.' To what com- 
 pact does he allude? Is it not to the act of 1820? If 
 he did not, what becomes of his conclusion that the 
 eighth section of that act is irrepealable? He will not 
 venture to deny that his reference was to the act of 
 
548 The True History of 
 
 1820. Did he refer to the joint resolution of 1821, 
 under which Missouri was admitted? If so, we do not 
 propose to repeal it. We admit that it was a compact, 
 and that its obligations are irrevocably fixed. But that 
 joint resolution does not prohibit slavery in the territo- 
 ries. The Nebraska bill does not propose to repeal it, or 
 impair its obligations in any way. Then, sir, why not 
 take back your correction, and admit that you did mean 
 the act of 1820 when you spoke of irrevocable obliga- 
 tions and compacts? Assuming, then, that the Senator 
 meant what he is now unwilling either to admit or 
 deny, even while professing to correct me, that Missouri 
 came in under the act of 1820, I aver that I have 
 proven that she did not come into the Union under that 
 act. I have proven that she was refused admission 
 under that alleged compact. I have, therefore, proven 
 incontestably that the material statement upon which his 
 argument rests is wholly without foundation, and une- 
 quivocally contradicted by the record. 
 
 "Sir, I believe I may say the same of every speech 
 which has been made against the bill, upon the ground 
 that it impaired the obligations of compacts. There 
 has not been an argument against the measure, every 
 word of which, in regard to the faith of compacts, is 
 not contradicted by the public records. What I com- 
 plain of is this : the people may think that a Senator, 
 having the laws and journals before him, to which he 
 could refer, would not make a statement in contraven- 
 tion of those records. They make the people believe 
 these things, and cause them to do great injustice to 
 others, under the delusion that they have been wronged, 
 and their feelings outraged. Sir, this address did for a 
 time mislead the whole country. It made the legis- 
 lature of New York believe that the act of 1820 was a 
 compact which it would be disgraceful to violate ; and, 
 acting under that delusion, they framed a series of reso- 
 lutions, which, if true and just, convict the State of an 
 act of perfidy and treachery unparalleled in the history 
 
The Missouri Compromise and its Repeal. 549 
 
 of free governments. You see, therefore, the conse- 
 quences of these misstatements. You degrade your 
 own States, and induce the people, under the impression 
 that they have been injured, to get up a violent crusade 
 against those whose fidelity and truthfulness will in the 
 end command their respect and admiration. In conse- 
 quence of arousing passions and prejudices, I am now 
 to be found in effi.gj, hanging by the neck, in all the 
 towns where you have the influence to produce such a 
 result. In all these excesses the people are yielding to 
 an honest impulse, under the impression that a grievous 
 wrong has been perpetrated. You have had your day 
 of triumph. You have succeeded in directing upon the 
 heads of others a torrent of insult and calumny from 
 which even you shrink with horror, when the fact is ex- 
 posed that you have become the conduits for conveying 
 it into this hall. In your State, sir (addressing himself 
 to Mr. Chase) , I find that I am burnt in effigy in your 
 Abolition towns. All this is done because I have pro- 
 posed, as it is said, to violate a compact ! Now, what 
 will those people think of you when they find out that 
 you have stimulated them to these acts, which are dis- 
 graceful to your party, and disgraceful to your cause, 
 under a misrepresentation of the facts, which misrepre- 
 sentation you ought to have been aware cf, and which 
 should never have been made? 
 
 "Mr. Chase : Will the Senator from Illinois permit 
 me to say a few words? 
 
 "Mr. Douglas: Certainly. 
 
 "Mr. Chase: Mr. President, I certainly regret that 
 any thing has occurred in my State which should be 
 otherwise than in accordance with the disposition which 
 I trust I have ever manifested, to treat the Senator from 
 Illinois with entire courtesy. I do not wish, however, 
 to be understood, here or elsewhere, as retracting any 
 statement which I have made, or being unwilling to re- 
 assert that statement when it is directly impeached. I 
 regard the admission of Missouri, and the facts of the 
 
550 The True History of 
 
 transaction connected with it, as constituting a compact 
 between the two sections of the country, a part of which 
 was fulfilled in the admission of Missouri, another part 
 in the admission of Arkansas, and other parts of which 
 have been fulfilled in the admission of Iowa, and the 
 organization of Minnesota, but which yet remains to be 
 fulfilled in respect to the Territory of Nebraska, and 
 which, in my judgment, will be violated by the repeal 
 of the Missouri prohibition. That is my judgment. I 
 have no quarrel with Senators who differ with me ; but, 
 upon the whole facts of the transaction, however, I have 
 not changed my opinion at all, in consequence of what 
 has been said by the honorable Senator from Illinois. I 
 say that the facts of the transaction taken together, and 
 as understood by the country for more than thirty years, 
 constitute a compact binding in moral force ; though, as 
 I have always said, being embodied in a legislative 
 act, it may be repealed by Congress if Congress sees fit. 
 
 "Mr. Douglas: Mr. President, I am sorry that the 
 Senator from Ohio has repeated the statement that Mis- 
 souri came in under the compact which he says was 
 made by the Act of 1820. How many times have I to 
 disprove this statement ? Does not the vote to which I 
 have referred show that such was not the case ? Does 
 not the fact that there was a necessity for a new com- 
 promise show it? Have I not proven it three times 
 over ; and is it possible that the Senator from Ohio will 
 repeat it in the face of the record, with the vote staring 
 him in the face, and with the evidence which I have 
 produced? Does he suppose he can make his own peo- 
 ple believe that his statement ought to be credited in 
 opposition to the solemn record? I am amazed that 
 the Senator should repeat the statement again unsus- 
 tained by the fact, by the record, and by the evidence, 
 and overwhelmed by the whole current and weight of 
 the testimony which I have produced. 
 
 •■'The Senator says also that he never intended to do 
 me injustice, and he is sorry that the people of his 
 
The Missouri Compromise and its Repeal. 551 
 
 State have acted in the manner to which I have referred. 
 Sir, did he not say in the same document to which I 
 have ah'eady alluded, that I was engaged, with others, 
 in 'a criminal betrayal of precious rights' in an 
 'atrocious plot?' Did he not say that I and others were 
 guilty of 'meditated bad faith?' Are not these his 
 exact words? Did he not say that 'servile demagogues' 
 might make the people believe certain things or attempt 
 to do so? Did he not say every thing calculated to pro- 
 duce and bring upon my head all the insults to which 
 I have been subjected publicly and privately — not even 
 excepting the insulting letters which I have received 
 from his constituents, rejoicing at my domestic bereave- 
 ments, and praying that other and similar calamities 
 may befall me? All these have resulted from that Ad- 
 dress. I expected such consequence when I first saw 
 it. In it he called upon the preachers of the Gospel 
 to prostitute the sacred desk in stimulating excesses ; 
 and then, for fear that the people would not know who 
 it was that was to be insulted and calumniated, he told 
 them, in a postscript, that Mr. Douglas was the author 
 of all this iniquity, and that they ought not to allow 
 their rights to be made the hazard of a presidential 
 game ! After having used such language, he says he 
 meant no disrespect — he meant nothing unkind ! He 
 was amazed that I said in my opening speech that there 
 was any thing offensive in this Address, and he could 
 not suffer himself to use harsh epithets, or to impugn a 
 gentleman's motives ! No ! Not he ! After having de- 
 liberately written all these insults, impugning motive 
 and character, and calling upon our holy religion to 
 sanctify the calumny, he could not think of loisng his 
 dignity by bandying epithets, or using harsh and dis- 
 respectful terms ! 
 
 "Mr. President, I expected all that has occurred, and 
 more than has come, as the legitimate result of that 
 Address. The things to which I referred are the natural 
 consequences of it. The only revenge I seek is to ex- 
 
652 The True History of 
 
 pose the authors, and leave them to bear, as best they 
 may, the just indignation of an honest community, when 
 the people discover how their sympathies and feelings 
 have been outraged, by making them the instruments in 
 performing such desperate acts. Sir, even in Boston I 
 have been hung in effigy. I may say that I expected it 
 to occur even there, for the Senator from Massachusetts 
 lives there. He signed his name to that Address, and 
 for fear the Boston Abolitionists would not know that it 
 was he, he signed it 'Charles Sumner, Senator from 
 Massachusetts.' The first outrage was in Ohio, where 
 the Address was circulated under the signature of 
 'Salmon P. Chase, Senator from Ohio.' The next came 
 from Boston — the same Boston, sir, which under the di- 
 rection of the same leaders, closed Faneuil Hall to the 
 immortal Webster in 1850, because of his support of the 
 compromise measures of that year, which all now con- 
 fess have restored peace and harmony to a distracted 
 country. Yes, sir ; even Boston, so glorious in her 
 early history ; Boston, around whose name so many his- 
 torical associations cling to gratify the heart and exalt 
 the pride of every American, could be led astray by 
 Abolition misrepresentations so far as to deny a hearing 
 to her own great man who has shed so much glory upon 
 Massachusetts and her metropolis ! I know that Boston 
 now feels humiliated and degraded by the act. And, 
 sir (addressing himself to Mr. Sumner) , you will re- 
 member that when you came into the Senate, and 
 sought an opportunity to put forth your Abolition in- 
 cendiarism, you appealed to our sense of justice by the 
 sentiment 'Strike, but hear me first.' But when Mr. 
 Webster went back in 1850 to speak to his constituents, 
 in his own self-defense, to tell the truth, and to expose 
 his slanderers, you would not hear him, but you struck 
 first! 
 
 "Again, sir, even Boston, with her Faneuil Hall con- 
 secrated to liberty, was so far led astray by Abolitionism, 
 that when one of her gallant sons, gallant by his own 
 
The Missouri Compromise and its Repeal. 553 
 
 glorious deeds, inheriting a heroic Revolutionary name, 
 had given his life to his country, upon the bloody field 
 of Buena Vista, and when his remains were brought 
 home, even that Boston, under Abolition preaching, 
 denied him a decent burial, because he lost his life in 
 vindicating his country's honor upon the Southern 
 frontier? Even the name of Lincoln could not secure 
 for him a decent interment, because Abolitionism fol- 
 lows a patriot beyond the grave. (Applause in the 
 galleries.) 
 
 "The Presiding Officer (Mr. Mason in the chair): 
 Order must be preserved. 
 
 "Mr. Douglas: Mr. President, with these facts 
 before me, how could I hope to escape the fate which 
 had followed these great and good men? While I had 
 no right to hope that I might be honored as they had 
 been under Abolition auspices, have I not a right to be 
 proud of the distinction and the association? Mr. Presi- 
 dent, I regret these disgressions. I have not been able 
 to follow the line of argument which I had marked out 
 for myself, because of the many interruptions. I do not 
 complain of them. It is fair that gentlemen should 
 make them, inasmuch as they have not the opportunity 
 of replying ; hence, I have yielded the floor, and pro- 
 pose to do so cheerfully, whenever any Senator intimates 
 that justice to him or his position requires him to say 
 any thing in reply. 
 
 "Returning to the point from which I was diverted : 
 
 "I think I have shown, that if the act of 1820, called 
 the Missouri Compromise, was a compact, it was vio- 
 lated and repudiated by a solemn vote of the House of 
 Representatives in 1821, within eleven months after it 
 was adopted. It was repudiated by the North by a ma- 
 jority vote, and the repudiation was so complete and 
 successful as to compel Missouri to make a new compro- 
 mise, and she was brought into the Union under the 
 new compromise of 1821, and not under the act of 1820. 
 This reminds me of another point made in nearly all the 
 
554 The True History of 
 
 speeches against this bill, and, if I recollect right, it was 
 alluded to in the Abolition manifesto; to which, I re- 
 gret to say, I had occasion to refer so often. I refer 
 to the significant hint that Mr, Clay was dead before 
 any one dared to bring forward a proposition to undo 
 the greatest work of his hands. The Senator from New 
 York (Mr. Seward) has seized upon this insinuation, 
 and elaborated it, perhaps, more fully than his com- 
 peers ; and now the Abolition press suddenly, and, as if 
 by miraculous conversion, teems with eulogies upon Mr. 
 Clay and his Missouri Compromise of 1820. 
 
 "Now, Mr. President, does not each of these Senators 
 know that Mr. Clay was not the author of the act of 1820? 
 Do chey not know that he disclaimed it in 1850 in this 
 body? Do they not know that the Missouri restriction 
 did not originate in the House, of which he was a mem- 
 ber? Do they not know that Mr. Clay never came into 
 the Missouri controversy as a compromiser until after 
 the Compromise of 1820 was repudiated, and it became 
 necessary to make another? I dislike to be compelled 
 to repeat what I have conclusively proven, that the 
 compromise which Mr, Clay effected was the act of 1821, 
 under which Missouri came into the Union, and not the 
 act of 1820. Mr. Clay made that compromise after you 
 had repudiated the first one. How, then, dare you to 
 call upon the spirit of that great and gallant statesman 
 to sanction your charge of bad faith against the South 
 on this question? 
 
 "Mr. Seward : Will the Senator allow me a moment? 
 
 "Mr. Douglas : Certainly. 
 
 "Mr. Seward : In the year of 1851 or 1852, I think 
 1851, a medal was struck, in honor of Henry Clay, of 
 gold, which cost a large sum of money, which contained 
 eleven acts of the life of Henry Clay. It was presented 
 to him by a committee of citizens of New York, by whom 
 it had been made. One of the eleven acts of his life 
 which was celebrated on that medal, which he accepted, 
 
The Missouri Compromise and its Repeal. 655 
 
 was the Missouri Compromise of 1820. This is my 
 answer. 
 
 "Mr. Douglas : Are the words 'of 1820' upon it? 
 
 "Mr. Seward: It commemorates the Missouri Com- 
 promise. 
 
 "Mr. Douglas: Exactly. I have seen that medal; 
 and my recollection is that it does not contain the words 
 'of 1820.' One of the great acts of Mr. Clay was the 
 Missouri Compromise, but what was the Missouri Com- 
 promise? Of course, the one which Henry Clay made, 
 the one which he negotiated, the one which brought 
 Missouri into the Union, and which settled the contro- 
 versy. That was the act of 1821, and not the act of 
 1820. It tends to confirm the statement which I have 
 made. History is misread and misquoted, and these 
 statements have been circulated and disseminated broad- 
 cast through the country, concealing the truth. Does 
 not the Senator know that Henry Clay, when occupying 
 that seat in 1850 (pointing to Mr. Clay's chair) , in his 
 speech of the 6th of February of that year, said that 
 nothing had struck him with so much surprise as the 
 fact that historical circumstances soon passed out of 
 recollection ; and he instanced, as a case in point, the 
 error of attributing to him the act of 1820. (Mr. 
 Seward nodded assent.) The Senator from New York 
 says that he does remember that Mr. Clay did say so. 
 If so, how is it, then, that he presumes now to rise and 
 quote that medal as evidence that Henry Clay was the 
 author of the act of 1820? 
 
 "Mr. Seward: I answer the Senator in this way: 
 That Henry Clay, while he said he did not disavow or 
 disapprove of that compromise, transferred the merit of 
 it to others who were more active in procuring it than 
 he, while he had enjoyed the praise and the glory which 
 were due from it. 
 
 "Mr. Douglas: To that I have only to say that it 
 can not be the reason ; for Henry Clay, in that same 
 speech, did take to himself the merit of the Compromise 
 
1 
 
 556 The True History of 
 
 of 1821, and hence it could not have been modesty which 
 made him disavow the other. He said he did not know 
 whether he had voted for the act of 1820 or not ; but he 
 supposed that he had done so. He furthermore said 
 that it did not originate in the House of which he was 
 a member, and that he never did approve of its prin- 
 ciples ; but that he may have voted, and probably did 
 vote, for it, under the pressure of the circumstances. 
 
 "Now, Mr. President, as I have been doing justice to 
 Mr. Clay on this question, perhaps I may as well do 
 justice to another great man, who was associated with 
 him in carrying through the great measures of 1850, 
 which mortified the Senator from New York so much, 
 because they defeated his purpose of carrying on the 
 agitation. I allude to Mr. Webster. The authority of 
 his great name has been quoted for the purpose of prov- 
 ing that he regarded the Missouri act as a compact, an 
 irrepealable compact. Evidently the distinguished Sena- 
 tor from Massachusetts (Mr. Everett) supposed he was 
 doing Mr. Webster entire justice when he quoted the 
 passage which he read from Mr. Webster's speech of the 
 7th of March, 1850, when he said that he stood upon the 
 position that every part of the American continent was 
 fixed for freedom or for slavery by irrepealable law. 
 The Senator says, that by the expression 'irrepealable 
 law,' Mr. Webster meant to include the Compromise of 
 1820. Now, I will show that this was not Mr. Webster's 
 meaning — that he was never guilty of the mistake of 
 saying that the Missouri act of 1820 was an irrepealable 
 law. Mr. Webster said in that speech, that every foot 
 of territory in the United States was fixed as to its char- 
 acter for freedom or slavery by an irrepealable law. He 
 then inquired if it was not so in regard to Texas? He 
 went on to prove that it was ; because, he said, there 
 was a compact in express terms between Texas and the 
 United States. He said the parties were capable of con- 
 tracting, and that there was a valuable consideration ; 
 and hence, he contended, that in that case there was a 
 
The Missouri Compromise and its Repeal. 557 
 
 contract binding in honor and morals and law ; and that 
 it was irrepealable without a breach of faith. 
 
 "He went on to say : 
 
 " 'Now, as to California and New Mexico, I hold slav- 
 ery to be excluded from those territories by a law even 
 superior to that which admits and sanctions it in Texas 
 — I mean the law of nature — of physical geography— 
 the law of the formation of the earth.' 
 
 "That was the irrepealable law which he said pro- 
 hibited slavery in the Territories of Utah and New 
 Mexico. He went on to speak of the prohibition of 
 slavery in Oregon, and he said it was an 'entirely use- 
 less, and, in that connection, senseless proviso.' 
 
 "He went further, and said : 
 
 " 'That the whole territory of the States in the United 
 States, or in the newly acquired territory of the United 
 States, has a fixed and settled character, now fixed and 
 settled by law, which can not be repealed in the case of 
 Texas without a violation of public faith, and can not be 
 repealed by any human power in regard to California 
 or New Mexico ; that under one or other of these laws, 
 every foot of territory in the States, or in the territories, 
 has now received a fixed and decided character.' 
 
 "What irrepealable laws? 'One or the other' of those 
 which he had stated. One was the Texas compact ; 
 the other, the law of nature and physical geography ; 
 and he contended that one or the other fixed the charac- 
 ter of the whole American Constitution for freedom or 
 for slavery. He never alluded to the Missouri Compro- 
 mise, unless it was by the allusion to the Wilmot proviso 
 in the Oregon bill, and there he said it was a useless and 
 a senseless thing? Because it was re-enacting the law 
 of God ; because slavery had already been prohibited by 
 physical geography. Sir, that was the meaning of Mr. 
 Webster's speech. My distinguished friend from Massa- 
 chusetts (Mr. Everett) , when he reads the speech again, 
 will be utterly amazed to see how he fell into such an 
 egregious error as to suppose that Mr. Webster had so 
 
558 The True History of 
 
 far fallen from his high position as to say that the Mis- 
 souri act of 1820 was an irrepealable law. 
 
 "What law did he refer to when he spoke of 'one or 
 the other of these laws?' He had named but two — the 
 Texas compact and the law of nature, of climate, and 
 physical geography, which excluded slavery. He had 
 mentioned none other ; and yet he says 'one or other' 
 prohibited slavery in all the States or territories — thus 
 including Nebraska, as well as Utah and New Mexico. 
 
 "Mr. Everett: That was not drawn in question 
 at all. 
 
 "Mr. Douglas : Then if it was not drawn in question, 
 the speech should not have been quoted in support of 
 the Missouri Compromise. It is just what I complain of, 
 that, if it was not thus drawn in question, that use ought 
 not to have been made of it. Now, Mr. President, it is 
 well known that Mr. "Webster supported the Compromise 
 measures of 1850, and the principle involved in them, 
 of leaving the people to do as they pleased upon this 
 subject. I think, therefore, that I have shown that 
 these gentlemen are not authorized to quote the name 
 either of Mr. Webster or Mr. Clay in support of the po- 
 sition which they take, that this bill violates the faith of 
 compacts. Sir, it was because Mr. Webster went for 
 giving the people in the territories the right to do as 
 they pleased upon the subject of slavery, and because 
 he was in favor of carrying out the Constitution in re- 
 gard to fugitive slaves, that he was not allowed to speak 
 in Faneuil Hall. 
 
 "Mr. Everett : That was not my fault. 
 
 "Mr. Douglas : I know it was not ; but I say it was 
 because he took that position — it was because he did not 
 go for a prohibition policy — it was because he advocated 
 the same principles which I now advocate — because he 
 went for the same provisions in the Utah bill which I 
 now sustain in this bill, that Boston Abolitionists turned 
 their back upon him, just as they burnt me in effigy. 
 Sir, if identity of principle — if identity of support as 
 
I 
 
 The Missouri Compromise and its Repeal. 559 
 
 friends — if identity of enemies — fix Mr. Webster's posi- 
 tion, his authority is certainly with us, and not with 
 the Abolitionists. I have a right, therefore, to have the 
 sympathies of his Boston friends with me, as I sym- 
 pathized with him when the same principle was in- 
 volved. 
 
