/ 
 
/ 
 
 7 
 
SPEECH 
 
 OF 
 
 ME. CLAY, OF KENTUCKY, 
 
 IN SUPPORT OF HIS 
 
 PROPOSITIONS TO COMPROMISE 
 
 ON THE 
 
 SLAVERY QUESTION. ^ ,d 
 
 REVISED EDITION. 
 
 IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES, FEBRUARY 5, 1850. 
 
 The Senate, as in Committee of the Whole, proceeded to the 
 consideration of the following resolutions, submitted on Tuesday 
 last by the Senator from Kentucky, (Mr. Clay:) 
 
 It being desirable for the peace, concord, and harmony 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, 
 
 1st. Resolved, That CaUfornia, with suitable boundaries, ought upon her application 
 to be admit;ed 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 those 
 boundaries. 
 
 2d, Resolved, That as slavery does not exist by law, and is not likely to be intro- 
 duced into any of the territory acquired by the United States from the Republic of Mexico, 
 it is inexpedient for Congress to provide iiy law either for its introduction into or exclu- 
 sion from any part of the said territory ; and that appropriate Territorial Governments 
 ought to be established by Congress in *all the said territory not assigned as the bounda- 
 ries of the proposed State of California, without the adoption of any restriction or con- 
 dition on the subject of slavery. 
 
 3d. Re>o'ved, That the western boundaiy of the State of Texas ought to be fixed on 
 the Kio del Norte, commencing one marine league from its mouth, and running up that 
 river to the southern line of New Mexico ; thence with that line eastwardiy, and socon- 
 tiiiuing in the same direction to the line as established between the United Slates and 
 Spain, excluding any portion of ISew Mexico, whether lying on the east or west of that 
 river. 
 
 4th. Resolved, That it be proposed to the State of Texas that the United States will 
 provide for the payment of all that portion of the legitimate and bona fide public debt of 
 that State contracted prior to its annexation to the United States, and for wbich the du- 
 ties on foreign imports were pledged by the said State to its creditors, not exceeding the 
 
 sum of S , in consideration of the said duties so pledged having been no longer 
 
 applicable to that object after the said annexation, but having thenceforward 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 Legislature, or of a convention, relin- 
 quish to the United States any claim which it has to any part of New Mexico. 
 
 5th. Resolved, That it is inexpedient to abolish slavery in the District of Columbia, 
 whilst that institution continues to exist in the State of Maryland, without the consent 
 «f that ?!tate, without the consent of the people of the District, and without just com- 
 pensation to the owners of slaves within the District. 
 
 Printed by Towers, at $2 per hundred copies. 
 

 l^ ^ 
 
 6th. But Ri- olv d, That it is expedient to prohibit within the District the slave trade, 
 in slaves brought into it from States or plact* beyond the limits of the District, either to 
 be solil therein aa meicliaudize, or to be trausporttd toother markets without the District 
 of Colunibia. 
 
 7th. Resolved, That more efiecfual provision out to be made by law, acconiing to the 
 requin ment 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 8th. Rennhfd, That Congress has no power to prohibit or obstruct the trade in 
 slaves hetween the slaveholding ;^lates ; but that ihc admission or exclusion of slaves 
 brought from one into another of tiiem, depends exclusively upon their own particular 
 )aw8. 
 
 Mr. CLAY nddre.s.sed the Senato .-is follows: 
 
 Mr. PiiKsiny.vT, never, on any former occasion, have I risen under feelings of such 
 ^eep fiolicitudc. I have witnessed many periods of great anxiety, of peril, and of dan- 
 ger even to the country ; but I have never before arisen to addre.ss any a.ssenibly m) op- 
 pressed. 80 appdied, so anxious. And. sir, I hope it will not be out of plac« to do here 
 what again and again I have done in my private chamber — to implore of Him wjio holds 
 the destinies of nations and individuals in his hands to bestow upon our country hia 
 bles^i: gs— to hfstovv upon our [jeoplc all bis hle8.*ings— to cahn the violence and rage of 
 party - to sti 1 passion — to allow reason once more to resume iis empire. And may I 
 not a.vk of Him, to bestow upon his humble servant, now before Him, the blessings of 
 his sm les, of strength, and of ability, to perform the work which lies before him ? 
 
 Sir, I have said that 1 have witnessed other anxious periods in the history of our 
 country ; and if I wrre to mention — tiT trace to their original source — the cause of all our 
 present dangers and difficulties, 1 should a.scril>c them to the violence and intemperance 
 of party spirit. Wc have h;id testimony of this in the progress of this session, and 
 Senators, however they may differ in other matters, concur in acknowledging the exist- 
 ence (if that cause in originating the unhappy diflercnces which prevail throughout the 
 country upon this subject of the institution of slavery. Parties, in their endcavors^o 
 ot)tain the one the ascendency over the other, catch at evcrv passing and floating plank, 
 in order to add streiigth and power to themselves. We havi- been told by two honorable 
 Senators, (Mr. Hale and Mr. Phelps,) that the parries at the North have each in its 
 turn wooed and endeavored to obtiiin the assistance of a small party called Abolitionists, 
 in order that the scale in its favor might preponderate over its adversaries. Lei us look 
 wherever vue may, we sec too many indications of the existence of tlie spirit and intem- 
 perance of party. I might go to other lejislative bodies besides our own. I might 
 diaw from those Legislatures all the melancholy truth upon which I am dwelling ; but, 
 sir, I need not pass out of this <'a,')itol itself— I say it with all deference and respect to 
 that portion of Congress assembled in the other wing of the Capitol. But what have 
 we seen there during tlris very session? One whole week — I think it was an entire 
 week —exhausted in the vain endeavor to elect a Doorkeeper of the House I 
 