 "Mr. President, frequent reference has been made in 
 debate to the admission of Arkansas as a slave-holding 
 State, as furnishing evidence that the Abolitionists and 
 Free-soilers, who have recently become so much enam- 
 ored with the Missouri Compromise, have always been 
 faithful to its stipulations and implications. I will 
 show that the reference is unfortunate for them. When 
 Arkansas applied for admission in 1836, objection was 
 made in consequence of the provisions in her Constitu- 
 tion in respect to slavery. When the Abolitionists and 
 Free-soilers of that day were arraigned for making that 
 objection, upon the ground that Arkansas was south of 
 36° 30', they replied that the act of 1820 was never a 
 compromise, much less a compact, imposing any obliga- 
 tion upon the successors of those who passed the act to 
 pay any more respect to its provisions than to any other 
 enactment of ordinary legislation. I have the debates 
 before me, but will occupy the attention of the Senate 
 only to read one or two paragraphs. Mr. Hand, of New 
 York, in opposition to the admission of Arkansas as a 
 slave-holding State, said : 
 
 " 'I am aware it will be, as it has already been, con- 
 tended that by the Missouri Compromise, as it has been 
 preposterously termed. Congress has parted with its right 
 to prohibit the introduction of slavery into the territory 
 south of 36° 30' north latitude.' 
 
 "He acknowledged that by the Missouri Compromise, 
 as he said it was preposterously termed, the North was 
 stopped from denying the right to hold slaves south of 
 that line ; but, he added : 
 
 " 'There are, to my mind, insuperable objections to 
 the soundness of that proposition.' 
 
i\ 
 I 
 
 560 The True History of 
 
 "Here they are : 
 
 " 'In the first place, there was no compromise or 
 compact whereby Congress surrendered any power, or 
 yielded any jurisdiction ; and in the second place, if it 
 had done so, it was a mere legislative act, that could not 
 bind their successors ; it would be subject to a repeal at 
 the will of any succeeding Congress.' 
 
 "I give these passages as specimens of the various 
 speeches made in opposition to the admission of Arkan- 
 sas by the same class of politicians who now oppose the 
 Nebraska bill, upon the ground that it violates a solemn 
 compact. So much for the speeches. Now for the vote. 
 The Journal, which I hold in my hand, shows that forty- 
 nine Northern votes were recorded against the admission 
 of Arkansas. 
 
 "Yet, sirs, in utter disregard — and charity leads me 
 to hope, in profound ignorance — of all these facts, gen- 
 tlemen are boasting that the North always observed the 
 contract, never denied its validity, never wished to vio- 
 late it ; and they have even referred to the cases of the 
 admission of Missouri and Arkansas as instances of their 
 good faith. 
 
 "Now, is it possible that gentlemen could suppose 
 these things could be said and distributed in their 
 speeches without exposure? Did they presume that, in- 
 asmuch as their lives were devoted to slavery agitation, 
 whatever they did not know about the history of that 
 question did not exist? I am willing to believe, I hope 
 it may be the fact, that they were profoundly ignorant 
 of all these records, all these debates, all these facts, 
 which overthrow every position they have assumed. I 
 wish the Senator from Maine (Mr. Fessenden), who de- 
 livered his maiden speech here to-night, and who made 
 a great many sly stabs at me, had informed himself upon 
 the subject before he repeated all these groundless as- 
 sertions, I can excuse him for the reason that he has 
 been here but a few days, and, having enlisted under 
 the banner of the Abolition confederates, was unwise 
 
The Missouri Compromise and its Repeal. 561 
 
 and simple enough to believe that what they had pub- 
 lished could be relied upon as stubborn facts. He may 
 be an innocent victim. I hope he can have the excuse 
 of not having investigated the subject. I am willing to 
 excuse him on the ground that he did not know what he 
 was talking about, and it is the only excuse which I can 
 make for him. I will say, however, that I do not think 
 he was required, by his loyalty to the Abolitionists, 
 to repeat every disreputable insinuation which they 
 made. Why did he throw into his speech that foul 
 innuendo about 'a Northern man with Southern princi- 
 ples,' and then quote the Senator from Massachusetts 
 (Mr. Sumner) as his authority? Aye, sir, I say that 
 foul insinuation. Did not the Senator from Massachu- 
 setts, who first dragged it into this debate, wish to have 
 the public understand that I was known as a Northern 
 man with Southern principles? Was not that the al- 
 lusion? If it was, he availed himself of a cant phrase 
 in the public mind, a violation of the truth of history. 
 I know of but one man in this country who ever made 
 it a boast that he was 'a Northern man with Southern 
 principles,' and he (turning to Mr. Sumner) was your 
 candidate for the Presidency in 1848. (Applause in the 
 galleries.) 
 
 "The presiding officer (Mr. Mason) : Order, order. 
 
 "Mr. Douglas: If his sarcasm was intended for 
 Martin Van Buren, it involves a family quarrel, with 
 which I have no disposition to interfere. 1 will only 
 add that I have been able to discover nothing in the 
 present position or recent history of that distinguished 
 statesman which would lead me to covet the soubriquet 
 by which he is known — 'A Northern man with Southern 
 principles.' 
 
 "Mr. President, the Senators from Ohio and Massa- 
 chusetts (Mr. Chase and Mr. Sumner) have taken the 
 liberty to impeach my motives in bringing forward this 
 measure. I desire to know by what right they arraign 
 36 
 
562 The True History of 
 
 me, or by what authority they impute to me other and 
 different motives than those which I have assigned. I 
 have shown from the record that I advocated and voted for 
 the same principles and provisions in the Compromise of 
 1850, which are embraced in this bill. I have proven 
 that I put the same construction upon these measures 
 immediately after their adoption that is given in the re- 
 port which I submitted this session from the Committee 
 on Territories. I have shown that the Legislature of 
 Illinois, at its first session, after these measures were 
 enacted, passed resolutions approving them, and declar- 
 ing that the same great principle of self-government 
 should be incorporated into all territorial organizations. 
 Yet, sir, in the face of these facts, these Senators have 
 the hardihood to declare that this was all an 'after- 
 thought' on my part, conceived for the first time during 
 the present session ; and that the measure is offered as a 
 bid for Presidential votes ! Are they capable of conceiv- 
 ing that an honest man can do a right thing from worthy 
 motives? I must be permitted to tell those Senators 
 that their experience in seeking political preferment 
 does not furnish a safe rule by which to judge the char- 
 acter and principles of other Senators ! I must be per- 
 mitted to tell the Senator from Ohio that I did not ob- 
 tain my seat in this body either by a corrupt bargain or 
 a dishonorable coalition ! I must be permitted to remind 
 the Senator from Massachusetts that I did not enter into 
 any combinations or arrangements by which my char- 
 acter, my principles, and my honor, were set up at public 
 auction or private sale in order to procure a seat in the 
 Senate by any such means ! 
 
 "Mr. Weller : But there are some men whom I know 
 that did. 
 
 "Mr. Chase (to Mr. Weller) : Do you say that I came 
 here by a bargain? 
 
 "The presiding officer, Mr. Mason: Order must be 
 preserved in the Senate. 
 
 "Mr. Weller : I will explain what I mean. 
 
The Missouri Compromise and its Repeal. 563 
 
 "The presiding officer : The Senator from Illinois is 
 entitled to the floor. 
 
 "Mr. Dodge, of Iowa : I call both the Senator from 
 California and the Senator from Ohio to order. 
 
 "Mr. Douglas: I can not yield the floor until I get 
 through. I say, then, there is nothing which author- 
 ized that Senator to impugn my motives, 
 
 "Mr. Chase: Will the Senator from Illinois allow 
 me? Does he say that I came into the Senate by a cor- 
 rupt bargain? 
 
 "Mr. Douglas: I can not permit the Senator to 
 change the issue. He has arraigned me on the charge 
 of seeking high political station by unworthy means. I 
 tell him there is nothing in my history which would 
 create the suspicion that I came into the Senate by a 
 corrupt bargain or a disgraceful coalition. 
 
 "Mr. Chase: Whoever says that I came here by a 
 corrupt bargain states what is false. 
 
 "Mr. Weller: Mr. President — 
 
 "Mr. Douglas: My friend from California will wait 
 till I get through, if he pleases. 
 
 "The presiding officer : The Senator from Illinois is 
 entitled to the floor. 
 
 "Mr. Douglas: It will not do for the Senator from 
 Ohio to return ofifensive expressions after what I have 
 said and proven. Nor can I permit him to change the 
 issue, and hereby divert public attention from the enor- 
 mity of his offense, in charging me with unworthy mo- 
 tives, while performing a high public duty, in obedience 
 to the expressed wish and known principles of my 
 State. I choose to maintain my own position, and 
 leave the public to ascertain, if they do not under- 
 stand, how and by what means he was elected to the 
 Senate. 
 
 "Mr. Chase: If the Senator will allow me, I will 
 say, in reply to the remarks which the Senator has just 
 made, that I did not understand him as calling upon 
 me for an explanation of the statement which he said 
 
564 The True History of 
 
 was made in regard, to a presidential bid. The exact 
 statement in the Address was this — it was a question 
 addressed to the people : 'Would they allow their dear- 
 est rights to be made the hazards of a presidential 
 game?' That was the exact expression, Now, sir, it is 
 well known that all these great measures in the country 
 are influenced, more or less, by reference to the great 
 public canvasses which are going on from time to time. 
 I certainly did not intend to impute to the Senator from 
 Illinois — and I desire always to do justice — in that any 
 improper motive. I do not think it is an unworthy am- 
 bition to desire to be a President of the United States. 
 I do not think that the bringing forward of a measure 
 with reference to that object would be an improper 
 thing if the measure be proper in itself. I differ from 
 the Senator in my judgment of the measure. I do not 
 think the measure is a right one. In that I express the 
 judgment which I honestly entertain. I do not condemn 
 his judgment ; I do not make, and I do not desire to 
 make, any personal imputations upon him in reference 
 to a great public question. 
 
 "Mr. Weller: Mr. President — 
 
 "Mr. Douglas : I can not allow my friend from Cali- 
 fornia to come into the ring at this time, for this is my 
 particular business. I may let him in after a while. 
 I wish to examine the explanation from the Senator 
 from Ohio, and see whether I ought to accept it as 
 satisfactory. He has quoted the language of the Ad- 
 dress. It is undeniable that that language clearly 
 imputed to me the design of bringing forward this bill 
 with a view of securing my own election to the presi- 
 dency. Then, by way of excusing himself for imputing 
 to me such a purpose, the Senator says that he does not 
 consider it 'an unworthy ambition;' and hence he says 
 that in making the charge he does not impugn my 
 motives. I must remind him, that in additien to that 
 insinuation, he only said, in the same Address, that my 
 bill was a 'criminal betrayal of precious rights ;' he only 
 
The Missouri Compromise and its Repeal. 565 
 
 said it was 'an atrocious plot against freedom and hu- 
 manity ;' he only said that it was 'meditated bad faith ;' 
 he only spoke significantly of 'servile demagogues ;' he 
 only called upon the preachers of the Gsopel and the 
 people at their public meetings to denounce and resist 
 such a monstrous iniquity. In saying all this, and 
 much of the same sort, he now assures me, in the 
 presence of the Senate, that he did not mean the charge to 
 imply an 'unworthy ambition ;' that it was not intended 
 as a 'personal imputation' upon my motives or char- 
 acter — and that he meant 'no personal disrespect' to me 
 as the author of the measure. In reply, I will content 
 myself with the remark, that there is a very wide differ- 
 ence of opinion between the Senator from Ohio and 
 myself in respect to the meaning of words, and espe- 
 cially in regard to the line of conduct, which, in a public 
 man, does not constitute an unworthy ambition. 
 
 "Mr. Weller : Now, I ask my friend from Illinois to 
 give way to me for a few moments. 
 
 "Mr. Douglas : I yield the floor. 
 
 "Mr. Weller : I made a remark which no doubt gave 
 cause to this digression in the argument of the Senator 
 from Illinois. I presume that I know the circumstances 
 under which the Senator from Ohio was elected to this 
 body. I intimated them in the expression of opinion 
 which I gave a few moments ago. I do not know that 
 the Senator was elected here under a compromise, or an 
 agreement or an express bargain. I entertain no per- 
 sonal feeling of ill-will against that Senator, however 
 little respect I may have for his political opinions. I 
 propose to state some facts, however, connected with his 
 election, and leave others to decide how far they consti- 
 tute a bargain. 
 
 "Mr. Douglas : I do not complain of my friend from 
 California for interposing in the manner he has ; 
 for I see that it was very appropriate in him to do so. 
 But, sir, the Senator from Massachusetts comes up with 
 a very bold front, and denies the right of any man to 
 
566 The True History of 
 
 put him on defense for the manner of his election. He 
 says it is contrary to his principles to engage in personal 
 assaults. If he expects to avail himself of the benefit of 
 such a plea, he should act in accordance with his pro- 
 fessed principles, and refrain from assaulting the char- 
 acter and impugning the motives of better men than 
 himself. Every body knows that he came here by a 
 coalition or combination between political parties hold- 
 opposite and hostile opinions. But it is not my purpose 
 to go into the morality of the matters involved in his 
 election. The public know the history of that notorious 
 coalition, and have formed its judgment upon it. It will 
 not do for the Senator to say that he was not a party to 
 it, for he hereby betrays a consciousness of the im- 
 morality of the transaction, without acquitting himself 
 of the responsibilities which justly attach to him. As 
 well as might the receiver of stolen goods deny any 
 responsibility for the larceny, while luxuriating in the 
 proceeds of the crime, as the Senator avoid the conse- 
 quences resulting from the mode of his election, while 
 he clings to the office. I must be permitted to remind 
 him of what he certainly can never forget, that when he 
 arrived here to take his seat for the first time, so firmly 
 were Senators impressed with the conviction that he 
 had been elected by dishonorable and corrupt means, 
 there were very few who, for a long time, could deem it 
 consistent with personal honor, to hold private inter- 
 course with him. So general was that impression, that 
 for a long time he was avoided and shunned as a person 
 unworthy of the association of gentlemen. Gradually, 
 however, these injurious impressions were worn away by 
 his bland manners and amiable deportment ; and I re- 
 gret that the Senator should now, by a violation of all 
 the rules of courtesy and propriety, compel me to refresh 
 his mind upon these unwelcome reminiscences. 
 
 "Mr. Chase : If the Senator refers to me, he is stating a 
 fact of which I have no knowledge at all. I came here — 
 
 "Mr. Douglas: I was not speaking of the Senator 
 
Tlie Missouri Compromise and its Repeal. 567 
 
 from Ohio, but of his confederate in slander, the Senator 
 from Massachusetts (Mr. Sumner) . I have a word now 
 to say to the other Senator from Ohio (Mr. Wade) . On 
 the day when I exposed this Abolition Address, so full of 
 slanders and calumnies, he rose and stated, that although 
 his name was signed to it he had never read it ; and so 
 willing was he to indorse an Abolition document, that 
 he signed it in blank, without knowing what it con- 
 tained. 
 
 "Mr. Wade : I have always found them true. 
 
 "Mr. Douglas: He stated that from what I had ex- 
 posed of its contents he did not hesitate to indorse every 
 word. In the same speech he said that in Ohio a negro 
 was as good as a white man ; with the avowal that he 
 did not consider himself any better than a free negro. 
 I have only to say that I should not have noticed it if 
 none but free negroes had signed it : 
 
 "The Senator from New York (Mr. Seward), when I 
 was about to call him to account for his slanderous pro- 
 duction, promptly denied that he ever signed the docu- 
 ment. Now, I say, it has been circulated with his name 
 attached to it ; then I want to know of the Senators 
 who sent out the document, who forged the name of the 
 Senator from New York? 
 
 "Mr. Chase : I am glad that the Senator has asked 
 that question. I have only to say, in reference to that 
 matter, that I have not the slightest knowledge in regard 
 to the manner in which various names were appended 
 to that document. It was prepared to be signed, and 
 was signed, by the gentlemen here who are known as 
 independent Democrats, and how any other names came 
 to be added to it is more than I can tell. 
 
 "Mr. Douglas: It is not a satisfactory answer, for 
 those who confess to the preparation and publication of 
 a document filled with insult and calumny, with forged 
 names attached to it for the purpose of imparting to it 
 respectability, to interpose a technical denial that they 
 committed a crime. Somebody did forge other people's 
 
568 The True History of 
 
 names to the document. The Senators from Ohio and 
 Massachusetts (Mr. Chase and Mr. Sumner) plead guilty 
 to the authorship and publication ; upon them rests the 
 responsibility of showing who committed the forgery. 
 
 "Mr. President, I have done with these personal mat- 
 ters. I regret the necessity which compelled me to devote 
 so much time to them. All I have done and said has 
 been in the way of self defense, as the Senate can bear 
 me witness. 
 
 "Mr. President, I have also occupied a good deal of 
 time in exposing the cant of these gentleman about the 
 sanctity of the Missouri Compromise, and the dishonor 
 attached to the violation of plighted faith. I have ex- 
 posed these matters in order to show that the object of 
 these men is to withdraw from public attention the real 
 principle involved in the bill. They well know that the 
 abrogation of the Missouri Compromise is the incident 
 and not the principle of the bill. They well understand 
 that the report of the committee and the bill propose to 
 establish the principle in all territorial organizations, 
 that the question of slavery shall be referred to the 
 people to regulate for themselves, and that such legisla- 
 tion should be had as was necessary to remove all legal 
 obstructions to the free exercise of this right by the 
 people. 
 
 "This eighth section of the Missouri act standing in 
 the way of this great principle must be rendered inoper- 
 ative and void, whether expressly repealed or not, in 
 order to give the people the power of regulating their 
 own domestic institutions in their own way, subject only 
 to the Constitution. 
 
 "Now, sir, if these gentlemen have entire confidence 
 in the correctness of their own position, why do they 
 not meet the issue boldly and fairly, and controvert the 
 soundness of this great principle of popular sovereignity 
 in obedience to the Constitution? They know full well 
 that this was the principle upon which the colonies sepa- 
 rated from the crown of Great Britain ; the principle 
 
The Missouri Compromise and its Repeal. 569 
 
 upon •which the battles of the Revolution were fought, 
 and the principle upon which our Republican system 
 was founded. They can not be ignorant of the fact, 
 that the Revolution grew out of the assertion of the 
 right on the part of the imperial government to interfere 
 with the internal affairs and domestic concerns of the 
 colonies. In this connection I will invite attention to a 
 few extracts from the instructions of the different colo- 
 nies to their delegates in the Continental Congress, with 
 a view of forming such a Union as would enable them to 
 make successful resistance to the efforts of the crown to 
 destroy the fundamental principle of all free government 
 by interfering with the domestic affairs of the colonies. 
 
 "I will begin with Pennsylvania, whose devotion to 
 the principles of human liberty and the obligations of 
 the Constitution has acquired for her the proud title of 
 the Keystone in the arch of Republican States. In her 
 instructions is contained the following reservation : 
 
 " 'Reserving to the people of this colony the sole and 
 exclusive right of regulating the internal government 
 and police of the same.' 
 
 "And, in a subseqent instruction, in reference to sup- 
 pressing the British authority in the colonies, Pennsyl- 
 vania uses the following emphatic language : 
 
 " 'Unanimously declare our willingness to concur 
 in a vote of the Congress declaring the united colonies 
 free and independent States, provided the forming the 
 government and the regulation of the internal police of 
 this colony be always reserved to the people of the said 
 colony.' 
 
 "Connecticut, in authorizing her delegates to vote for 
 the Declaration of Independence, attached to it the fol- 
 lowing condition : 
 
 " 'Saving that the administration of government, and 
 the power of forming governments for, and the regula- 
 tion of the internal concerns and police of each colony, 
 ought to be left and remain to the respective colonial 
 legislatures.' 
 
570 The True History of 
 
 "New Hampshire annexed this proviso to her instruc- 
 tions to her delegates to vote for Independence : 
 
 " 'Provided the regulation of our internal police be 
 under the direction of our own assembly.' 
 
 "New Jersey imposed the following condition : 
 
 " 'Always observing, that whatever plan of confeder- 
 acy you enter into, the regulating the internal police of 
 this province is to be reserved to the colonial legisla- 
 ture.' 
 
 "Maryland gave her consent to the Declaration of 
 Independence upon the condition contained in this pro- 
 viso : 
 
 " 'And that said colony will hold itself by the resolu- 
 tions of a majority of the united colonies in the prem- 
 ises, provided the sole and exclusive right of regulating 
 the internal government and police of that colony be re- 
 served to the people thereof. ' 
 
 "Virginia annexed the following condition to her in- 
 structions to vote for the Declaration of Independence : 
 
 " 'Provided that the power of forming government 
 for, and the regulations of the internal concerns of the 
 colony, be left to the respective colonial legislatures.' 
 
 "I will not weary the Senate by multiplying evidence 
 upon this point. It is apparent that the Declaration of 
 Independence had its origin in the violation of that 
 great fundamental principle which secured to the people 
 of the colonies the right to regulate their own domestic 
 affairs in their own way ; and that the Revolution re- 
 sulted in the triumph of that principle and the recogni- 
 tion of the right asserted by it. Abolitionism proposes 
 to destroy the right and extinguish the principle for 
 which our forefathers waged a seven years' bloody war, 
 and upon which our whole system of free government is 
 founded. They not only deny the application of this 
 principle to the territories, but insist upon fastening the 
 prohibition upon all the States to be formed out of those 
 territories. Therefore, the doctrine of the Abolition- 
 ists — the doctrine of the opponents of the Nebraska and 
 
The Missouri Compromise and its Repeal. 571 
 
 Kansas bill, and of the advocates of the Missouri restric- 
 tion — demand congressional interference with slavery, 
 not only in the territories, but in all the new States to be 
 formed therefrom. It is the same doctrine, when applied 
 to the territories and new States of this Union, which the 
 British government attempted to enforce by the sword 
 upon the American colonies. It is this fundamental prin- 
 ciple of self-government which constitutes the distinguish- 
 ing feature of the Nebraska bill. The opponents of the 
 principle are consistent in opposing the bill. I do not 
 blame them for their opposition. I only ask them to meet 
 the issue fairly and openly, by acknowledging that they are 
 opposed to the principle which it is the object of the bill 
 to carry into operation. It seems that there is no power 
 on earth, no intellectual power, no mechanical power, 
 that can bring them to a fair discussion of the true 
 issue. If they hope to delude the people, and escape 
 detection, for any considerable length of time, under 
 the catch words 'Missouri Compromise' and 'faith of 
 compacts,' they will find that the people of this country 
 have more penetration and intelligence than they have 
 given them credit for. 
 
 "Mr. President, there is an important fact connected 
 with this slavery regulation, which should never be lost 
 sight of. It has always arisen from one and the same 
 cause. Whenever that cause has been removed, the ag- 
 itation has ceased ; and whenever the cause has been re- 
 newed, the agitation has sprung into existence. That 
 cause is, and ever has been, the attempt on the part of 
 Congress to interfere with the question of slavery in the 
 territories and new States formed therefrom. Is it not 
 wise then to confine our action within the sphere of our 
 legitimate duties, and leave this vexed question to take 
 care of itself in each State and territory, according to 
 the wishes of the people thereof, in conformity to the 
 forms, and in subjection to the provisions of, the Consti- 
 tution ? 
 
 The opponents of the bill tell us that agitation is no 
 
572 The True History of 
 
 part of their policy ; that their great desire is peace and 
 harmony ; and they complain bitterly that I should have 
 disturbed the repose of the country by the introduction 
 of this measure ! Let me ask these professed friends of 
 peace, and avowed enemies of agitation, how the issue 
 could have been avoided? They tell me that I should 
 have let the question alone ; that is, that I should have 
 left Nebraska unorganized, the people unprotected, and 
 the Indian barrier in existence, until the swelling tide of 
 emigration should burst through, and accomplish by vio- 
 lence what it is the part of wisdom and statesmanship to 
 direct and regulate by law. How long could you have 
 postponed action with safety? How long could you 
 maintain that Indian barrier, and restrain the onward 
 march of civilization, Christianity, and free government 
 by a barbarian wall? Do you suppose that you could 
 keep that vast country a howling wilderness in all time to 
 come, roamed over by hostile savages, cutting off all safe 
 communication between our Atlantic and Pacific posses- 
 sions? I tell you that the time for action has come, and 
 can not be postponed. It is a case in which the 'let- 
 alone' policy would precipitate a crisis which must inev- 
 itably result in violence, anarchy, and strife. 
 
 "You can not fix bounds to the onward march of this 
 great and growing country. You can not fetter the 
 limbs of the young giant. He will burst all your chains. 
 He will expand, and grow, and increase, and extend 
 civilization, Christianity, and liberal principles. Then, 
 sir, if you can not check the growth of the country in 
 that direction, is it not the part of wisdom to look the 
 danger in the face, and provide for an event which you 
 can not avoid. I tell you, sir, you must provide for con- 
 tinuous lines of settlement from the Mississippi Valley 
 to the Pacific Ocean. And in making this provision you 
 must decide upon what principles the territories shall 
 be organized ; in other words, whether the people shall 
 be allowed to regulate their domestic institutions in their 
 own way, according to the provisions of this bill, or 
 
The Missouri Compromise and its Repeal. 573 
 
 whether the opposite doctrine of congressional interfer- 
 ence is to prevail. Postpone it, if you will ; but when- 
 ever you do act, this question must be met and decided. 
 
 "The Missouri Compromise was interference; the 
 Compromise of 1850 was non-interference, leaving the 
 people to exercise their rights under the Constitution, 
 The Committee on Territories were compelled to act on 
 this subject. I, as their chairman, was bound to meet 
 the question. I chose to take the responsibility, regard- 
 less of consequences personal to myself. I should have 
 done the same thing last year, if there had been time ; 
 but we know, considering the late period at which the 
 bill then reached us from the House, that there was not 
 sufficient time to consider the question fully and to pre- 
 pare a report upon the subject. I was, therefore, per- 
 suaded by friends to allow the bill to be reported to the 
 Senate, in order that such action might be taken as 
 should be deemed wise and proper. The bill was never 
 taken up for action — the last night of the session having 
 been exhausted in debate on a motion to take up the bill. 
 This session, the measure was introduced by my friend 
 from Iowa (Mr. Dodge) , and referred to the Territorial 
 Committee during the first week of the session. We 
 have had abundance of time to consider the subject ; it 
 was a matter of pressing necessity, and there was no ex- 
 cuse for not meeting it directly and fairly. We were 
 compelled to take our position upon the doctrine either 
 of intervention or non-intervention. We chose the latter 
 for two reasons : first, because we believed that the prin- 
 oiple was right ; and, second, because it was the princi- 
 ple adopted in 1850, to which the two great political 
 parties of the country were solemnly pledged. 
 
 "There is another reason why I desire to see this prin- 
 ciple recognized as a rule of action in all time to come. 
 It will have the effect to destroy all sectional parties and 
 sectional agitations. If, in the language of the report of 
 the committee, you withdraw the slavery question from 
 the halls of Congress and the political arena, and com- 
 
674 The True History of 
 
 mit it to the arbitrament of those who are immediately 
 interested in and alone responsible for its consequences, 
 there is nothing left out of which sectional parties can 
 be organized. It never was done, and never can be 
 done, on the bank, tariff, distribution, or any other 
 party issue which has existed, or may exist after this 
 slavery question is withdrawn from politics. On every 
 other political question these have always supporters 
 and opponents in every portion of the Union — in each 
 State, county, village, and neighborhood — residing to- 
 gether in harmony and good-fellowship, and combating 
 each other's errors in a spirit of kindness and friend- 
 ship. These differences of opinion between neighbors 
 and friends, and the discussions that grow out of them, 
 and the sympathy which each feels with the advocates 
 of his own opinions in every portion of this wide-spread 
 Republic, adds an overwhelming and irresistible moral 
 weight to the strength of the Confederacy. Affection 
 for the Union can never be alienated or diminished by 
 any other party issues than those which are joined upon 
 sectional or geographical lines. "When the people of the 
 North shall all be rallied under one banner, and the whole 
 South marshaled under another banner, and each sec- 
 tion excited to frenzy and madness by hostility to the 
 institutions of the other, then the patriot may well 
 tremble for the perpetuity of the Union. Withdraw 
 the slavery question from the political arena, and re- 
 move it to the States and territories, each to decide for 
 itself, such a catastrophe can never happen. Then you 
 will never be able to tell, by any Senator's vote for or 
 against any measure, from what State or section of the 
 Union he comes. 
 
 "Why, then, can we not withdraw this vexed question 
 from politics? Why can we not adopt the principle of 
 this bill as a rule of action in all new territorial organ- 
 izations? Why can we not deprive these agitators of 
 their vocation, and render it impossible for Senators to 
 come here upon bargains on the slavery question? I 
 
The Missouri Compromise and its Repeal. 675 
 
 believe that the peace, the harmony, and perpetuity of 
 the Union require us to go back to the doctrines of the 
 Revolution, to the principles of the Constitution, to the 
 principles of the Compromise of 1850, and leave the 
 people, under the Constitution, to do as they see proper 
 in respect to their own internal affairs. 
 
 "Mr. President, I have not brought this question for- 
 ward as a Northern man or as a Southern man. I am 
 unwilling to recognize such divisions and distinctions. 
 I have brought it forward as an American Senator, rep- 
 resenting a State which is true to this principle, and 
 which has approved of my action in respect to the Ne- 
 braska bill. I have brought it forward not as an act of 
 justice to the South more than to the North. I have 
 presented it especially as an act of justice to the people 
 of those territories, and of the States to be formed 
 therefrom, now and in all time to come, I have nothing 
 to say about Northern rights or Southern rights. I 
 know of no such divisions or distinctions under the 
 Constitution. The bill does equal and exact justice to 
 the whole Union, and every part of it ; it violates the 
 rights of no State or territory ; but places each on a 
 perfect equality, and leaves the people thereof to the 
 free enjoyment of all their rights under the Constitu- 
 tion. 
 
 "Now, sir, I wish to say to our Southern friends, that 
 if they desire to see this great principle carried out, now 
 is their time to rally around it, to cherish it, preserve it, 
 make it the rule of action in all future time. If they 
 fail to do it now, and thereby allow the doctrine of in- 
 terference to prevail, upon their heads the consequences 
 of that interference must rest. To our Northern friends, 
 on the other hand, I desire to say, that from this day 
 henceforward, they must rebuke the slander which has 
 been uttered against the South, that they desire to legis- 
 late slavery into the territories. The South has vindi- 
 cated her sincerity, her honor, on that point, by bring- 
 ing forward a provision negativing, in express terms, 
 
576 The True History of 
 
 any such effect as a result of this bill. I am rejoiced to 
 know that, while the proposition to abrogate the eighth 
 section of the Missouri act comes from a free State, the 
 proposition to negative the conclusion that slavery is 
 thereby introduced comes from a slave-holding State. 
 Thus, both sides furnish conclusive evidence that they 
 go for the principle, and the principle only, and desire 
 to take no advantage of any possible misconstruction. 
 
 "Mr. President, I feel that I owe an apology to the 
 Senate for having occupied their attention so long, and 
 a still greater apology for having discussed the question 
 in such an incoherent and desultory manner. But I 
 could not forbear to claim the right of closing this de- 
 bate. I thought gentlemen would recognize its pro- 
 priety when they saw the manner in which I was assailed 
 and misrepresented in the course of this discussion, and 
 especially by assaults still more disreputable in some 
 portions of the country. These assaults have had no 
 other effect upon me than to give me courage and energy 
 for a still more resolute discharge of duty. I say 
 frankly that, in my opinion, this measure will be as 
 popular at the North as at the South, when its pro- 
 visions and principles have been fully developed, and 
 become well understood. The people at the North are 
 attached to the principles of self-government, and you 
 can not convince them that that is self-government 
 which deprives a people of legislating for themselves, 
 and compels them to receive laws which are forced upon 
 them by a legislature in which they are not represented. 
 We are willing to stand upon this great principle of 
 self-government every-where ; and it is to us a proud 
 reflection that, in this whole discussion, no friend of the 
 bill has urged an argument in its favor which could 
 not be used with the same propriety in a free State as in 
 a slave State, and vice versa. No enemy of the bill has 
 used an argument which would bear repetition one mile 
 across Mason and Dixon's line. Our opponents have 
 dealt entirely in sectional appeals. The friends of the 
 
The Missouri Compromise and its Repeal. 577 
 
 bill have discussed a great principle of universal appli- 
 cation, which can be sustained by the same reasons, and 
 the same arguments, in every time and in every corner 
 of the Union." ^ 
 
 At ten minutes to five o'clock a. m., the vote was 
 taken on the Kansas-Nebraska bill, and it passed by 
 37 to 14. 
 
 " Fms — Messrs. Adams, Atchison, Badger, Bayard, 
 Benjamin, Brodhead, Brown, Butler, Cass, Clay, Daw- 
 son, Dixon, Dodge of Iowa, Douglas, Evans, Fitzpatrick, 
 Geyer, Gwin, Hunter, Johnson, Jones of Iowa, Jones of 
 Tennessee, Mason, Morton, Norris, Pettit, Pratt, Rusk, 
 Sebastian, Shields, Slidell, Stuart, Thompson of Ken- 
 tucky, Thomson of New Jersey, Toucey, Weller, and 
 Williams— 37. 
 
 "■Nays — Messrs. Bell, Chase, Dodge of "Wisconsin, 
 Fessenden, Fish, Foote, Hamlin, Houston, James, Sew- 
 ard, Smith, Sumner, Wade, Walker — 14."^ 
 
 At five minutes to five o'clock, after a continuous 
 session of seventeen hours, the Senate adjourned. 
 
 The bill was entitled, "An act to organize the Terri- 
 tories of Nebraska and Kansas," and was sent to the 
 House for its concurrence on March 7th. 
 
 On the 21st, on the motion of Mr. Cutting, of New 
 York, it was referred to the Committee of the Whole on 
 the State of the Union, which proceeding, its friends 
 claimed, was designed to kill the bill, as many others 
 were ahead of it and it could be delayed indefinitely, 
 but which Mr. Cutting insisted was only for the pur- 
 pose of its free discussion. He said : 
 
 "Mr. Speaker, I say that, if men at the North will 
 throw aside their fanaticism, their prejudice, and their 
 political aspirations, and will stop for a moment their 
 noisy agitation, and give to this bill a fair and candid 
 examination, they must irresistibly come to the conclu- 
 
 1 App. Cong. Globe, Vol. 29, pp. 329-338. 
 ' Cong. Globe, Vol. 28, p. 532. 
 
 37 
 
578 The True History of 
 
 sion that it is, in its results, and in the future, the best 
 measure for the North that has ever been tendered. It 
 is the South that will find, in the long run, that, so far 
 from being beneficial to them, it will be, when applied 
 to future acquisitions, the most fatal measure that, as 
 yet, has been proposed, assuming that the Badger pro- 
 viso is retained. It is eminently a measure favorable to 
 the North ; and, upon a full and fair discussion, in my 
 humble judgment, it can be proved to be so. 
 
 "But the gentleman from Illinois says that if the bill 
 be referred to the Committee of the Whole on the State 
 of the Union, we shall never be able to reach it. Why, 
 sir, we all know that when we are in Committee of _ the 
 Whole, by a bare simple majority of votes, every bill 
 upon the calendar preceding it may be laid aside until 
 we reach it ; and surely, if there is not strength enough 
 to command a majority in Committee of the Whole to 
 lay aside other bills for the purpose of taking up this 
 one, it is idle and a loss of time to discuss it else- 
 where. 
 
 "Sir, this has become a grave and serious question. 
 How it happened to become so, is a matter of no conse- 
 quence for us now to inquire or examine into, but since 
 its introduction into Congress, the North would seem to 
 have taken up arms, and to have become excited into a 
 sort of civil insurrection. Nevertheless, the principle of 
 non-intervention by Congress, in the matter of slavery, 
 and the right of the people of the territories to frame 
 their own laws, are sound and just. Therefore it is that 
 I desire full discussion, and above all, that when we 
 deal with a subject which enlists the sympathies and 
 feelings of men so deeply, we should avoid every thing 
 like the appearance of legislative management, or of 
 parliamentary tactics. They do not belong to a case of 
 this magnitude. They disparage it, and detract from 
 its character ; they give rise to unjust suspicions of un- 
 fair play, and there are enough of them abroad already. 
 
The Missouri Compromise and its Repeal. 579 
 
 I say, therefore, that we must have full, frank, and 
 candid discussions,"^ 
 
 Some very bitter passages occurred in reference to 
 this matter between Mr. Cutting and John C. Breckin- 
 ridge, of Kentucky ; and such were the differences 
 among the friends of the bill, or possibly its enemies, 
 that it was the 8th of May when Mr. Richardson, of 
 Illinois, finally got the Senate bill before the House, in 
 shape of a substitute for the House bill, but with the 
 Clayton amendment left out. 
 
 On the 22d of May it passed the House, by 113 to- 
 100— 
 
 "Yeas — Messrs. Abercombie, James C. Allen, Willis 
 Allen, Ashe, David J. Bailey, Thomas H. Bayley, 
 Barksdale, Barry, Bell, Bocock, Boyce, Breckinridge, 
 Bridges, Brooks, Caskie, Chrisman, Churchwell, Clark, 
 Clingman, Cobb, Colquitt, Cox, Cragie, Cumming, 
 Cutting, John C. Davis, Dawson, Disney, Dowdell, 
 Dunbar, Dunham, Eddy, Edmundson, John M. Elliot, 
 English, Faulkner, Florence, Goode, Green, Greenwood, 
 Gray, Hamilton, Sampson W. Harris, Hendricks, Henn, 
 Hibbard, Hill, Hillyer, Houston, Ingersol, George W. 
 Jones, J. Glancy Jones, Roland Jones, Kerr, Kidwell, 
 Kurtz, Lamb, Lane, Latham, Letcher, Lilly, Lindley, 
 Macdonald, McDougal, McNair, Maxwell, May, John G. 
 Miller, Smith Miller, Olds, Mordecai, Oliver, Orr, 
 Packer, John Perkins, Phelps, Phillips, Powell, Preston, 
 Ready, Reese, Richardson, Riddle, Robbins, Rowe, 
 Ruffin, Shannon, Shaw, Shower, Singleton, Samuel A. 
 Smith, William Smith, William R. Smith, George W. 
 Smith, Snodgrass, Frederick P. Stanton, Richard H. 
 Stanton, Alexander H. Stephens, Straub, Stuart, John 
 J. Taylor, Tweed, Vail, Vansant, Walbridge, Walker, 
 Walsh, Warren, Westbrook, Witte, Daniel B. Wright, 
 Hendrick B. Wright and Zollicoffer — 113. 
 
 "Nays — Messrs. Ball, Bank, Belcher, Bennett, Benson, 
 
 1 Cong. Globe, Vol. 28, p. 702. 
 
580 The True History of 
 
 Benton, Bugg, Campbell, Carpenter, Chandler, Crocker, 
 Cullom, Curtis, Thomas Davis, Dean, Dewitt, Dick, 
 Dickerson, Drum, Eastman, Edgerton, Edmands, 
 Thomas D. Elliot, Ellison, Etheridge, Everhart, Farley, 
 Fenton, Flagler, Fuller, Gamble, Giddings, Goodrich, 
 Grow, Aaron Harlan, Andrew J. Harlan, Harrison, 
 Hastings, Haven, Hiester, Howe, Hughes, Hunt, 
 Johnson, Jones, Kittredge, Knox, Lindsley, Lyon, 
 McCulloch, Mace, Matteson, Mayall, Meacham, Middles- 
 warth, Millson, Morgan, Morrison, Murray, Nichols, 
 Noble, Norton, Andrew Oliver, Parker, Peck, Peckham, 
 Pennington, Bishop Perkins, Pratt, Pringle, Puryear, 
 David Ritchie, Thomas Ritchey, Rogers, Russell, 
 Sabin, Sage, Sapp, Seymour, Simmons, Skelton, Ger- 
 ritt Smith, Hestor L. Stevens, Stratton, Andrew Stuart, 
 John L. Taylor, Nathaniel G. Taylor, Thurston, Tracy, 
 Trout, Upham, Wade, Walley, Elihu B. Washburne, 
 Isreal Washburn, Wells, John Wentworth, Tappan Went- 
 worth, Wheeler and Yates— 100."^ 
 
 The announcment of the vote was received amid great 
 excitement; and with "prolonged clapping of hands 
 and hissing, both in House and galleries." 
 
 The speeches in the House were so mnch in line with 
 those in the Senate that it seems unnecessary to give 
 them. One however, of Mike Walsh, of New York, 
 is so unique as to repay one for the trouble of read- 
 ing it. 
 
 "Sir, the history of the Missouri Compromise, I shall, 
 as I said before, not attempt to discuss, I care not what 
 proud array of names may be now brought forward to 
 give sancity to, or perpetuate its existence. It is enough 
 for me to know that its enactment was a violation, and 
 a gross one, of the Constitution of the United States. 
 If it were a compromise at all, it was a compromise of 
 that glorious instrument. 
 
 "The course pursued by the opponents of this bill is 
 
 » Cong. Globe, Vol. 28, p. 1254. 
 
The Missouri Compromise and its Repeal. 581 
 
 well known to every man throughout the land. The 
 hurried and imperious manner in which it was sent to 
 the Committee of the Whole, under the spur of the pre- 
 vious question, without an opportunity of saying one 
 word in reply — without the opportunity of asking a 
 single question — is well known. When this act was done, 
 then came the exultation of all the Federalists and Abo- 
 litionists, from one end of the country to the other, over 
 the supposed death of the Kansas and Nebraska bill. 
 
 "What a change came over the spirit of those gentle- 
 men, when they saw that bill quietly, without any osten- 
 tation, without any underhand, sneaking, or unmanly 
 advantage, rescued from the oblivion to which they 
 thought to have effectually consigned it ! What their 
 consternation when they heard a notice given here by a 
 gentleman who had the matter in charge, that on a cer- 
 tain day he would move to take it up ; and then heard 
 him state the purpose of the motion which he would 
 make ! 
 
 "What then was the course of the opponents of this 
 bill after it was extricated? Here we sat up for thirty- 
 six hours in a parliamentary contest unprecedented al- 
 most in our legislative history. 
 
 "I do not know but that the physical endurance of 
 that contest may have been a very great trial to some 
 gentlemen, but to one who had gone through the drilling 
 which I have, it was a source of infinite amusement. 
 (Laughter.) Sir, thirty-six hours to a person who had 
 slept in engine bunk houses, and gone through the 'cof- 
 fee and cake shop' test, seeing who could sit up the 
 latest and longest, it was a matter of refreshing amuse- 
 ment ; while I saw those who were the loudest and most 
 determined to sit it out, stretched out, and covered up 
 with cloaks and shawls. 
 
 "And we have heard about the trumpet voice of the 
 people. 
 
 "Sir, from whence come these trumpet-tones of the 
 people of which gentlemen speak? Trumpet-tones! 
 
582 The True History of 
 
 They would be far better characterized as penny-whistle 
 screeches. (Laughter.) I know the men who have 
 figured in these meetings at the North. I knew them 
 when they exhibited the same hostility to the annexation 
 of Texas. Others, who have known them longer than 
 I have, have known them in their opposition to every 
 single solitary stride that the Democratic party has made 
 in its onward march ; every effort it has made to advance 
 the prosperity and glory of this noble country ; other 
 men have known them in their inveterate opposition to 
 every square inch or acre of territory which has been 
 added to the Republic since the formation of the Govern- 
 ment. And, sir, this opposition now comes from the 
 same source. It comes from men whose object is to 
 revolutionize the land. I know them — a set of peanut 
 agitators and Peter Funk philanthropists. Revolution- 
 ize ! Why, ten thousand of them could not revolutionize 
 a barber shop or an oyster box. (Loud and prolonged 
 laughter.) Now, gentlemen, this is no subject of laugh- 
 ter. (Renewed laughter.) 
 
 "Whenever you hear of meetings called irrespective 
 of party, it simply means a congregation of all the fac- 
 tions throughout the land, who hate and detest the suc- 
 cess of the Democratic party. That is the whole sum 
 and substance of it. 
 
 "A man can be a man of education without being 
 drilled through college. It is far better to know the 
 men among whom one lives, than to know of men 
 who have been dead three thousand years. If I am de- 
 ficient in classical lore, I am pretty well booked up in 
 the rascality of the age in which we live. (Laughter.) 
 It makes no odds how a man gets up to the roof of a 
 house, whether he climbs by a ladder or goes up some 
 other way. I would not barter away all the practical 
 knowledge I have received in lumber and ship-yards for 
 all the Latin that was ever spoken in ancient Rome. I 
 had rather speak sense in one plain and expressive lan- 
 guage, than speak nonsense in fifty. (Laughter.) Mr. 
 
The Missouri Compromise and its Repeal. 583 
 
 Chairman, how much time have I left, as that appears 
 to be the standing question? " (Laughter) . 
 
 Being passed as a House-bill, necessitated the return 
 of the Kansas-Nebraska bill to the Senate for its con- 
 currence. 
 
 May 24th, Mr. Douglas stated : 
 
 "It is sufficient to state that it is precisely the bill which 
 passed the Senate some time ago, with the exception of 
 the amendment adopted upon the motion of the Senator 
 from Delaware (Mr. Clayton) . It being the Senate bill, 
 with that isolated exception, it presents no new issue, 
 no new question, and I therefore ask that the Senate 
 may proceed to vote upon it." ^ 
 
 Mr. Pearce, however, proposed to renew the Clayton 
 amendment — and a long debate ensued — which gave the 
 opponents of the bill another chance to speak against 
 it. Mr. Bell, of Tennessee, making a speech of great 
 length. To whom Mr. Toombs responded : 
 
 "The Senator knows that attempts have been made to 
 get up an excitement in this country on this subject. 
 He knows that there are men who have lived upon its 
 agitation, especially in the Northern portion of the 
 Union — men whose political existence is staked on this 
 agitation — whose desires and hopes can only be realized 
 by inflaming the public mind against it, and defeating 
 this measure. The Senator from Tennessee has become 
 their ally, working to this purpose, aiding in the same 
 result — to keep this prohibition on his own section, although 
 high-minded, noble, generous and patriotic men of the 
 North feel and see its injustice and labor for its over- 
 throw. The distinguished Senator from Michigan (Mr. 
 Cass) said it violated the Constitution of his country, 
 and when the question was presented to him, he felt it 
 to be his duty, for that reason, to wipe it from the 
 statute-book. I did not vote for its repeal in order to 
 get any advantage over any portion of this Republic. I 
 
 1 Cong. Globe, Vol. 28, p. 1300. 
 
684 The True History of 
 
 would scorn myself if I sought an unjust advantage of 
 any State in this Union. I claim no triumph over the 
 North ; I would have none. I claim it a triumph of the 
 Constitution, and of right, equality and justice to all the 
 freemen of this great Republic, throughout its utmost 
 limits, from ocean to ocean. I would ask nothing that 
 I would not grant ; I would take nothing from the 
 people of the North that they ought not to yield ; and 
 therefore, do not consider this bill a triumph of the 
 South against the North. Neither Northern right nor 
 Southern honor is violated by this measure. It is a 
 victory over error, injustice and wrong ; a triumph of 
 right, justice and the Constitution. For this triumph 
 the whole country is certainly not less indebted to the 
 genius, the eloquence, the statesmanship of the North 
 than the South ; and hapj)y is it for the country that it 
 was thus achieved. This great fact will spread far, and 
 wide, and deep, a feeling of brotherhood throughout this 
 great Republic, and even more than the act itself, tend 
 to perpetuate that sacred bond of true liberty, equality 
 and fraternity — the Constitution. This is my ardent de- 
 sire, my earnest prayer."' 
 
 The final vote was taken in the Senate on the 25th of 
 May — and the Kansas-Nebraska bill was the second 
 time victorious — passing by 33 to 13. 
 
 It was signed by President Pierce on the 30th, and so 
 became the law of the land. 
 
 ^ Cong. Globe, Vol. 28, p. 1311. 
 
The Missouri Compromise and its Repeal. 585 
 
 CHAPTER XXI. 
 
 After the Repeal — Historical mistakes in regard to it — Mr. Seward's al- 
 leged misstatement as to its origin and purpose — Hon. Montgomery- 
 Blair's letter to Mr. Secretary Welles — Henry C. "Whitney's ver- 
 sion — Letters from Hon. Robert L. Wilson and Thos. E. McCreery — 
 Mr. Dixon's letter to the St. Louis Republican denying Mr. Seward's 
 statement contained in the Blair letter — Major Whitney's version 
 shown to be incorrect and altogether illogical — Letter from Hon. 
 John C. Bullitt. 
 
 The writer has endeavored to give a faithful and true 
 account of the Missouri Compromise and its Repeal. 
 A repeal which was designed by its author to carry out 
 in good faith that great principle of non-intervention, 
 which was established in the legislation of 1850. 
 
 A principle that had been advocated by Mr. Clay with 
 all the force of his mighty intellect in 1820, when he op- 
 posed any restriction by Congress on Missouri, and said, 
 "Equality is equity — if you have the right to compel 
 Missouri to prohibit slavery, you have the same right to 
 compel Maine to admit slavery." 
 
 A principle that was supported by the vote of the same 
 great man, when, as Speaker, during the same session, 
 he gave the deciding vote which prevented the pro- 
 hibition of slavery by Congress in the Territory of Ar- 
 kansas. 
 
 A principle maintained by Mr. Calhoun in his cele- 
 brated Resolutions of 1838, and which Franklin Pierce, 
 then Senator from New Hampshire, voted for and sus- 
 tained with marked ability. 
 
 A principle recommended by Mr. Polk in his last 
 message to Congress, in 1848, as its best rule of con- 
 duct in regard to the newly acquired Mexican Territory. 
 
 A principle agreed on, in 1850, by Clay and Webster, 
 Whigs, and Cass and Douglas, Democrats, as the only 
 
686 The True History of 
 
 just, true, equitable and practicable principle ; the only 
 principle that could be embraced as a finality for the set- 
 tlement of the dangerous questions which so threatened 
 the peace and union of the States. 
 
 A principle which was indorsed in the platforms of 
 both Presidential parties in 1852, and which, in the ter- 
 ritorial organization of Kansas and Nebraska in 1854, 
 imperatively required the removal of the act of intervention, 
 of 1820, with the right of the settlers in those territories 
 to make their own local laws, and with the further right 
 of the people, of whatever section, to go there with their 
 property, of whatever description. 
 
 A principle that was indorsed most heartily by the 
 great body of the American people, and upon which, as 
 embodied in the Kansas-Nebraska bill, James Buchanan 
 was elected President in 1856 by a larger popular ma- 
 jority by several hundred thousand than was Taylor in 
 1848 or Pierce in 1852. 
 
 How this principle was abandoned by Mr. Buchanan 
 in his attempt to force the Le Compton pro-slavery Con- 
 stitution upon the people of Kansas against the expressed 
 will of the majority of her citizens ; how not only this 
 principle, but every principle of loyalty to the Constitu- 
 tion, was abandoned and violated by the Abolitionists 
 in their determined resistance to the execution of the 
 fugitive slave law which was a part of the contract of 
 the Constitution itself, and also in their encouragement 
 and approval of such raids on the South as that of John 
 Brown into Virginia, which was designed for the mur- 
 der of her citizens and the plunder of their property ; 
 how, by such and other violations not only of this great 
 principle, but of the principles of the Constitution itself, 
 the war between the States was brought about seven 
 years later, must be related by a hand and pen more 
 able than the writer's, by one whose sands of life have 
 not run so near the period allotted to mankind, after 
 which the days of the years of his life shall be "few and 
 full of trouble." 
 
. The Missouri Compromise and its Repeal. 587 
 
 How the once glorious Whig party melted away into 
 Know-nothingism or Abolitionism in the North ; and 
 Know-nothingism or the Democracy in the South ; how 
 the Republican party sprang into existence upon the 
 ruins of the Whig party of the North ; all the fierce con- 
 tests between the Union Democracy, under the lead of 
 Douglas, and the Republicans under the leadership of 
 Seward, Sumner, Chase and Lincoln; the defeat of 
 Douglas and the only real Union party by the defection 
 of Southern Democrats, in 1860, in the nomination of 
 John C. Breckinridge, whose every vote was one taken 
 from Douglas, the only candidate whose election could 
 have preserved peace ; the consequent election of Mr. 
 Lincoln, the Republican candidate, to the Presidency, 
 and, as the result, the secession of the Southern States ; 
 all this ought to be told more fully, more truly, and more 
 impartially than has yet been done. And whenever it is 
 told fully, impartially, and truly, it will be seen that it 
 was the abandonment of that great principle of non-in- 
 tervention, not only by those who had opposed it, but 
 by many of those also who had pledged themselves to 
 maintain it, that brought on the terrible war between 
 the States, which wrecked so many fortunes, cost so 
 many lives, and broke so many true hearts, at the North 
 as well as the South. 
 
 I have alluded in a previous chapter to the various 
 historical misstatements as to the origin of the repeal of 
 the Missouri Compromise. The plain statement given 
 by me in that chapter refutes all of the charges of plot, 
 intrigue, etc., as included in such works as that of Nico- 
 lay and Hay ; or of Mr. Blaine, who, I really think, 
 wished to do justice in his relation of the matter; but, 
 like Messrs. Nicolay and Hay and many others of his 
 party, he had accepted theories and statements at second 
 hand to such a degree that he honestly believed his own 
 representation of them to be correct. 
 
 There is one of these misstatements, however, which 
 is circumstantial in its details, personal in its reflection, 
 
588 The True History of 
 
 and slanderous in its character ; and it is to this one 
 that I wish to call especial attention. Whilst its author 
 may have been entirely innocent of any intention to 
 falsify, yet to state that which he does not know to be 
 true is, in the eye of the law, to be as guilty as to state 
 that which he knows is not true. 
 
 The misstatement to which I allude is made by Major 
 Henry C. Whitney in his book recently published, "Life 
 on the Circuit with Lincoln," and is as follows : 
 
 "It is a very singular fact, and one that attests in a 
 marked degree, that 
 
 ' God moves in a mysterious way, 
 His wonders to perform,' 
 
 that while the original Kansas-Nebraska bill was pend- 
 ing in the Senate, as originally presented by Senator 
 Douglas, without the repeal of the Missouri Compromise 
 as an element, that William H. Seward, then a Whig 
 Senator, approached his friend, Archibald Dixon, like- 
 wise a Whig Senator, and proposed to him that he ought 
 to offer an amendment repealing the Missouri Compro- 
 mise ; and that Dixon, after a little reflection, arose and 
 gave notice of his intention to do so on the first parlia- 
 mentary occasion. 
 
 "This alarmed Douglas, who came at once to Dixon's 
 seat and remonstrated with him, but in vain ; he be- 
 lieved, as all the Southern statesmen did, that the Mis- 
 souri Compromise was wrong, and ought to be repealed ; 
 and his will was inflexible, although no other Southerner 
 had ever before dreamed of disturbing the Compromise. 
 Even Atchison, the direct representative of the border 
 ruffian element, publicly stated that while it was wrong 
 in its inception, yet that it was a finality on that subject ; 
 and Douglas had stated that it was canonized in the 
 hearts of the people, and no hand should be so ruthless 
 as to disturb it. But when Douglas saw, as a sagacious 
 politician, that the solid South would of necessity sup- 
 port the measure, he desired to link his political destiny 
 
The Missouri Compromise and its Repeal. 589 
 
 with it and share its fate, which he thought would suc- 
 ceed, and install him in the Executive Mansion ; and so 
 it became a party and administration measure, and was 
 also the knell of slavery." 
 
 He then gives in a note the following extract from a 
 letter of Montgomery Blair : 
 
 "I shall never forget how shocked I was at his 
 (Seward) telling me that he put Archy Dixon, the 
 Whig Senator from Kentucky, in 1854, up to moving 
 the repeal of the Missouri Compromise as an amend- 
 ment to Douglas' first Kansas bill, and had, himself, 
 forced the repeal by that movement, and had thus 
 brought to life the Republican party. Dixon was to 
 'out-Herod-Herod' in the South, and he would 'out- 
 Herod-Herod' at the North. He did not contemplate 
 what followed. He did not believe in the passions he 
 excited, because he felt none himself."^ 
 
 The letter of Mr. Blair, from which this extract was 
 made, first appeared in the Galaxy of July, 1873, and 
 formed part of an article written by Mr. Ex-Secretary 
 Gideon AVelles on Hon. Wm. H. Seward, and was pub- 
 lished some months after Mr. Seward's death. It was 
 one of a series of articles on the members of Mr. Lin- 
 coln's Cabinet, and was not at all complimentary to Mr. 
 Seward, representing him as being exceedingly opposed 
 by nature to direct and straightforward action, and al- 
 ways preferring indirect methods. This was the tenor 
 of the article, as also of Mr. Blair's letter. 
 
 It happened that I had dropped my subscription to 
 the Galaxy six months before, so did not see the article 
 in it. None of the Kentucky papers alluded to it at all, 
 nor did the Evansville papers, doubtless out of their re- 
 spect for Mr. Dixon, for he had no warmer friends in 
 Kentucky than were many of the people of Indiana and 
 Illinois ; so that he heard nothing of the slander at all 
 
 * Life on the Circuit with Lincoln, pp. 380, 381. 
 
590 The True History of 
 
 until in November, when he received the following letter, 
 the writer of which has my everlasting gratitude : 
 
 "Cape Girardeau, Mo., Nov. 11, 1873. 
 "Hon. Archibald Dixon : 
 
 '■'■Dear Sir — I inclose an editorial from the St. Louis 
 Republican of the 5th instant, the latter part of which 
 relates to yourself, and believing that part has no 
 foundation in fact, I have taken the liberty of calling 
 your attention to it. Most obediently, 
 
 "RoBT. L. Wilson." 
 
 The editorial inclosed contained a very severe criticism 
 of Mr. Dixon in regard to Seward's statement as to the 
 origin of the repeal, saying that Seward had used Mr. 
 Dixon as a "cat's paw" in the business. 
 
 Some months before, Judge Niblack, of Indiana, an 
 old friend, had sent Mr. Dixon a paper ; he was sufifer- 
 ing so severely at the time, from an attack of neuralgia, 
 he had laid it away, and then forgotten it. Mr. Wilson's 
 letter recalled it; he said, "I expect that is what 
 Niblack sent me;" and sure enough there it was, the 
 whole article of Mr. Welles, copied from the Galaxy 
 into the Cincinnati Commercial. 
 
 When Mr. Dixon read it, he said, "This explains 
 McCreery's letter." 
 
 The letter referred to from Mr. McCreery was found 
 by me among Mr. Dixon's papers after his death, and I 
 give it verbatim : 
 
 "Washington, December 31-si. 
 
 '■'■My Dear Sir — Hon. Henry Wilson, of Massachusetts, 
 has very repeatedly urged me to address an inquiry to 
 you touching the proposition or amendment offered by 
 yourself to Kansas-Nebraska bill. 
 
 "Had Seward any thing to do by suggestion or other- 
 wise with the authorship of the amendment? Or did he 
 advise its introduction into the Senate? 
 
 "It may surprise you that such a matter should be 
 
The Missouri Compromise and its Repeal. 591 
 
 canvassed here in political circles ; but it is true, and as 
 your friend I advise you of the fact and await such an- 
 swer as you may choose to send. 
 
 "With respect and esteem, 
 
 "Thos. C. McCreery." 
 
 The date of the above letter, as to the year, is not 
 given, but I know it must have been before Mr. Seward's 
 death, as I remember distinctly Mr. Dixon's remark 
 upon reading it, which was, "I suppose Seward wants 
 to make some political capital for himself." The idea 
 of any thing as reflecting on his honor in connection 
 with it never occurred to him for a moment, I am sure, 
 as it did not to me. Upon finding the letter, I wrote 
 to Mr. McCreery, and received the following reply : 
 
 "Senate Chamber, Dec. 3, 1877. 
 "Mrs. Archibald Dixon, Henderson, Ky. : 
 
 ' 'Dear Madam — From your letter I conclude that you 
 intend to apply to the President for an appointment for 
 your son. The President has ten appointments at large, 
 which are generally bestowed upon the sons of deceased 
 army ofl&cers. I will not speculate upon the chance of 
 your son, but, if your application is forwarded, I will 
 indorse it and do all I can. 
 
 "On the second point, Henry Wilson said, I think on 
 the authority of Montgomery Blair, that Seward had 
 prepared the amendment submitted by Mr. Dixon to 
 Douglas' Kansas bill. I denied the truth of the report, 
 and wrote to Mr. Dixon, who confirmed my denial. 
 Afterwards, in an interview in Henderson, he went into 
 details, showing that Seward had no agency and no 
 knowledge of his intended action. 
 
 "Respectfully, 
 
 "T. C. McCreery." 
 
 An examination of the history which Hon. Henry 
 Wilson was doubtless engaged in preparing at that time 
 
592 The True History of 
 
 will show that he makes no mention of Mr. Seward as 
 having any connection with the origin or authorship 
 either of the repeal of the Missouri Compromise, or of 
 the amendment as offered by Mr. Dixon. So, of course, 
 he accepted Mr. Dixon's denial. 
 
 To return : Mr. Dixon at once wrote to Mr. Wilson, 
 thanking him for his kindness, and giving him a state- 
 ment of the facts. 
 
 He also wrote and sent the following letter to the 
 St. Louis Republican : 
 
 "Henderson, Ky., Nov. 14, 1873. 
 "To THE Editor op the St. Louis Republican: 
 
 '■^Sir — In an editorial which appeared in your paper 
 the 5th instant, you commented on a portion of a letter 
 from Hon. Montgomery Blair to ex-Secretary Welles, 
 recently published, which refers directly to myself, and 
 is calculated, if not contradicted, to place me in a false 
 position before the country, and to leave the impression 
 on the public mind that there was a plot between the 
 late Wm. Seward and myself to bring about the repeal 
 of the Missouri Compromise, and that it was through 
 his promptings and influence I was induced to offer my 
 amendment to Judge Douglas' Kansas-Nebraska bill. 
 
 "After dwelling at length on Mr. Seward's political 
 and private character, Mr. Blair says : 
 
 " 'I shall never forget how shocked I was at his telling 
 me that he was the man who put Archy Dixon, the Whig 
 Senator from Kentucky in 1854, up to moving the repeal 
 of the Missouri Compromise, as an amendment to Doug- 
 las' first Kansas bill, and had himself forced the repeal 
 by that movement, and had thus brought to light the 
 Republican party. Dixon was to out-Herod-Herod at 
 the South, and he would out-Herod-Herod at the North.' 
 
 "To this statement of Mr. Seward, as put forth by 
 Mr. Blair, I make a positive and unqualified denial. 
 
 "Of any communications that may have passed be- 
 tween Mr. Seward and Mr. Blair, I know nothing ; nor 
 
The Missouri Compromise and its Repeal. 5^ 
 
 of the motives which may have influenced either the one 
 or the other to make a statement in regard to me, which 
 is utterly without foundation in fact. But there is one 
 thing I do know, and most positively assert, that there 
 never was any conversation between Mr. Seward and 
 myself, respecting my amendment to the Kansas-Ne- 
 braska bill, previous to the offering that amendment ; 
 nor was there afterwards, so far as I can recollect. 
 Neither did he use or attempt to use any influence, 
 direct or indirect, to induce me to ofi'er the said amend- 
 ment. 
 
 "The principal object I had in offering it was to take 
 the question from the Halls of Congress, where it had 
 been so often agitated, and localize it in the Territories. 
 So far from having any desire to create a sectional feel- 
 ing between North and South, I most honestly believed 
 that the localization of the question in the Territories, 
 and leaving it to the people to decide for themselves, 
 was the best and surest way to settle it. In this view I 
 was not alone. A large majority of the members of 
 Congress, many of them from the Northern and the 
 non-slaveholding States, concurred with me and voted 
 for my amendment, as practically adopted by Judge 
 Douglas, Chairman of the Senate Committee on Terri- 
 tories, and incorporated into the Kansas-Nebraska bill. 
 The truth is, Congress, and the good men of the country 
 every-where, were tired of the agitation of slavery, and 
 wanted to get rid of it ; and the bill as passed by Con- 
 gress was hailed with enthusiasm by a large majority 
 of the people as the best means for such an end. 
 
 "I say nothing of the causes which conspired after- 
 wards to defeat its object, and brought about a state of 
 things which all true patriots must deeply deplore. 
 
 "I will state that, after drawing up my amendment, 
 I showed it, before offering it, to Gov. Jones, of Tennes- 
 see, who not only approved it, but became one of its 
 warmest supporters. My impression is that I also sub- 
 38 
 
694 The True History of 
 
 mitted it to Gen. Preston and Gen, Breckinridge, then 
 in Congress, and asked their opinion of it previous to 
 offering it.^ They too supported it, from a belief that it 
 would put a stop to agitation and preserve peace and 
 harmony to the country. 
 
 "Of Mr. Seward's position in regard to it, I know 
 nothing, save his decided and unwavering opposition, 
 not only to the amendment as offered by me, but also to 
 that reported by Mr. Douglas (they being practically 
 the same) , and which was finally passed through both 
 houses of Congress. 
 
 "You will do me the favor to publish this communica- 
 tion, as you can have no object or motive to do me 
 wrong in a matter which is vital to my honor. 
 
 "Respectfully, etc., 
 
 "Archibald Dixon." 
 
 I had always supposed that this letter was published 
 by the St. Louis Republican, and Mr. Dixon, I know, 
 was under the same impression, especially as the Courier- 
 Journal quoted from it as if from the columns of that 
 paper ; but I imagine the quotation must have been 
 made from one of our home papers (to which Mr. 
 Dixon had given it) , as I learned within the last year 
 that it had never been published in the St. Louis Re- 
 publican at all. 
 
 Having lost all of my papers (excepting a few letters) 
 by fire in March, 1893, and wishing a copy of this letter 
 of Mr. Dixon's, I wrote Hon. Robt. L. Wilson, to in- 
 quire if he could recall the date of the letter, so that I 
 might get a copy of it from the files of the St. Louis 
 Republican, both of our home papers having been sold 
 out and their files lost. 
 
 ^ I know that Mr. Dixon could not have mentioned it to either of 
 these gentlemen, for had he done so they would not have expressed the 
 unequivocal surprise, as well as delight, which they manifested on 
 coming to our rooms that morning after his notice of the repeal, of 
 which I have a most distinct recollection ; and of which I reminded 
 Mr. Dixon upon reading his letter. — Authob. 
 
The Missouri Compromise and its Repeal. 595 
 
 He was kind enough to go to St. Leuis and examine 
 the files for me, but he could not find the letter at all. 
 He sent me, however, a copy which he had preserved, 
 that Mr. Dixon had sent him and he had had repub- 
 lished in the Missouri Cash-Book, a paper published in 
 Jackson, Missouri — and the editor of which sent me a 
 complete copy of the letter, Judge Wilson's copy having 
 a portion at the end torn ofF.^ 
 
 Mr. Dixon's health was so wretched, and he was such 
 a sufferer for some years previous to his death in April, 
 1876, that he did not take the same note of occurrences 
 as when he was well ; and my time and thoughts were 
 so taken up in providing for his comfort that I gave but 
 little consideration to any thing else. The fact is, I 
 could not realize that such a slander would be believed, 
 and put the whole thing away from thought as soon as 
 possible. I do not remember, but I have no doubt that 
 Mr. Dixon requested the editor of the St. Louis Repub- 
 lican to send him a copy of the paper. The failure to 
 do so was not any evidence of the fact of the letter not 
 being published, for the very same thing occurred in 
 another instance, when the money was inclosed for a 
 dozen copies of paper — the article was published, no 
 copy of it sent, and the writer only saw it by accident 
 of a friend's mentioning having read the article, and 
 having preserved the paper. The appearance of a por- 
 tion of his letter in the Courier- Journal, with its full in- 
 dorsement, was satisfactory to Mr. Dixon so far as con- 
 tradiction of the slander was concerned ; and we did 
 not, as well as I can remember, discuss it afterwards. 
 Nor did I recall it especially, until the various state- 
 ments made, since his death, as to the repeal of the 
 Missouri Compromise being a plot, etc., showed that the 
 story attributed to Mr. Seward had been accepted as 
 
 1 He also sent me a copy of Mr. Dixon's letter to him, which he had 
 had published at the same time.— Author. 
 
596 The True History of 
 
 true by some persons, and was, to my utter amazement, 
 being recorded as history! 
 
 Of all these statements, Maj. Whitney's is most cir- 
 cumstantial and particular. He says that Mr. Seward, 
 " a Whig Senator, approached his friend, Archibald 
 Dixon, likewise a Whig Senator, and proposed to him 
 that he ought to offer an amendment, repealing the Mis- 
 souri Compromise ; and that Dixon, after a little reflec- 
 tion, arose and gave notice of his intention to do so on 
 the first parliamentary occasion." 
 
 Now, I do not know by what authority Maj . Whitney 
 claims Mr. Dixon as Mr. Seward's '■^friend.'" It is true 
 that they both belonged to the Whig party, but Mr. 
 Seward was an Abolition Whig of the most pronounced 
 and radical order, while Mr. Dixon was the strongest 
 sort of pro-slavery Whig ; and in the year of our Lord, 
 1854, Abolition Whiggery and pro-slavery Whiggery were 
 as far asunder as the North and South Poles, and about 
 as easy to bring together. Not only was there never 
 any political affiliation between Mr. Dixon and Mr. 
 Seward, but I hiow, of my own personal knowledge, 
 that Mr. Dixon had only a very slight acquaintance with 
 Mr. Seward, and there was never any interchange of 
 friendship between them nor any thing approaching it, 
 during all of Mr. Dixon's residence in Washington. He, 
 of course, extended to Mr. Seward that personal court- 
 esy which he felt was due, as well to those with whom 
 he differed as those with whom he agreed — but that was 
 all. He entertained a warm friendship for Mr. Hamil- 
 ton Fish, of New York, and often spoke of him — but 
 there was not the least sympathy between Mr. Seward's 
 nature and his, and I am at a loss to know how Maj. 
 Whitney could have received so mistaken an impres- 
 sion. 
 
 Surely, too, if Mr. Seward said what was attributed 
 to him by Mr. Blair, it was a singular evidence of, and 
 return for, friendship . 
 
 The next remarkable thing in this statement is, that 
 
The Missouri Compromise and its Repeal. 697 
 
 upon Mr. Seward's proposing to Mr. Dixon to offer an 
 amendment to repeal the Missouri Compromise, "Dixon, 
 after a little reflection, arose and gave notice of his in- 
 tention to do so on the first parliamentary occasion." 
 
 The record shows that the very first notice of Mr. 
 Dixon's motion was on the 16th day of January, 1854, 
 and, "That Senators might be afforded an opportunity 
 to consider it, he moved that the amendment might be 
 printed. The motion was agreed to." ^ 
 
 This motion which was read on that 16th day of Janu- 
 ary, was a copy of the paper that I had written out the 
 evening before, as stated in a foregoing chapter. Now 
 it is perfectly apparent that if, at any time previous, 
 Mr. Dixon had given notice of his purpose to introduce 
 this repeal, then those gentlemen who called to see him 
 on the next day after that motion was read in the Senate 
 could not have been so surprised^ as they certainly were. 
 Nor, if he had made the announcement "after a little 
 reflection," and upon Mr. Seward's suggestion, as Maj. 
 Whitney states, could he have had the paper ready written, 
 which he presented, which was in his own handwriting, 
 and is to-day on file in the Senate archives. 
 
 But, not the least extraordinary feature of this repre- 
 sentation (or misrepresentation?) is, that a man, of such 
 intellect and will as are possessed by few men, himself 
 a born leader of men, should at once, "after a little re- 
 flection," have resolved to adopt a suggestion that must, 
 to say the least of it, have aroused the suspicion of an 
 infant even, coming from a source so inimical to the 
 South as Mr. Seward was known to be. 
 
 Maj. Whitney, however, reconciles this point by pro- 
 ducing the quotation from Mr. Blair's letter, which as- 
 serts that it was a preconcerted arrrangement — intended 
 to "bring to life the Republican party" — and that 
 "Dixon was to out-Herod-Herod in the South" — that is, 
 Dixon was to pretend that he was acting in the interest 
 
 1 Cong. Globe, Vol. 28, Part I, p. 175. 
 
598 The True History of 
 
 of the South by procuring the repeal of the act prohibit- 
 ing slavery north of 36° 30', when in reality his purpose 
 was to bring about by that repeal the reaction at the 
 North which should destroy those very interests he was 
 hypocritically pretending to secure — while Seward was 
 to "out-Herod-Herod at the North" — that is, Seward 
 was to pretend to be violently opposed to the repeal of 
 the Missouri Compromise, when in reality he was the 
 man who had conceived it, had originated it, proposed 
 it, had duped into it the man who was never duped be- 
 fore, had by a marvelous ingenuity succeeded in betray- 
 ing into a most dishonorable act the most hightoned and 
 honorable of men, had gulled the public, and now chuckled 
 over having gained his own peculiar ends by his own 
 favorite methods. 
 
 This is the meaning of that quotation, and this 
 the inference which Mr. Welles intended to be drawn 
 from it when he published it as an evidence of the in- 
 sincerity of Mr. Seward's character, and of his tortuous 
 modes of action. 
 
 I do not pretend to say that Mr. Seward actually 
 said, what Mr, Welles said, that Mr. Blair said, that 
 Mr, Seward said, but I do say that Mr, Seward either 
 said it, or he did not say it. If he did not say it, that 
 is the end of it. If he did say it, the very statement 
 intelf proves the author to be a hyprocite of the first 
 water, and as false as his worst enemies could ever have 
 wished to suppose him. 
 
 And of what value, as against a man of known in- 
 tegrity, would any statement be, coming from such 
 a source? What court would accept it as evidence on 
 oath? 
 
 Mr. Seward, however, should not be condemned with- 
 out being heard. An exceedingly able man, a states- 
 man in many respects of very great ability, I would not 
 willingly do him the least injustice ; and I give his own 
 statement in regard to his position as to the repeal of 
 the Missouri Compromise. 
 
The Missouri Comproviise and its Repeal. 599 
 
 In a speech made the 24th of May, 1854, on the floor 
 of the Senate, he said : 
 
 "Sir, I have always said that I should not despond, 
 even if this fearful measure should be effected, nor do I 
 now despond. Although, reasoning from my present 
 convictions, I should not have voted for the compromise 
 of 1820, I have labored in the very spirit of those who 
 established it to save the landmark of freedom which it 
 assigned. I have not spoken irreverently even of 
 the compromise of 1850, which, as all men know, I op- 
 posed earnestly and with diligence. Nevertheless, I 
 have always preferred the compromise of the Constitu- 
 tion and have wanted no others. I feared all others. 
 This was a leading principle of the great statesman of 
 the South (Mr. Calhoun) . Said he : 
 
 " 'I see my way in the Constitution ; I can not in a 
 compromise. A compromise is but an act of Congress. 
 It may be overruled at any time. It gives us no se- 
 curity. But the Constitution is a statute. It is a rock 
 on which we can stand, and on which we can meet our 
 friends from the non-slave-holding States. It is a firm 
 and stable ground, on which we can better stand in op- 
 position to fanaticism than on the shifting sands of 
 compromise. Let us be done with compromises. Let 
 us go back and stand upon the Constitution.' 
 
 "I stood upon this ground in 1850, defending freedom 
 upon it as Mr. Calhoun did in defending slavery. I was 
 overruled then, and I have waited since without proposing 
 to abrogate any compromises. 
 
 '"'■It has been no proposition of mine to abrogate them now ; 
 hut the proposition has come jrom, another quarter — from an 
 adverse one. It is about to prevail. The shifting 
 sands of compromise are passing from under my feet, 
 and they are now, without agency of my own, taking 
 hold again on the rock of the Constitution. It shall be 
 no fault of mine if they do not remain firm.' 
 
 » Cong. Globe, Vol. 29, p. 770. 
 
 >ii 
 
600 The True History of 
 
 Now, here is Mr. Seward's own public and solemn 
 declaration that it was no proposition of his to abrogate 
 '''■any compromises:'''' 
 
 '•'■But the proposition has come from another quarter.'''' 
 
 How can this public declaration be reconciled with his 
 alleged statement to Mr. Blair, except to intensify his 
 falsity, should you accept that statement as having been 
 made as reported? 
 
 If not so made, who is responsible for the slander 
 upon Mr. Seward which it would imply, when faced 
 with his public declaration? 
 
 But it must be confessed that the fact, as shown by 
 Mr. McCreery's letter with Mr. Dixon's comment on it, 
 that this report was put in circulation in Washington 
 during Mr. Seward's lifetime, would favor the supposi- 
 tion that Mr. Seward was wholly responsible for origi- 
 nating it, and that Mr. Blair was simply very credulous 
 and very fond of the marvelous, to have repeated such a 
 statement from such a source with regard to a man of 
 such high and well-known character as Mr. Dixon. 
 And, like Maj. Whitney, in giving circulation to that 
 which he did not know to be true, he was, in the eye of 
 the law, equally as guilty as though he had stated that 
 which he knew to be false. His position in the matter 
 would recall the penance inflicted by the good Catholic 
 priest on the penitent sister (leaving out the penitence) 
 when she confessed to him how she had repeated a slan- 
 der on her neighbor. "Go," he said, "and come to- 
 morrow and bring with you a thistle-down." She 
 brought it. "Now," he said, "go home, and scatter 
 the seeds all the way as you go ; and come again to- 
 morrow." She did as he directed, and the next day 
 when she came, he said: "Now, my daughter, go and 
 gather all those seeds of the thistle-down that you have 
 scattered and bring them to me." "But," she said, 
 "father, that is impossible. How can I ever find and 
 gather up all those seeds? Why, the wind has carried 
 them away in every direction." "So," said he — this 
 
The Missouri Compromise and its Repeal. 601 
 
 wise man — "jou can not gather up those seeds? How, 
 then, can you expect to recall those slanderous words 
 you have spoken, and which have been borne as swiftly 
 and as widely, perhaps, on the tongues of men as those 
 seeds on the wings of the wind? Go, my daughter, re- 
 pent, sin no more, and pray for forgiveness." 
 
 This slander, as furnished to Mr. Welles by Mr. Blair, 
 was in circulation all over the country for nearly five 
 months before Mr. Dixon ever heard of it, and then, by 
 a singular fatality, when he did hear it, his letter deny- 
 ing it was not published, although he supposed that it 
 had been, in the St. Louis Republican, which was a 
 Democratic paper with a very wide circulation. 
 
 Mr. Dixon, after writing the letter and seeing it 
 quoted from in the Courier-Journal as from the St. 
 Louis Republican, seemed to give the matter no further 
 thought. For myself, it seemed so impossible that any 
 one could really connect any thought of dishonor with 
 his name, I simply put it away from me as a thing be- 
 neath contempt. But it can be easily understood that 
 Mr. Dixon's denial appearing only in the Henderson 
 papers, and the paper in Jackson, Missouri, with merely 
 an extract from it in the Courier- Journal with its declar- 
 ation of belief in its truth, was not calculated to "gather 
 up all of the seeds of thistle-down" that had been carried 
 far and wide over the whole land — and some of which 
 seem to have borne their fruit in Maj. "Whitney's state- 
 ment, which is not, however, altogether logical, as in it 
 he says : 
 
 "This alarmed Douglas, who came at once to Dixon's 
 seat and remonstrated with him, but in vain ; he be- 
 lieved, as all the Southern statesmen did, that the Mis- 
 souri Compromise was wrong, and ought to be repealed ; 
 and his will was inflexible, etc." Now, if Mr. Dixon 
 believed the Missouri Compromise was wrong and ought 
 to be repealed, is it to be supposed that he would have 
 needed any suggestion from Mr. Seward on the subject? 
 And, if he believed this, "as all Southern statesmen 
 
602 The True History of 
 
 did," must it be supposed that "all the Southern states- 
 men" fell into line on the subject at Mr. Seward's mere 
 suggestion ? 
 
 Maj. Whitney must acknowledge, "after a little reflec- 
 tion," that his statements contradict themselves. 
 
 There is, however, other evidence beyond Mr. Dixon's 
 own denial, or the illogical character of Maj. Whitney's 
 allegations, to show that Maj. Whitney is entirely mis- 
 taken when he says that Mr. Dixon, upon Mr. Seward's 
 suggestion, "after a little reflection," determined to 
 offer the amendment to repeal the Missouri Compromise. 
 
 And here let me sincerely thank Maj. Whitney for 
 making his statement so circumstantial ; as it renders 
 the task of disproving it far easier than where one has 
 to cope with something intangible, something without 
 body or form. 
 
 During the summer of 1894, whilst engaged in re- 
 writing this work (the manuscript of which I had lost 
 by fire in 1893) , in a conversation with my brother, Col. 
 Thos. W. Bullitt, of Louisville, Ky., I stated that I 
 did not believe, indeed I felt sure, that Mr. Dixon had 
 never advised with any one, never consulted any one 
 before writing his motion for the repeal of the Missouri 
 Compromise. I was satisfied of it because I remem- 
 bered so distinctly the intense surprise manifested by 
 each and every one of his friends in Washington, many 
 of whom called to see him immediately after he had an- 
 nounced his purpose in the Senate, and I, being present, 
 heard and saw all that passed. Col. Bullitt replied that 
 he thought I was mistaken ; that in a conversation with 
 our brother, John C. Bullitt, of Philadelphia, he had 
 mentioned having had a conversation with Mr. Dixon 
 on the subject. I then addressed a letter to my brother, 
 and give his reply : 
 
The Missouri Compromise and its Repeal. 603 
 
 (Copy.) 
 "Philadelphia, December 13, 1894. 
 
 ''My Dear Sue — I have yours of the 5th inst. The 
 facts as I recollect them were these : 
 
 "Mr. Dixon and yourself paid us a visit at 32 South 
 Third Street during the Christmas Holidays of 1853-4. 
 About the time of the termination of your visit, I sug- 
 gested that you should remain over for a short time. 
 You stated that it was impossible, as Mr. Dixon must 
 be in Washington upon the re-assembling of the Senate, 
 as he proposed to offer an amendment to Mr. Douglas' 
 territorial bill, repealing the Missouri Compromise. 
 This announcement startled me very much, and on the 
 evening of that day, I spoke to Mr. Dixon in regard to 
 it. He stated that he did so intend, as he believed it 
 was proper for him so to do. I differed in opinion with 
 him and gave him my reasons for so thinking. 
 
 "The discussion between us lasted for an hour or 
 more. He took the position that the Missouri Compro- 
 mise should never have been adopted ; that it had been 
 in fact repealed by the compromise resolutions of 1850 : 
 that the rights of the South could only be vindicated by 
 the then repeal ; that as Mr. Douglas' bill proposed the 
 form of territorial organization for Kansas and Nebraska, 
 the time had arrived for making the repeal effective by 
 its incorporation in Mr. Douglas' bill. 
 
 "I urged upon him my reasons for what I deemed to 
 be the unwisdom of that course. I stated that while 
 he might be theoretically right in his proposition, it 
 could never be of any practical value to the Southern 
 States to have the abstract right to take their slaves into 
 the territories proposed then to be organized ; that the 
 subject of slavery had been the one great peril of the 
 Union ; that the Missouri Compromise had been the 
 means of allaying the threatened disturbance at that 
 time, and the country had been comparatively free from 
 danger from that period until the slavery agitation 
 
604 The True History of 
 
 which culminated in the year 1850 ; that this excitement 
 had been again allayed by the compromise resolutions 
 of 1850, and that there was a comparative state of quiet 
 upon the subject at the time of our discussion. But the 
 hostility to the institution of slavery had undoubtedly 
 been growing throughout the North, and the repeal of 
 the Missouri Compromise at that time, would in my 
 judgment, be like a spark of fire to a train of powder ; 
 that I had no doubt, if the repeal were adopted, it would 
 enkindle all the excitement and violence of feeling which 
 had prevailed upon former occasions, and in view of the 
 deep prejudices of the North upon the subject, with the 
 increase of population which had taken place, the ex- 
 citement would rage with more fury than it had ever 
 done before. I thought the South could not possibly 
 gain any thing by it, as the agitation which would fol- 
 low would attract attention, especially to Kansas, and 
 settlers would pour into it from the North with such 
 rapidity as to render it certain that slavery would be ex- 
 cluded, and that Nebraska was necessarily too far North 
 to allow the introduction of slavery there. 
 
 "He replied to these suggestions with intense earnest- 
 ness. His position was that the territories belonged to 
 all the people of the United States ; that the South had 
 the same right to take their property into the territories 
 which the North had ; that it was an unjust and unfair 
 discrimination against the people of the South to exclude 
 from any part of the territories the slave property which 
 Southern men moving into the territories might wish to 
 carry with them, and the only way in which the rights 
 of the South could be properly vindicated and estab- 
 lished was to repeal the Missouri Compromise. 
 
 "I spoke of the knowledge which I had acquired of 
 the condition of feeling in the North, from my residence 
 there ; I expressed the belief that, if the repeal should 
 be adopted, every town and cross-roads throughout the 
 North would be set ablaze with Abolition agitation ; that 
 a crusade would be organized which would fill Kansas 
 
The Missouri Cowpromise and its Repeal. 605 
 
 with zealots and partisans that must be overwhelming 
 against the advocates of the right to take slaves into 
 Kansas, I remember saying to him, among other things, 
 that while he, or any other man like him, owning slaves, 
 who wished to settle in Kansas, was deliberating and 
 planning how he could arrange so as to take his slaves 
 without breaking up families, a dozen or more voters 
 would put their kitchen utensils and their families into 
 one-horse traps, move into Kansas, take up quarter- 
 sections of land, and thus that class of people would se- 
 cure the controlling power and render the efforts on the 
 part of the Southern men to make Kansas a slave State 
 nugatory. 
 
 "I further urged upon him the feature that seemed to 
 me most threatening, that the repeal at that time would 
 induce such a state of excitement and feeling that a civil 
 war might result from it. Just how this would be 
 brought about, no one could say, but I could see that a 
 collision might occur in Kansas which might involve the 
 citizens of other States, and out of it might grow a civil 
 war and dissolution of the Union ; that it seemed to me 
 the conditions then existing rendered such a result highly 
 probable, and I had the greatest apprehension of the 
 disasters that might ensue from the course proposed ; 
 that I was afraid it might be the beginning of the end. 
 
 "To this he replied, urging that the proposition was 
 right in itself ; that if strife should ensue the Southern 
 men could take care of themselves, and, as they would 
 only be asserting their fair and Constitutional rights, the 
 responsibility would not be with them, but with the 
 people who attempted to deprive them of their rights. 
 He also relied upon the Democrats of the North to sus- 
 tain the South in the assertion of its rights, and with 
 their assistance the controversy must result in favor of 
 the South. I could not look upon the matter as he did. 
 I did not believe the assistance of the Democrats of the 
 North could be relied upon in case there should be 
 such a condition of things as I apprehended, and re- 
 
606 The True History of 
 
 ferred to the fact that a number of prominent Democrats 
 had already gone over to the "Free-soil Party." I 
 thought that, if an actual collision came on, the South 
 would have to meet it alone, and the numerical strength 
 and advantages of the North were such as to render the 
 issue a most dangerous one for the South. 
 
 "But he did not believe that there was reason for the 
 apprehension which I expressed. He spoke with the 
 deepest earnestness and strongest conviction of what he 
 believed to be his duty under the circumstances, and I 
 never saw any one more sincere in the purpose of doing 
 what he believed to be his public duty. 
 
 "The discussion produced no perceptible efiPect upon 
 his views. It served, however, to crystallize my thoughts 
 on the subject and intensified my apprehensions as to 
 results. 
 
 "You and he went to "Washington. Thinking over 
 the matter, as I did, I determined to go to Washington 
 and see if I could not dissuade Mr. Dixon from his pur- 
 pose. I arrived there in the evening of the day on 
 which he had offered his amendment, or had given no- 
 tice that he would do so. I do not recall whether he 
 had actually offered it or not. I did not know, until 
 after reaching Washington, that he had done any thing 
 in the matter. I supposed I should see him before he 
 had committed himself by a public declaration on the 
 floor of the Senate. 
 
 "You are right as to my going down 'after he had 
 given notice that he would offer the motion for repeal,' 
 but wrong in the inference that I went down in conse- 
 quence of his having given the notice. I did not know 
 of it when I left home. 
 
 "Upon going to your apartments I found him with a 
 number of Senators discussing the subject in the most 
 earnest manner. I remained until he was alone, and 
 then resumed the subject. I found, however, that he 
 had already gone so far, and was so determined in re- 
 gard to it, that any influence in the direction which I 
 
The Missouri Compromise and its Repeal. 607 
 
 proposed to enforce was hopeless, We did, however, 
 talk about it. I reiterated very much the views I 
 had expressed in Philadelphia, and he made replies in 
 the line which he had adopted in our former conversa- 
 tion. This interview must have lasted an hour or more. 
 I left Washington the next day full of forebodings as to 
 the future. 
 
 I have only undertaken to give you a general outline 
 of what passed but feel quite confident as to correctness. 
 
 "You are at liberty to use this statement in any way 
 you think best. Affectionately your brother, 
 
 "John C. Bullitt. 
 "Mrs. S. B. Dixon, St. Matthews, Jefferson Co., Ky." 
 
 Now, I have no recollection of the above conversation 
 between Mr, Dixon and my brother in Philadelphia, and 
 presume I was not present. Nor did Mr. Dixon mention 
 it to me so far as I can remember. Nor do I remember 
 telling my brother of Mr. Dixon's purpose — which, of 
 course, was a mistake on my part, growing out of my 
 entire ignorance of the importance of the subject ; which 
 if I had understood, would have restrained me from 
 speaking of what should have been left to Mr. Dixon 
 himself to mention. I remember very distinctly, how- 
 ever, the talk in Washington at which I was present, 
 and I know I was troubled at Mr. Dixon's very decided 
 manner of refusing to consider the suggestions of my 
 brother, to whom I was so much devoted and of whose 
 intellect and judgment I had so high an opinion. But 
 this letter is conclusive evidence of two things, one that 
 I was right in my belief that Mr. Dixon had consulted no 
 one ; for my brother was not approached nor consulted 
 by Mr. Dixon in the matter — but on information given 
 by me he remonstrated with Mr. Dixon, who refused to 
 listen to his remonstrance. The other thing clearly 
 proven is, that Mr. Dixon had this amendment for re- 
 peal in his mind long before it was offered. Indeed, I 
 think it is highly probable that he had thought of it as 
 
608 The True History of 
 
 far back as 1853, when the attempt to organize Nebraska 
 was made, and failed because of the difficulty as to the 
 Missouri Compromise. For no Southern man was 
 willing to see that territory organized with that restric- 
 tion left upon it. And, as John Breckenridge said to 
 Mr. Dixon that morning, the wonder was "none of them 
 had ever thought of this before." 
 
 With Mr. Dixon's bold and logical mind, his fearless 
 nature, and disregard of all obstacles where his duty was 
 in question, it was the most natural thing in the world 
 that he should resolve to remove this difficulty — this re- 
 striction which was not only unconstitutional but un- 
 just and unfair, and stood in the way of all legislation for 
 this immense territory. Whatever may be thought of 
 its policy, no one who knew Mr. Dixon's character, and 
 the creed of his life, which was — to claim only what is 
 right, to submit to nothing that is wrong— could be- 
 lieve that he was actuated by any but the highest mo- 
 tives of patriotism and love of his country in offering 
 this repeal. 
 
 I will in conclusion ask, what possible motive could 
 such a man as Archibald Dixon have had to either 
 truckle to Mr. Seward, or "bring to life the Republican 
 party?" 
 
 One of the proudest and most high-spirited men in 
 the world, where in the whole record of his long and 
 honorable life could any instance be found that would 
 make it possible to believe that he would ever have con- 
 sented to act the part of traitor and renegade to his 
 State, his party, and his own honor? 
 
 A man, not only faithful, in the highest sense of the 
 word, to every obligation of honor and duty, but also a 
 citizen most devoted to his country ; most devoted to the 
 Union of the States ; would such a citizen have been 
 willing to imperil that country and that Union, as, with 
 his views, be believed the success of the Republican 
 party would do ? 
 
 But — aside from all this, aside from his own denial, 
 
The Missouri Compromise and its Repeal. 609 
 
 aside from his known characteristics which would forever 
 forbid all supposition of treachery or dishonor, aside 
 from the lofty integrity, the dauntless courage, the ex- 
 quisite refinement of honor, and grandeur of soul, which 
 shone forth in every lineament and were embodied in as 
 noble a form as God ever gave to man — aside from all 
 this, what could Mr. Dixon have gained by aiding Mr. 
 Seward in his political projects? 
 
 One of the wealthiest men in his State, his fortune 
 consisting of land and negroes, which he had not in- 
 herited, but obtained by investing the proceeds of a life 
 of incessant and arduous labor at his profession, was he 
 likely to endanger that fortune by "bringing to life the 
 Republican party" with its known principles of enmity 
 to slavery? 
 
 Senator from Kentucky, with every assurance of re- 
 election should he desire it ; what in the way of ambition 
 had "the Republican party" to offer him? Was it that 
 he was to "out-Herod-Herod?" Was this the goal, the 
 reward? However congenial it may have been to Mr. 
 Seward's nature "to out-Herod-Herod" such was not the 
 stufiF of which Archibald Dixon was made, nor would 
 Mr. Seward ever have dared to approach him with such 
 a proposal. Had he even intimated such a thing, he 
 would have shrunk, withered, before the fierce scorn 
 that would have blasted him like the lightning itself. 
 
 What motive could have actuated Mr. Seward in 
 making such a statement as Mr. Blair attributed to him 
 (if he made it) , can now only be conjectured. Whether 
 it were that he wanted "to make some political capital 
 for himself," as Mr. Dixon said when he received Mr. 
 McCreery's letter, or whether he remembered and re- 
 sented the disgust and horror so plainly shown by Mr. 
 Dixon when Mr. Seward declared that they "would 
 drive the negroes into the Gulf of Mexico, as they were 
 driving the Indians into the Pacific Ocean — set them 
 free, and in fifty years there would not be a negro left" — 
 39 
 
610 The True History of the Missouri Compromise. 
 
 and was influenced by that recollection, can now be 
 only a matter of surmise. I have not forgotten, to this 
 day, Mr. Dixon's expression when he told me of it. He 
 was shocked, not only by what appeared to him the 
 hypocrisy of the man, but the cruelty of his proposition. 
 And Mr. Seward's remembrance of it may have been a 
 motive, as well as the "making of political capital for 
 himself." 
 
 Maj. Whitney lays great stress on the "mysterious 
 way" in which "God moves" 
 
 " His wonders to perform." 
 
 The writer is of the opinion that the Father of Lies, 
 too, has his own peculiar mysticism for the transmission 
 and perpetuity of his own especial line of devices, and 
 that he has never exerted it more signally than in behalf 
 of the especial device embodied in the quotation from 
 Mr. Blair, as cited by Maj. Whitney. 
 
 It has been shown plainly in the foregoing pages that 
 in regard to the repeal of the Missouri Compromise 
 there was neither plot nor intrigue, nor any motive for 
 any plot or intrigue, on the part of either the author of 
 the repeal, Archibald Dixon, or of its main advocate, 
 Stephen A. Douglas ; but that they were both actuated 
 by a high, patriotic and imperative sense of right. 
 
 It can also be conclusively shown by the impartial 
 historian, that it was the departure from the principle of 
 non-intervention in accordance with which this repeal was 
 made — which principle was advocated by both of these 
 distinguished patriots, and was adopted and agreed to 
 by both of the great parties of the country from 1850 to 
 1856 — that brought on the terrible war between the 
 States, which cost so many valuable lives and wrecked 
 so many homes ; and it is safe to say that, but for that 
 departure, and the violation of that principle, we might 
 have escaped the greatest civil war of all the ages. 
 
THIUTY-FIRST CONGRESS 
 
 FIRST SESSION 
 
 SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES. 
 Monday, December 3, 1849. 
 
 Millard Fillmore, Vice-President of the United States 
 and President of the Senate. 
 
 [Democrats (34) in Roman, Whigs (24) in Italics, Free Soilers (2) Small 
 
 Capitals.] 
 
 Maine — Hannibal Hamlin, James W. Bradbury. 
 New Hampshire — John P. Hale, Moses Morris, Jr. 
 Massachusetts — Daniel Webster, John Davis. 
 Rhode Island — Albert C. Greene, John W. Clarke. 
 Connecticut — Roger S. Baldwin, Truman Smith. 
 Vermont — Samuel S. Phelps, William Uphum. 
 New York — Daniel S. Dickinson, William H. Seward. 
 New Jersey — William L. Dayton, Jacob W. Miller. 
 Pennsylvania — Daniel Sturgeon, James Cooper. 
 Delaware — John Wales, Presley Spruance. 
 Maryland — David Stewart, James A. Pearce. 
 Virginia — James M. Mason, R. M. T. Hunter. 
 North Carolina — Willie P. Mangum, George E. Badger. 
 South Carolina — John C. Calhoun, Arthur P. Butler. 
 Georgia — John M. Berrien, William C. Dawson. 
 Kentucky — Joseph R. Underwood, Henry Clay. 
 Tennessee — Hopkins L. Turney, John Bell. 
 Ohio — Thomoi Corwin, Salmon P. Chase. 
 
 (611) 
 
612 Thirty-first Congress. 
 
 Louisiana — Solomon W. Downs, Pierre Soule. 
 Indiana — Jesse D. Bright, James Whitcomb. 
 Mississippi — Jefferson Davis, Henry S. Foote. 
 Illinois — Stephen A. Douglas, James Shields. 
 Alabama — Jeremiah Clemens, William K. King. 
 Missouri — Thomas H. Benton, David R. Atchison. 
 Arkansas — William R. Sebastian, John Borland. 
 Florida — David L. Yulee, Jackson Morion. 
 Michigan — Lewis Cass, Alpheus Felch. 
 Texas — Thomas J. Rusk, Sam Houston. 
 Wisconsin — Henry Dodge, Isaac P. Walker. 
 Iowa — George W. Jones, Augustus C. Dodge. 
 
THIRTY-THIRD CONGRESS 
 
 FIRST SESSION 
 
 SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES. 
 Monday, December 5, 1853 
 
 David R. Atchison, of Missouri, President pro tern., of 
 the Senate — Secretary, Asbury Dickins. 
 
 Maine — Hannibal Hamlin. 
 
 New Hampshire — Moses Morris, Jr., Jared W. Williams. 
 
 Vermont — Solomon Foot. 
 
 Massachusetts — Charles Sumner, Edward Everett. 
 
 Rhode Island — Charles L. James, Philip Allen. 
 
 Connecticut — Truman Smith, Isaac Toucey. 
 
 New York — William H. Seward, Hamilton Fish. 
 
 New Jersey — John R. Thomson, William Wright, 
 
 Pennsylvania — James Cooper, Richard Brodhead, Jr. 
 
 Delaware — James A. Bayard, John 31. Clayton. 
 
 Maryland — James Alfred Pearce, Thomas G. Pratt. 
 
 Virginia — James M. Mason, Robert M. T. Hunter. 
 
 North Carolina — George E. Badger. 
 
 South Carolina — Andrew P. Butler, Josiah J. Evans. 
 
 Georgia — William C. Dawson, Robert Toombs. 
 
 California — William M. Gwin, John B. Weller. 
 
 Alabama — Benjamin Fitzpatrick, Clement C. Clay, Jr. 
 
 Mississippi — Stephen Adams. 
 
 Louisiana — John Slidell, Judah P. Benjamin. 
 
 Ohio — Salmon P. Chase, Benjamin F. Wade. 
 
 Kentucky — Archibald Dixon, John P. Thompson. 
 
 Tennessee — James C. Jones, John Bell. 
 
 (613) 
 
614 Thirty-Third Congress. 
 
 Indiana — John Pettit, Jease D. Bright. 
 Illinois — James Shields, Stephen A. Douglas. 
 Missouri — David R. Atchison, Henry S. Geyer. 
 Arkansas — Robert W. Johnson, William R. Sebastian. 
 Michigan — Lewis Cass, Charles E. Stewart. 
 Florida — Jackson Morton, Stephen R. Mallory. 
 Texas — Thomas J. Rusk, Sam Houston. 
 Iowa — Augustus C. Dodge, George W. Jones. 
 Wisconsin — Isaac P. Walker, Henry Dodge. 
 
INDEX. 
 
 Abolition, first society, agitation of, 1836, 
 
 p. 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 133, 143, 144, 
 
 163, 225, 229, 242, 245, 410, 411, 417, 489, 
 
 490. 
 
 Abolitionists, p. 132, 155, 156, 179, 226, 227, 
 
 239, 242, 244. 
 Acadia, p. 214. 
 Act of Congress, 1808, p. 21. 
 October 10, 1780, p. 24. 
 April 23, 1784, p. 28. 
 recommendation, 1786, p. 28, 32. 
 
 July 13, 1787, p. 29. 
 re-enacting, 1789, p. 36. 
 "Missouri Compromise," 1820, p. 1, 
 
 54 to 87 inclusive, 
 admitting Missouri, 1821, p. 91 to 121 
 
 inclusive. 
 May 15, 1820, p. 94. 
 Virginia, March 1, 1784, p. 24. 
 December 30, 17S8, p. 30, 31, 32. 
 Adams, John Quincy, of Massachusetts, 
 p. 38, 39, 40, 46, 90, 127, 130, 133, 135, 
 136, 137, 138, 156, 157, 161, 244, 245. 
 Africa, p. 4, 6, 7. 
 African slavery, p. 126, 181, 201, 202, 205, 
 
 322, 324, 325, 326, 332, 334, 356. 
 Alabama, p. 56. 
 Anas, Jefferson's, p. 11. 
 Anderson, Gov. Charles, p. 85. 
 Anderson, Richard C, p. 51, 102, 118. 
 Anderson, Mr., of Henderson, Ky., p. 
 
 172. 
 Anglo-Saxon, p. 2, 7, 126. 
 Annexation of Texas, p. 138. 
 Anti-slavery Society, p. 198. 
 Archer, Mr., of Virginia, p. 100, 101, 116. 
 Arizona, p. 179. 
 Arkansas river, p. 184, 479. 
 
 territory, p. 50, 52, 53, 536, 559, 560, 585. 
 Armstrong, Gen. Robert, p. 456, 457. 
 Article 6th, of ordinance of 1787, p. 30, 34. 
 Article 13th, sections 2 and 3, Constitu- 
 tion of Kentucky, p. 221. 
 Ashland, p. 25. 
 Atchison, Hon. David, p. 358, 425, 426, 
 
 427, 456, 459, 460, 488, 588. 
 Audubon, John J., p. 169. 
 
 B. 
 Badger, Mr., of North Carolina, p. 182, 
 376, 377, 513, 514, 515, 527, 528. 
 
 Balance of power, p. 47, 48. 
 
 Baldwin, Mr., of Pennsylvania, p. 113, 
 
 343. 
 Balize, p. 351. 
 Baltimore, p. 407, 481, 484. 
 Barbour, Mr., of Virginia, p. 91. 
 Bargain, p. 11, 12, 15, 16, 18, 19, 812, 313. 
 Barnwell, Mr., of South Carolina, p. 352. 
 Beauvoir, Mississippi, p. 457. 
 Bell, John, of Tennessee, p. 285, 286, 302, 
 312, 316, 317, 320, 345, 346, 428, 429, 583. 
 Benezet, Anthony, p. 6. 
 Benjamin, Judah P., of Louisiana, p. 459. 
 Benton, Thomas Hart, p. 249, 317, 358, 359, 
 
 378, 379, 380, 381. 
 Berrien, Mr., of North Carolina, p. 198, 
 
 323, 341. 
 Big Saudy river, p. 208. 
 Birney, James, p. 163. 
 Blaine, James, p. 81, 587. 
 Blair, Montgomery, p. 589, 591, 592, 596, 
 
 597, 598, 600, 601, 610. 
 Borland, Mr., of Arkansas, p. 234. 
 Boston, p. 128, 129, 552. 
 Boundary line between Texas and New 
 
 Mexico, p. 184. 
 Boyd, Lynn, p. 231. 
 Braudywine, p. 167. 
 Breckinridge, John, p. 36. 
 Breckinridge, John C, p. 444, 579, 587, 
 
 594, 608. 
 British regulars, p. 169. 
 British West Indies, p. 194. 
 Brodhead, Mr., of Penn.sylvania, p. 429. 
 Brooke, James, of New York, p. 416. 
 Brown, William, of Kentucky, p. 109, 
 
 112, 113. 114, 115, 119, 262. 
 Brown, Charles, of Pennsylvania, p. 188. 
 Brown, Wm. J., of Indiana, p. 229, 230. 
 Brown, John, af Massachusetts, p. 586. 
 Buchannan, James, of Pennsylvania, p. 
 
 141, 445, 586. 
 Buena Vista, p. 178, 179, 336, 3.37, 347, 553. 
 liufTalo, p. 407. 
 Bonaparte, Napoleon, p. 36. 
 Bullitt, Thomas W., p. 602. 
 Bullitt, John C, p. 602, 603, 604, 005, 006, 
 
 607. 
 Bunker Hill, p. 129. 
 Burke, Edmund, p. 71. 
 Burrill, Mr., of Rhode Island, p. 95. 
 Burton, Mr., of North Carolina (note), p. 
 289. (615) 
 
616 
 
 Index. 
 
 Butler, Mr., of South Carolina, p. 183, 271 
 280, 281, 313, 318, 364, 365, 526. 
 
 C. 
 Cabinet, Mr. Monroe's, p. 87. 
 Calhoun, John C, of South Carolina, p. 
 88, 138, 139, 140, 141, 146, 147, 149, 150, 
 154, 181, 182, 183, 189, 190 to 197 in- 
 clusive, 
 prophetic picture, p. 195, 196. 
 intensely excited, p. 198, 199, 213, 233, 
 234, 247, 248, 286, 287, 288, 289, 305, 
 306, 311, 318, 408, 422, 599. 
 California, p. 179, 18], 187, 188, 189, 190, 
 225, 228, 230, 249, 250, 252, 272, 273, 
 282, 283, 284, 285, 287, 306, 318, 320, 
 321, 322, 323, 353, 354, 358, 360, 367, 
 371, 380, 395, 396, 397, 438, 446. 
 Camden, p. 160, 167. 
 Canaan, New Hampshire, p. 128. 
 Canada, p. 208, 266, 387. 
 Cape Girardeau, Missouri, p. 590. 
 Capitol, p. 131, 200, 442. 
 Casas, Bartholomew, Las, p. 3. 
 Cass, Gen., of Michigan, p. 179, 188, 215, 
 225, 271, 272, 279, 302, 303, 304, 305, 
 328, 334, 335, 345, 350, 375, 417, 418, 
 481, 522, 546, 583, 585. 
 Caswell, N. C, p. 166. 
 Cession of North-west Territory, p. 24. 
 Chapman, Governor of Alabama, p. 217. 
 Chapel Hill (note), p. 379. 
 Charleston, South Carolina, p. 432. 
 Chase, Salmon P., of Ohio, p. 270, 328, 341, 
 369, 469, 470, 472, 473," 486, 487, 488^ 
 391, 493, 495, 506, 512, 513, 514, 515, 
 516, 517, 518, 519, 520, 521, 522, 528,' 
 549, 550, 552, 562, 563,566, 567, 568, 587.' 
 Cincinnati, p, 129, 208, 590. 
 Clarke, Gen. George Rogers, p. 46. 
 Clarke, Mr., of New York, p. 110, ill, 121. 
 Clay, Henry, of Kentucky, p. 54, 58, 59, 
 60, 62, 79, 80, 81, 82, 84, 85, 91, 96, 102, 
 103, 104, 105, 106, 111, 112, ]14, lie' 
 119, 120, 121, 138, 141, 150, 152, ISsi 
 154, 155, 161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 169, 
 174, 178, 200, 212, 213, 215, 216, 2is' 
 226, 227, 242, 250, 251, 252, 253, 254,' 
 255, 256, 257 to 261, inclusive; 275' 
 276, 277, 278. 279, 286, 289, 312, 313,' 
 814, 315, 316, 317, 318, 319, 320, 324' 
 325, 326, 327, 330, 344, 345, 348, 349' 
 350, 351, 352, 354, 355, 356, 357, 358,' 
 361, 362, 363, 365, 378, 379, 380, 39, 
 395, 403, 404, 405, 406, 414, 415, 416i 
 417, 419, 420, 321, 436, 439, 440, 452,' 
 453, 454, 462, 480, 481, 500, 501, 554,' 
 555, 556, 585. 
 Clay, Cassius M., Abolitionist, p. 393, 394, 
 395, 400, 401, 402. 
 
 Clayton, Mr., of Delaware, p, 181, 182 
 
 523, 525, 526, 528. 
 Clemens, Mr., of Alabama, p. 284 to 238 
 
 inclusive; 323. 
 Climatic (note), p. 5. 
 Cobb, Mr., of Georgia, p. 52, 101, 106, 229 
 
 231, 232. 
 Colonies, p. 3, 5, 7, 71, 203. 
 Colonization Societies, Liberian, p 129 
 
 205, 207. ' ■ - ' 
 
 Colorado, p. 178, 353, 479. 
 Combs, Gen. Leslie, p. 401. 
 Committee of Conference, p. 82, 83. 
 
 report of, p. 97. 
 
 of Thirteen, p. 107, 108. 
 
 of Twenty-three, p. 116. 
 
 report, p. 187, 188. 
 
 of conference, p. 231. 
 
 of Thirteen, p. 284, 285, 317, 321 Z'>2 
 3;3. ' ' 
 
 on Territories, p. 286, 482, 486, 495, 496, 
 4^17; (Douglas, Ch'm), p. 4o3, 434,435. 
 Compromises, of Constitution, p 16 17 
 18, 19. 
 first suggestion of, in 1820, p. 56. 
 of 1850, p. 256, 386, 392, 393, 395, 409, 419 
 458, 459, 460, 461, 478, 481, 482, 483, 489* 
 573, 574. 
 Confederated States, in 1776, p. 7, 8. 
 Congress, p. 1, 123, 124, 190, 209, 228 "29 
 265, 282, 483, 484, 571. 
 Thirty-first Congress, p. 611, 612. 
 Thirty-third Congress, p. 613, 614. 
 Connecticut, p. 11. 1.3, 14, 93, 94, 145, 569. 
 Constitution, p. 3, 12, 19, 20, 60, 71, 95, 100 
 122, 483, 486, 489, 502. 
 of Texas, p. 175. 
 of Kentucky, p. 222. 
 Continental Congress, p. 6. 
 Continentals, p. 166, 167, 168, 169. 
 Conventions, of Virginia, 1774, p. 6. 
 Constitutioual, 1787, p. 11. 
 Hartford, p. 45. 
 of Southern members of Congress 
 
 p. 190. 
 of Kentucky, 1849, p. 200. 
 debates of Kentucky, p. 214. 
 of Emancipation Whigs of Kentucky 
 
 p. 212, 213, 215. 
 Constitutional, of Kentucky, p. 219. 
 gubernatorial, 1851, p. 388, 392, 393. 
 of 1852, p. 407, 410. 
 (vOtton gin, p. 46. 
 Courier-Journal, p. 594, 695, 601. 
 " Cravat story," note. p. 374. 
 Crescent City, p. 351. 
 Crittenden, John J., of Kentucky, p. 218 
 
 389, 403. 
 Cuba, p. 4. 
 
 Curtis, Geo. Ticknor, p. 430, 431. 
 Cutting, Mr., of N. York, p. 577, 578, 579. 
 
Index. 
 
 617 
 
 D. 
 
 Danville, Kentucky, p. 387. 
 
 Davis, Hon. Jefferson, of Mississippi, p. 
 254, 255, 263, 270, 274, 275, 323, 324, 325, 
 328, 330, 331, 332, 333, 335, 336, 337, 3;«, 
 339, 341, 344, 353, 354, 358, 454 to 460 
 inclusive, 481. 
 
 Davis, Garrett, of Kentucky, p. 222, 398. 
 
 Davis, Mr., of Massachusetts, p. 270, 272, 
 429. 
 
 Dawson, Mr., of Georgia, p. 271, 359, 360, 
 361. 
 
 Decadence of Whig party, p. 212. 
 
 Delaware, p. 12, 13, 14, 15, 270. 351. 
 
 Democratic ticket, party, p. 163, 177, 178, 
 215, 225, 388, 407. 
 platform in 1852, p. 407, 419, 489. 
 
 Deseret, p. 249, 254. 
 
 Dickinson, Mr., of New York, p. 323, 341, 
 342, 343, 382. 
 
 District of Columbia, p. 130, 133, 142, 251, 
 252, 265, 266, 375, 376, 377, 378, 384. 
 
 Disunion, p. 38, 39, 40, 489. 
 
 Division, of parties into North and 
 South, ominous, p. 226. 
 of Whig party of Kentucky in 1849, p. 
 
 218, 219. 
 in 1851, p. 388, 389, 390, 391, 395, 396, 
 
 397, 398, 399, 401, 402. 
 of the National Whig party, in 1852, 
 p. 404, 40'), 406, 411, 412, 413, 414. 
 
 Dix, John A., of New York, p. 186, 187, 
 337. 
 
 Dix, Col. Roger S., U. S. A., p. 337. 
 
 Dix, Miss, an Englishwoman, p. 213. 
 
 Dixon, Archibald, of Kentucky, p. 54,55, 
 153, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169, 170, 171, 172, 
 173, 174, 215, 218, 219, 220, 221, 222, 239, 
 240, 242, 389, 390, 391, 392, 396, 397, 398, 
 399, 400, 401, 402, 419, 420, 421,432, 436, 
 437, 438, 439, 440, 441, 442, 443, 444, 
 445, 446. 447, 448, 449, 450, 455, 459, 460, 
 461, 462, 403, 488, 490, 491, 492, 493, 494, 
 495, 496, 497, 498, 499, 500, 501, 502, 514, 
 515, 516, 517, 518, 519, 520, 521, 522, 577, 
 589, 590, 591, 592, 593, 594, 595, 596, 597, 
 598, 599, 600, 601, 602, 603, 604, 605, 606, 
 607, 608, 609, 610. 
 
 Dixon, Col. Henry, p. 166, 167, 168. 
 
 Dixon, Capt. Wynn, p. 169, 170. 
 
 Dodge, Mr., of Iowa, p. 277, 278, 279, 432, 
 469, 494, 563. 
 
 Douglas, Stephen A., of Illinois, p. 120, 
 182, 187, 190, 225, 242, 257, 271, 272, 273, 
 306, 307, 308, 316, 318, 319, 320, 328, 329, 
 330, 331, 332, 333, 334, 335, 339, 340, .341, 
 358, 365, 368, 369, 382, 383, 381, 419, 422^ 
 423, 425, 429, 430, 431, 432, 433, 434. 435, 
 436, 437, 438, 444, 445, 446, 447, 448, 449, 
 450, 451, 452, 453, 454, 455, 456, 457, 458 
 
 459, 460, 462, 463, 464, 467, 468 to 477 
 inclusive, 486, 487, 488, 491, 492, 493, 
 494, 495, 496, 497, 500, 507, 513, 514, 516, 
 517, 519, 524, 525, 529, 571, 583, 585, 587, 
 588, 589, 593, 594, 610. 
 Duer, Mr., of New York, p. 248, 272. 
 
 E. 
 Early, Gen. Jubal, p. 245. 
 Eaton, of Tennessee, p. 92, 95, 103, 104, 
 
 106. 
 Edwards, Mrs. Ann (note), p. 337. 
 Edwards, of Illinois, p. 70. 
 Election of Speaker, 1849, p. 229, 230, 231, 
 
 232. 
 Emancipation, letter from Mr. Clay, p, 
 
 200 to 212 inclusive. 
 Whigs of Kentucky nominate Cassius 
 
 M. Clay for Gov., p. 393. 
 England, p. 126, 127, 133, 160. 
 Equality of States, p. 1, 2, 59. 
 Era in country's history, p. 129. 
 Europe, emigrants from, p. 206, 207, 501. 
 Eustis, of Massachusetts, p. 102. 
 Eutaw Springs, battle of, p. 166, 169. 
 Evansville, p. 589. 
 Everett, Edward, of Massachusetts, p. 
 
 556, 557, 558. 
 Ewing, Presley, of Kentucky, p. 401. 
 
 Fac-simile of Amendment to the Ne- 
 braska, bill, Dixon, p. 443, 444. 
 Faneuil Hall, p. 272, 386. 
 Faulkner, of Virginia, p. 415, 416. 
 Federal control— state rights— vast popu- 
 lations, p. 63, 89. 
 Fillmore, Millard, p. 231, 346, 348, 404, 405, 
 
 408, 411, 413, 414. 
 Fish, Hamilton, Mr., of New York, p. 429, 
 
 596. 
 Florida, p. 46, 146, 150, 162, 479. 
 Floyd, Mr., of Virginia, 105. 
 Fort JesuD, p. 176. 
 Foote, Mr., of Connecticut, p. 104. 
 Foote, H. S., of Mississippi, 197, 242, 271, 
 
 275, 276, 277, 278, 279. 280, 281, 2.^4, 302, 
 
 304, 305, 313, 316, 317, 353, 358, 359, 36-5, 
 
 369, 375, 381, 382, 404, 409, 410, 445, 446, 
 
 447, 448, 449. 
 France, p. 443, 464, 478, 480, 485, 501. 
 Franklin, Benjamin, p. 21. 
 Frankfort, Kentucky, p. 215. 
 Free Soilers, p. 179. 225, 229, 238. 
 
 address, 464, 465, 466, 467. 
 Fremont, Col. J. C, p. 479. 
 Friday, Mr. Clay, p. 106. 
 Fry, Gen. Cary H. (note), p. 337. 
 Fugitive Slave Law, p. 15, 16, 20, 30, 34, 
 
 371, 372, 373, 374. 
 
618 
 
 Index. 
 
 G. 
 
 Galaxy, p. 589, 590. 
 
 Gait House, Louisville, Kentucky, p. 
 
 164, 255. 
 Gates, Gen., p. 167. 
 Georgia, p. 162, 313. 
 Georgetown, p. 378. 
 Germantown, p. 167. 
 Germany, p. 163. 
 Ghent, treaty of, p. 45. 
 Giddings, Mr., of Ohio, p. 130, 232, 284, 
 
 424, 429, 488. 
 Gilmer, Mr., of Virginia, p. 157, 
 Gorham, Mr., of Massachusetts, p. 13. 
 Graves, W. J., of Kentucky, p. 218. 
 Greeley, Horace, of New York, p. 188, 239. 
 Great Britain, p. 7, ]56, 161. 
 Great men in .Senate, p. 238. 
 Green river country, p. 170. 
 Gregory's brigade, p. 168. 
 Greg, Percy (note), p. 239. 
 Griswold, Gov. of Connecticut, p. 45. 
 Guadaloupe, Hidalgo, p. 430. 
 Guilford court house, p. 169. 
 Guthrie, James, p. 219. 
 
 H. 
 
 Hale, Mr., of New Hampshire, p. 233, 
 238, 270, 27] , 272, 281, 284, 317, 340, 369, 
 370. 
 
 Hall, Dr., of Washington City, p. 432. 
 
 Hamlin, Mr., of Maine, p. 377. 
 
 Hand, Mr., of New York, p. 559. 
 
 Hardin, Benjamin, of Kentucky, p. 68. 
 
 Harris, Arnold, p. 4^6. 
 
 Harrison, Gen. William Henry, p. 162, 177^ 
 260. 
 
 Hart, David, p. 169. 
 
 Hart, Rebecca, p. 169. 379. 
 
 Hart, Thomas, p. 169. 
 
 Hartford Convention, p. 109. 
 
 Hatchett, Squire James, p. 173. 
 
 Haverhill, Massachusetts, p. 157. 
 
 Hay, George, p. 88. 
 
 Hay (Nicolay and Hay), p. 587. 
 
 Hemphill, Mr., of Pennsylvania, p, 68. 
 
 Henderson, p, 169. 174, 400, 601. 
 
 Henry, Wm. Wirt, p. 6. 
 
 Henry, Patrick, p. 6, 20, 46. 
 
 Heydenfelt's letter, p. 216, 217. 
 
 " Higher law," p. 228, 489. 
 
 Hill, Mr., p. 401. 
 
 Hilyer, James H., p. 172. 
 
 Holmes, Mr., of Massachusetts, p. 58, 95. 
 
 Homer, p. 170, 358. 
 
 House, p. 188. 
 
 Houston, Gen., of Texas, p. 427. 
 Howard, Mr., of Texas, p. 185, 186. 
 Howe, John W., of Pennsylvania, p. 412 
 
 424, 429, 488. 
 Hunter, R. M. T., of Virginia, p. 371. 
 
 Illinois, p. 172, 208, 272, 274, 483. 
 
 Inconsistency in acts of Congress and 
 
 Convention, 1787, p. 36. 
 
 Indiana, p. 35, 93, 172. 208, 336, 337. 
 
 Independence of Colonies, p. 6. 
 
 Indians, p, 4. 
 
 Instructions of Legislatures, p. 91, 92. 
 
 Iowa, 465. 
 
 Ireland, 163. 
 
 J. 
 
 Jackson, Andrew, General and Presi- 
 dent, p. 130, 135, 136, 138, 155, 156, 
 160, 161, 162. 
 
 Jackson, Missouri, p. 595, 601. 
 
 James, Judge, p. 219. 
 
 Jeflferson, Thomas, p. 11, 25, 26, 40, 89. 
 
 Johnson, Andrew, of Tennessee, p. 2;U. 
 
 Johnson, Richard M.,of Kentucky, p. 72. 
 
 Johnston, Col. J. Stoddard, p. 177. 
 
 Jones, James S., of Tennessee, p. 443, 
 505, 593. 
 
 Journal of House, p. 101, 102. 
 
 Julian, Mr., of Indiana, p. 387 
 
 K. 
 
 Kalb, Baron De., p. 168. 
 
 Kansas, p. 431, 438, 445, 446, 455, 457, 458, 
 459, 483, 493, 583, 586, 588, 593. 
 
 Kentucky, p. 80, 169, 170, 171, 174, 200, 202, 
 208, 209, 211, 212, 213, 214, 215, 210, 217, 
 218, 223, 224, 227, 248, 249, 254, 2r)5, 276, 
 277, 278, 279, 280. 347, 388, 397, 398, 400, 
 401, 404, 432, 438, 589. 
 
 King, Wm. R., of Alabama, p. 144, 339, 
 409. 
 
 King, George III, of England, p. 3. 
 
 King, Mr., of Massachusetts, p. 19, 38. 
 
 King, Mr., of New York, p. 70, 259. 
 
 King Solomon, p. 122. 
 
 Knownothing faction, p. 178. 
 
 Knownothingism, p. 587. 
 
 La Fayette, p. 90. 
 
 Lamb, p. 168. 
 
 Lanman, of Connecticut, p. 546. 
 
 Le Compton, p. 586. 
 
 Lee, Light-Horse Harry, p. 166. 
 
 Lee, Gen. Robert E., p. 245. 
 
 Legislature of Missouri, p. 105. 
 
 Legree, p. 387. 
 
 Leigh, Benj. Watkins (note), p. 379. 
 
 Levi, p. 227, 257. 
 
 Lexington, p. 200, 394, 395. 
 
 Liberia, Colonization, p, 129, 200, 244, 245, 
 
 490. 
 Lincoln, President, p. 72, 128, 129, 231. 315, 
 
 587, 588, 589. 
 Lincoln, of Massachusetts, killed at 
 
 Buena Vista, p. 553. 
 
Index. 
 
 619 
 
 Livingston, of New York, Minister to 
 
 France in 1803, p. 46. 
 Livingston's Biographical Magazine, p. 
 
 398, 399, 403, 404. 
 Lockett, John W., p. 222. 
 Loco-Focos, p. 395. 
 Lone Star of Texas, p. 177. 
 Louisiana, p. 34, 33, 36, 37, 162, 188, 243, 
 
 263, 431, 441, 443, 478, 479, 480. 
 Treaty of purchase of, p. 122. 
 Louisville Journal, p. 190, 199, 212. 
 Lowndes, Mr., presented Memorials of 
 
 '• State of Missouri," p. 101, 105, 259. 
 
 M. 
 Machiavelli, p. 410, 411. 
 Macon, Mr., of North Carolina, p. 72, 75, 
 
 118. 
 Madison, James, p. 9, 12, 13, 14, 42, 43, 44, 
 
 45, 87. 
 Maine, p. 56, 58, 69, 70, 102, 274. 
 Malthusian problem, p. 131, 242. 
 Mangum, Mr., of North Carolina, p. 323. 
 Mann, Horace, Representative, p. 421. 
 Marcy, Governor of New York, p. 128. 
 Marions, the, p. 128. 
 Marshall, Col. Humphrey, p. 346, 401. 
 Marshall, Thomas J., p. 157, 159, 395. 
 Marshall, Wm. C, p. 401. 
 Martin, Luther, p. 13. 
 Maryland, p. 251, 570. 
 
 troops, 166, 168. 
 Marylanders, p. 167, 168. 
 Mason,Mr.,ofVirginia, p.287,328,350, 362, 
 
 363, 369, 371, 372, 373, 374, 456. 
 Mason and Dixon's line, p. 47. 
 Massachusetts, p. 3, 38, 93, 136, 198, 226, 274. 
 McLane, Mr., of Delaware, p. 106. 
 McLean, Judge, p. 260. 
 McCreery. Hon. Thomas C, p. 590, 591, 
 
 600, 601. 
 Meade, Mr., of Virginia, p. 248. 
 Meigs, Mr., of New York, p. 243. 
 Memoranda, p. 401, 402. 
 Merriwether, David, of Kentucky, p, 420. 
 Methodist Conference, p. 400. 
 Metcalfe, A. P., p. 420. 
 Mexico, p. 127, 176, 177, 178, 179, 180, 184, 
 
 185, 187, 225, 408, 430, 431, 433, 434, 
 471, 478, 479. 480, 482, 
 
 Mexican War, p. 187. 
 laws, p. 434, 436. 
 
 Minnesota, p. 465. 
 
 Missouri, Compromise, p. 2, 73, 36, 48, 49, 
 51, 56, 57, 60, 73, 77, 78, 79, 80, 91, 92, 
 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 109, 
 110, 111, 112, 116, 149, 174, 183, 184, 
 
 186, 191, 192, 193, 225, 254, 256, 257, 
 258, 259, 260, 261, 262, 263, 264, 328, 
 330, 342, 430, 434, 435, 436, 437, 443, 
 446, 447, 464, 465, 466, 467, 469, 474, 
 
 475, 478, 480, 482, 485. 486, 493, 494, 
 
 495, 497, 498, 500, 540, 541, 542. 545, 
 
 548, 553, 5G0, 568, 573, 585, 588, 589, 
 
 592, 595, 601, 602. 
 Mississippi, river, p. 10, 38, 45, 184, 351. 
 
 State of, p. 162. 
 Monmouth, p. 167. 
 Monroe, James, p. 38, 43, 46, 87, 88, 112, 
 
 177. 
 Moore, Mr. S., p, 106. 
 Mont Blanc, p. 255, note. 
 Monterey, p. 178, 179. 
 Morehead, Gov. Charles, of Kentucky, 
 
 p. 197, 198, 315. 
 Morocco, Emperor of, p. 93. 
 Morpeth, Lord, p. 158, 159, 160. 
 Morris, Gouverneur, of Pennsylvania, 
 
 p. 10. 
 
 N. 
 
 Nashville, railroad, p. 174. 
 
 Democracy, Southern wing of, 407. 
 
 Navigation, two-thirds vote, p. 7, 12, 15. 
 
 Nebraska, p. 423, 424, 425, 426, 427, 42S, 431, 
 432, 433, 434, 436, 437, 438, 442, 443, 
 455, 460, 467, 468, 471, 479, 483. 493, 
 527. 
 
 Nevada, p. 199. 
 
 New England, p. 109, 312, 313. 
 
 New Hampshire, p. 11, 13, 14, 93, 145, 570. 
 
 New Jersey, p. 12, 13, 14, 15, 570. 
 
 New Mexico, p. 179, 181, 184, 186, 187, 188, 
 190, 228, 230, 249, 250, 251, 254, 272, 273, 
 282, 283, 320, 321, 322, 326, 327, 335, 354, 
 356. 357, 358, 368, 369, 370, 371, 380, 4.03, 
 434, 436, 437, 438, 446, 471, 473, 474,475, 
 480, 482, 488, 489. 
 
 New Orleans, p. 36, 41, 46, 162, 173, 198, 199, 
 200. 
 
 New York, p. 38, 91, 92, 93, 94, 127, 128, 158, 
 162, 163, 173, 187, 535, 540, 548. 
 
 Niblach, Judge, p. 590. 
 
 Nicholson Letter, p. 179, 329. 
 
 Nicolay, p. 587. 
 
 Noble, Mr., of Indiana, p. 75, 77. 
 
 Non-interference, p. 53, 146, 152. 
 
 Non-intervention, p. 80, 81, 82. 153, 181, 
 228, 238, 2S3, 286, 319, 320, 326, 328, 3.30, 
 417, 418, 435, 436, 437, 439, 489, 585, 586. 
 
 Norris, Mr., p. 354, 371. 
 
 North, conservative men of. p. 179, 244, 
 245, 248. 502. 
 
 North Carolina, militia of, p, 166, 167, 168, 
 169, 171. 
 
 North-western Territory, p. 15, 28, 29, 30, 
 31, 32, 33, 34, 36. 
 
 Nueces river, p. 186, 187. 
 
 O'Hara, Theodore, p. 347, 408. 
 Ohio river, p. 168, 208. 
 
 State, p. 100, 208, 246, 347, 375, 472, 483, 
 
620 
 
 Index. 
 
 Ontario, New York, p. 313. 
 
 Ordinance of 1787, p. 15, 23, 60, 71, 123, 182, 
 
 424, 483. 
 Oregon, 181, 182, 183. 
 Orleans, Territory of, p. 40. 
 Otis, of Massachusetts, Senator, p. 96. 
 Owsley, Judge, p. 174. 
 
 P. 
 
 Pacific Ocean, p. 225, 264, 479. 
 Palo-Alto, battle of, p. 178. 
 
 Palmer, Mr., of New Hampshire, p. 70. 
 Parker, Theodore, p. 386, 387. 
 
 Parrott, Mr., of Vermont, p. 70. 
 
 Pearce, Mr., of Maryland, p. 356, 357, 358, 
 365, 5S3. 
 
 Pennsylvania, p. 12, 13, 14, 15, 94, 158, 162, 
 164, 204, 270, 569. 
 
 Percy, Harry, 129. 
 
 Petitions for abolition of slavery, p. 21, 
 130, 135, 145, 156. 
 to dissolve the Union, p. 157, 158, 270, 
 313,314,315. 
 
 Philadelphia, monster meeting, p. 405. 
 
 Phelps, Mr., of Vermont, p. 233, 238, 
 
 Piatt, Don, author, p. 128. 
 
 Pickens, Mr., of South Carolina, p. 151. 
 
 Pierce, Franklin, of New Hampshire, p. 
 135, 138, 141, 142, 153, 408, 409, 417, 418, 
 430, 431, 440, 456, 457, 458, 459, 584, 585. 
 
 Pinekney, Gen., of South Carolina, p. 12. 
 
 Pinckney, Mr., of South Carolina, p. 13, 
 128, 133, 134, 259. 
 
 Pindell, Richard, of Lexington, Ken- 
 tucky, p. 200, 212. 
 
 Pittsburg, p. 36. 
 
 Platform of Whigs of Kentucky in 1851, 
 p. 392, 393. 
 of Democratic party in 1852, nomi- 
 nating Franklin Pierce for Presi- 
 dent, p. 407, 408. 
 of Northern Whigs, nominating Gen. 
 Scott, p. 410, 411, 412, 413. 
 
 Plumer, Mr., of New Hampshire, p. 68. 
 
 "Political Beginnings," p. 171. 
 
 Political economy, question of, p. 131. 
 
 Politicians, designing, p. 144. 
 
 Polk, James K., of Tennessee, p. 161, 180, 
 183, 184, 282, 413, 417, 585. 
 
 Powell, Lazarus W., of Kentucky, p. 218, 
 388, 389, 397, 398, 399, 419, 420. 
 
 Pratt, Mr., Seward and "higher law," p. 
 374, 375. 
 
 Prentice, George D., p. 246, 388, 392. 
 
 Preston, Mr., of South Carolina, p. 130, 
 137, 138, 152, 153. 
 
 Preston, Gen. Wm., of Kentucky, p. 214, 
 422, 444, 594. 
 
 Prohibition of slavery in North-west Ter- 
 ritory, p. 15, 16. 
 
 Proviso, Eaton— discussion, p. 93. 
 
 Q. 
 Quincy, Mr., of Massachusetts, p. 40. 
 
 R. 
 
 Raleigh, North Carolina, Mr. Clay's let- 
 ter from, p. 162. 
 Randolph, John, of Roanoke, Virginia, 
 p. 69, 101, 102, 104, 106, 109, 111, 112,' 
 116, 118, 139, 246, 259. 
 Red Banks, p. 169. 
 Red river, p. 184. 
 
 Refusal of one-half of Southern mem- 
 bers to vote for Missouri bill of 
 1820, p. 84. 
 Repeal of 8th section of Act of 1820, p. 
 1, 112, 430, 442, 443, 444, 445, 446, 447, 
 to 584 inclusive, 585, 592, 603, 610. 
 Republic, p. 10, 46. 
 
 of Texas, p. 184. 
 Resaca de la Palma, p. 178. 
 Resolutions, of Continental Congress, p. 
 23, 24. 
 to admit Missouri, p. 103, 116, 117, 118. 
 to refer Abolition petitions to a com- 
 mittee, p. 134. 
 of 1838, John C. Calhoun's, p. 138, 139, 
 
 140, 141, 142 to 152 inclusive, 153. 
 of censure of Mr. Adams, p. 157, 158. 
 in Kentucky Convention of 1849, 
 
 Archibald Dixon's, p. 219, 220. 
 Mr. Clay's, offered in January, 1850, 
 
 p. 250, 251. 
 Hon. John Bell's, February, 1850, p. 
 
 285, 286. 
 of Whig Convention, February 22, 
 1851, p. 392, 393. 
 Rhea, Mr., p. 102. 
 
 Rhett, Mr., of South Carolina, p. 352. 
 Rhode Island, p. 12, (note) 21. 93, 350, 476. 
 Rice, Allen Thorndyke (note), p. 128, 
 
 129. 
 Richardson, Mr., of Illinois, p. 424, 579. 
 Rio del Norte, p. 162. 
 Rio Grande, p. 185, 186, 187, 250, 356, 357, 
 
 366. 
 Riley, Gen., p. 282, 284. 
 Roane, Judge, p. 88, 89. 
 Roberts, Mr., of Pennsylvania, p. 70. 
 Robertson, Mr., of Kentucky, p. 53. 
 Rusk, Mr., of Texas, p. 187, 313, 427. 
 Rutledge, Mr., of South Carolina, p. 10. 
 
 Sabine river, p. 184, 185. 
 
 San Domingo, p, 441. 
 
 Santa Anna, p. 336. 
 
 Santa Fe, p. 186. 
 
 Schenek, Judge, of North Carolina, p. 
 
 167. 
 Schurz, Carl, author (note), p. 255. 
 
Index. 
 
 621 
 
 Scott, Mr., delagate from Missouri, p. 49, 
 
 61, 56. 
 Scott, Gen. Winfield, p. 405, 407, 411, 412, 
 
 413, 414, 417. 
 Sebree, flats of, p. 169. 
 Secession, p. 67, 246, 247, 248, 249, 257. 
 Sectional jealousies, p. 38 to 44 inclusive. 
 Senate, equality of votes in, p. 70. 
 
 great men of, 1849, 1850. 
 Seward, Wm. H., of New York, p. 238, 
 240, 241, 242, 244, 301, 302, 307, 313, 
 314! 315, 374, 375, 377, 404, 405, 410, 411, 
 413, 414, 508, 509, 510, 511, 529, 530, 531, 
 532, 533, 535, 537, 538, 542, 543, 544, 554, 
 555, 557, 587, 589, 590, 591, 592, 593, 591, 
 595, 596, 597, 598. 599, 600, 601, 602, 608, 
 609, 610. 
 Sierra Nevada Mountains, p. 187. 
 Silsbee, Mr., of Massachusetts, p. 85. 
 Sixth Article of Ordinance of 1787, p. 15, 
 
 30, 32, 33, 34. 
 Slavery, slaves, slave trade, p. 2, 3, 4, 21, 
 
 22, 130, 131, 132, 136, 188, 223, 224. 
 Smallwood, Gen., p. 167. 
 Smith, Mr., of South Carolina, p. 118. 
 Smith, Hon.Gerrit, of New York, p. 127, 
 
 128, 239. 
 Smith, Truman, of Connecticut, p. 429. 
 Smyth, Mr., of Virginia, p. 75. 
 Soulg, Pierre, of Louisiana, p. 341, 343. 
 South, p. 245, 246, 247, 248. 
 South, North, p. 228, 575, 576. 
 South Carolina, p. 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 21, 227, 
 
 313, 352, 353, 387, 388. 
 Southern Address, p. 190 to 199 inclusive. 
 Southern sentiment in 1820, p. 86, 132, 
 133. 
 states, 148, 149. 
 
 Confederacy, Mr. Clay, p. 351. 
 protest, 371. 
 Southern Memoirs, Lee's, p. 166. 
 Spaight, Mr., of North Carolina, p. 26. 
 Spain, boundary of, p. 185. 
 Speaker, 1849, p. 229, 230, 231. 232. 
 South Sea, p. 184. 
 States, sovereignty of, rights of yielded 
 
 up, p. 11, 123. 
 Stephens, Alexander, of Georgia, p. 2, 
 
 182, 231, 232. 456. 
 Stevens, Mr., of Pennsylvania,?. 412, 413. 
 St. Louis Republican, p. 590, 592, 594, 595, 
 
 601. 
 Storrs, Hon. John G., of New York, p. 51, 
 
 85, 99, 104, 105, 106. 
 Stowe, Mrs. H. Beecher, p. 387. 
 Strong, Gov., of Massachusetts, p. 45. 
 Strong, Mr., of New York, p. 56. 
 St. Thomas Aquinas, p. 345. 
 Stuart, Mr., of Michigan, p. 522, 523, 524. 
 Sumner. Mr., of Massachusetts, p. 109, 
 455, 469, 486, 530, 547, 567. 
 
 Swift, Mr., of Vermont, p. 138. 
 Syme, John, p. 6. 
 
 T. 
 
 Tallmadge, Mr., of New York, p. 49, 50, 
 
 51, 52. 
 Taxes, in 1776, 1783, p. 8. 
 Taylor, Mr., of Indiana, p. 70, 75, 77. 
 Taylor, Mr., of New York, p. 66, 91, 90, 101, 
 
 102, 258, 259. 
 Taylor, Gen. Zachary, p. 178, 179, 180, 188, 
 189, 218, 226. 228, 231, 232, 282, 283, 284, 
 285, 312, 316, 317, 336, 346. 347, 348, 411, 
 413, 417. 
 Taylor, Mrs. Gibson (note), p. 336. 
 Taylor, Sarah Knox (note), p. 336, 337. 
 Territories, North, South, p. 228. 
 Texas, p. 127, 138, 155, 156, 160, 161, 162, 175, 
 176, 177, 181, 183, 184, 185, 186, 187, 188, 
 249, 2.50, 251, 264, 318, 320, ,321, 327, 354. 
 356, 357. 365, 366, 367, 369, 371, 380, 473, 
 474, 475. 576, 478, 487, 488. 
 Thomas, Mr., of Illinois, p. 70, 73, 260. 
 Thompson, George, p. 127, 12S. 
 Thompson, Hon. John B., of Kentucky, 
 
 p. 392, 400, 401, 403. 
 Three-fifths representation p. 9, 16, 17, 
 
 20,34. 
 Throckmorton, Major, p. 255. 
 Tigert, Rev. John J., p. 400. 
 "Tippecanoe," p. 178. 
 Tomlinson, Mr., of Connecticut, p. 107, 
 
 108, 109. 
 Tompkins, Daniel, of New York, p. 112. 
 Toombs, Robert, of Georgia, p. 230. 232, 
 
 583. 
 Treasury, South, p. 72. 
 Treaty, United States and Mexico, p. 178, 
 
 184. 
 "True American," 1845, p. 393, 394, 395. 
 Turner, Squire, of Richmond Kentucky, 
 
 p. 219, 220, 221. 
 Twenty-first rule, p. 156. 
 Twenty-first section, 434, 435. 
 Two-thirds vote, p. 12, 13, 14, 16, 18. 
 Tyler, John, President, p. 176, 177, 178. 
 
 Underwood, Senator from Kentucky, p. 
 
 271,342,343,402,415. 
 Union of the States, p. 7, 122, 144, 175, 197, 
 198, 199. 
 Mr. Clay's opinion as to what alone 
 could cause its dissolution, p. 266, 
 266, 267, 268, 269. 
 petition for dissolution of, p. 270. 
 Mr. Clay, p. 348. 349, 350, 351, 352. 
 triumphs over disunion, p. 489, 502, 
 574. 
 Uniontown, Kentucky, p. 166. 
 
622 
 
 Index. 
 
 United States, Mexico, p. 176, 177, 179, 185, 
 
 202, 203, 205, 206. 
 United Mexican States, p. 184. 
 Utah, p. 179, 320, 321, 322, 326, 327, 341, 354, 
 
 358, 359, 371, 380, 433, 434, 436, 437, 446, 
 
 471, 478, 479, 480, 482. 
 
 V. 
 
 Valley Forge, p. 167. 
 
 Van Buren, Martin, p. 260, 261, 561. 
 
 Vanderpool, Mr., of New York, p. 151. 
 
 Vermont, p. 92, 93, 138, 232, 233. 
 
 Veto message, draft of, p. 87. 
 
 Virginia, p. 3, 13, 14, 15, 17, 24, 28, 29, 30, 
 
 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 100, 123, 167, 261, 
 
 283, 284, 350, 364, 570, 586. 
 Votes— to continue slave trade, p. 13. 
 two-thirds vote, p. 14. 
 against prohibition of slavery in 
 
 North-west Territory, p. 27. 
 on ordinance of 1784, p. 28. 
 on ordinance of 1787, p. 29. 
 on Tallmadge's amendment, p. 51. 
 on Missouri bill, 51. 
 on Taylor's amendment, p. 53. 
 to concur with committee, p. 53. 
 on Robertson's proposal, p. 53. 
 to separate conjunction of Maine 
 
 and Missouri, p. 70. 
 to unite, p. 74. 
 on amendment of Mr. Thomas, p. 
 
 74. 
 on bill to admit Missouri, p. 74, 75. 
 of Southern Senators, p. 75, 76. 
 on Missouri bill, final, p. 83. 
 on Missouri bill. p. 95. 
 to reject Missouri, p. 100. 
 on Journal, p. 101. 
 on amendments, 106, 109, 111. 
 for President and Vice-President, p 
 
 111, 112. 
 on resolutions to admit Missouri, p, 
 
 116, 117, 118. 
 on Mr. Clay's resolution, 1838, p 
 
 152. 
 on sixth resolution, Mr. Calhoun 
 
 1838, p. 153. 
 Abolition, for President, in 1844, p 
 
 163. 
 on admission of Texas, p. 175. 
 Clayton compromise, p. 181, 182. 
 for Speaker, December, 1849, p. 232. 
 rejecting petition to arm slaves, p. 
 
 315. 
 on amendment to repeal Mexican 
 
 laws, p. 354, 356. 
 on Texas bill, p. 366. 
 on California bill, p. 368. 
 Southern protest, p. 371. 
 
 Fugitive Slave Law, p. 374. 
 
 To suppress slave trade in District of 
 Columbia, p. 384. 
 
 of Kentucky in gubernatorial con- 
 test of 1851, p. 399. 
 
 of States in presidential contest of 
 1852, p. 417. 
 
 on Douglas' Nebraska bill of 18.53, p. 
 425, 429. 
 
 on amendment to Kansas-Nebraska 
 bill of 1854, p. 528. 
 
 of Senate on bill, p. 577. 
 
 of House, p. 579, 580. 
 
 of Senate, p. 584. 
 
 W. 
 
 Wade, Ben., of Ohio, p. 475, 503, 504, 505, 
 
 567. 
 Walker, Mr., of Wisconsin, p. 338, 339, 525, 
 
 526. 
 Wallace, Gen. Lew (note), p. 3.37. 
 Walsh, Mike, of New York, p. 580, 581, 
 
 582, 583. 
 War of 1812, p. 41, 42. 
 Washburne, Mr., of Maine, p. 406. 
 Washington, Gen. George, p. 11, 12, 38. 
 
 167, 312, 408. 
 Washington, City of, p. 133, 229, 432. 
 Washington, County of, p. 378. 
 Washington, treaty of limits, p. 184. 
 Webster, Daniel, p. 138, 141, 154, 175, 182, 
 
 189, 242, 243, 260, 270, 272, 286, 288, 
 
 289. 
 speech of March 7, 1850, p. 289 to 301 
 
 inclusive, 311, .340, 341, 343, 386, 404, 
 
 413, 414, 418, 421, 422, 481, 552, 556, 557, 
 
 559, 585. 
 Weller, Mr., of California, p. 532, 562, 563, 
 
 564, 565. 
 Weller, Sam., quotation from, p. 506. 
 Welles, Hon. Gideon, p. 589, 590, 592, 598, 
 
 601. 
 Wendell Phillips, p. 129. 
 Whigs, p. 163, 164, 165, 174, 177, 178, 180. 
 decadence of party, p. 212, 215, 219. 
 divided, p. 404, 406. 
 defeated, p. 419, 587. 
 White, Judge, Clay letter, p. 260. 
 White House, p. 178. 
 Whitney, Henry C, p. 588, 596, 597, 600, 
 
 601, 602, 610. 
 WickliflFe, Robert, p. 388. 
 Williamsburg, Virginia, p. 6. 
 Williams, musician, p. 164. 
 Wilmot, David R., Proviso, p. 180, 181, 
 
 197, 225, 229, 230, 232, 284, 285, 320, 324, 
 
 339, 348, 438. 
 Wilson, Hon. Henry, of Massachusetts, 
 
 p. 590, 591. 
 
Index. 
 
 623 
 
 Wilson, Hon. Robert L., of Cape Girar- 
 deau, Missouri, p. 590, 594, 595. 
 
 Winthrop, Hon. Wm., of Massachusetts, 
 p. 229, 231, 232, 375, 376. 
 
 Wise, Hon. Henry A., of Virginia, p. 134, 
 159, 379. 
 
 Woods, Dr. John R., of Holkham, Vir- 
 ginia, p. 261. 
 
 Woods, Hon. Micajah, of CharlottesTille, 
 
 Virginia, p. 257, 261. 
 Woods, W. S., letter of Mr. Clay to. p. 257 
 
 to 251 inclusive. 
 Wool, Brig.-Gen. (note), p. 336. 
 
 Yulee, Mr,, of Florida, p. 234, 341. 
 
 ADDENDA TO INDEX. 
 
 Davis, Hon. Jefferson, of Mississippi, 
 letter from, p. 457. 
 
 Dixon, Archibald, of Kentucky, amend- 
 ment to the Nebraska bill, p. 443. 
 letter to Hon. H. S. Foote.of Missis- 
 sippi, pp. 445 to 449 Inclnsive. 
 
 Douglas, Stephen A., of Illinois, report 
 on bill to organize the Territory of 
 Nebraska, pp. 43:!, 434, 4S5. 
 amendment to Nebraska bill, p. 455 
 
 Nebraska— Kansas-Nebraska bill passed 
 Senate and House, pp. 577 to 679. 
 
644 «• 
 
^-^- 
 
 
 ,xx^^' ■'■ 
 
 f-. 
 
 . ,^xv 
 
 
 *^ 
 
 v--. 
 
 .-■^ 
 
 .vv 
 
 \ n N 
 
 -f. .V 
 
 o 
 x^" •"^- 
 
 
 •^ S 
 
 i 
 
 ^^^ 
 
 .aV '^. 
 
 
 A' 
 
 
 ^<^ 
 
 ^<>. v^^ 
 
 o. 
 
 
 A' 
 
 -^A V 
 
 •^oo^ 
 
 .^' 
 
 ^ o.'f' 
 
 '^' ,A^ 
 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 ^. 
 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 vT 
 
 - 
 
 % 
 
 s<^" 
 
 ~ 
 
 \^^ 
 
 
 i A 
 
 
 .f 
 
 A^ 
 
 
 
 .-^^ 
 
 
 
 o^ 
 
 ■i^ %, 
 
 ,0 c 
 
 V 
 
 O' 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 •^o 
 
 0^ 
 
 
 
 
 0- 
 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 N^' 
 
 %. 
 
 
 
 
 /- 
 
 
 f 1 i 
 
 ■\^^ 
 
 
 ^-.. 
 
 
 
 
 r-. 
 
 i"^ 
 
 <^ 
 
 V' 
 
 
 
 <>' 
 
 ''U 
 
 \ 
 
 "^v. C^' 
 
 ^<^ 
 
 ■^. '"/ 
 
 :> -7 , 
 
 . ,-. 
 
 \V- 
 
 ->. - . 
 
 o 
 
 ■^<- 
 
 -?=-/. c- 
 
 .^^ -% 
 
 
 •.\^^ ^;.> 
 
 V 
 
 „ ^ 
 
 .0- 
 
 '^ •' N 
 
 
 
 .^^ 
 
 ■% 
 
 ^^- 
 
 
 /if * V 
 
 ■? -i- 
 
 .x\ ./■■ 
 
OO 
 
 %-> -^-L 
 
 V 
 
 
 V' .^^ 
 
 / 
 
 
 ^^ ^'•c^. 
 
iiii' i 
 
 LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 
 
 011 899 324 A 
 
 ' 
 
 ■■''■■•■'■■