 [Much confusion prevailed in the lobbies and the avenues leading to the Senate 
 chamtur ] 
 
 Mr. CASS. Will the honorable Senator pause a few moments, until order is res- 
 tored here' 
 
 The VI E PRESIDENT. The Sergeant at Arms v?iil see that the avenues to the 
 galleries and this chamber are closed, and that a sufficient number withdraw from them 
 to give room tor those who are in, and to restore order. 
 
 M'. FOtlTE. Let all the disorderly be taken out. 
 
 Mr. BADGEK There are persons in the ante-rosras that, because they c^innot hear 
 themselves, will not let others hear. I would suggest the propriety of extending the 
 wder t'j their case also. 
 
 Mr. CASS. Is the Sergeant at Arms in the chamber ? 
 
 The VICIE PRESIDENT. He is discharging his duty in Tcetoring order. 
 
 Mr. BAbGER Let the ante rooms be entirely closed. 
 
 Order having at length been restored, 
 
 Mr. CLAY resumed. Mr. Preeident, what was the queetion, in this struggle to 
 elect a Boorkec^>er' It was not as regarded the man, or the qualifications of the man, 
 best ii(lapie<l to the situation. !t wa.~ whether the Doo-'keepiT ciiltrtainid opinions upon 
 certain great national measures coincident with thos.o of ihia or that ^ide of the H ouse I 'i'hat 
 Was the sole (question that preventcJ t!ie election of that ofScer for about the jieriod of a 
 
wsdc ! I make no reproaches, sir — none to either portion of the House. I etate the 
 fact ; and I state that fact to draw from it the conclusion, and to express the hope that 
 there will be an endeavor to check this violence of party. 
 
 What vicissitudes do we not pass through in this short mortal existence of ours! 
 Eight years ago, I took my leave finally, and — as I supposed — forever of this body. 
 At that time I did not conceive of the possibility of being again returned to it ^ and if 
 my private wishes and particular inclinations, and the desire during the short remnant of 
 my days to remain in rejtose and quiet, could have prevailed, yoy would never have 
 seen me, sir, occupying the scat which I now do upon this floor. The Legislature of 
 the State to which I belong, unsolicited by me, chose to designate me to represent them in 
 this '"Senate ; and I have come here, in obedience to a sense of stern duty, with no per- 
 sonal objects — no private views now or hereafter to gratify. I know, sir, tlie jealousies, 
 fears, and apprehensions which are engendered by the spirit of party to which I have 
 referred ; and if there be any in my hearing now — if there be in or out of this (Capitol — 
 any one who is running the race for honor, and for elevation — tor higher honor, for 
 higher elevation, than that which be may enjoy — I be^ him to tielieve that I at least will 
 never jostle him in the pursuit of these honors or that elevation. I beg him to be per- 
 suaded that if my wishes prevail, my name shall never be used in competition with his. 
 I beg leave to assure him, that when my services are terminated in this body — and I 
 hope that before the expiration of my present term they may be — ray mission, so far as 
 respects the public aflairs of this world and upon earth, is closed, and closed, if my 
 wishes prevail, forever. 
 
 But, it is impossible for us to be blind to the facts which are daily transpiring Iw- 
 fore us. It is impossible for us not to perceive that party spirit and future elevation mix 
 more or less in all our affairs, in all our delibeiations. At a moment, when the 
 White House is itself in danger of conflagration, instead of all hands uniting to extin- 
 guish the flames, we are contending about who shall be its next occupant. When a 
 dreadful crevasse has occurred, which threatens 'nundation and destruction to all around 
 it, we ace contesting and disputing about the profits of the estate which is threatened 
 with total submersion. 
 
 Mr. President, it is passion, passion — party, party — and intemperance ; that is all I 
 dread in the adjustment of the great questions which unhappily at this time divide our 
 distracted country. At this moment, we have in the legislative bodies of this Capitol, 
 and in the States, twenty-odd furnaces in full blast in generating heat, and passion, and 
 intemperance, and diffusing them throughout the whole extent of this broad land. Two 
 months a20, all was calm in comparison with the present moment. All now i.s up- 
 roar, confusion, menace to the existence of the Union and to the happiness and safety of 
 this pwple I implore Senators — I entreat them by ^that they expect hereafter, and 
 by all that is dear to them here below, to repress the araor of these passions — to look at 
 their country at this crisis — to list( n to the voice of reason, not as it i-hall be attempted 
 to be uttered by me, for I am not so presumptuous as to indulge the hope, that any- 
 thing I can say shall deserve the attention I have desired ; but to listen to their own 
 reason, their own judgment, their own good sense, in determining what is best to be 
 done for our country in the actual posture in which we find it. To this great object 
 have my eflorts been cirected during this whole sct^sion. I have cut nn self off fiom all the 
 usual enjoyment of social life. I have confined myself almost exclusively, with very few 
 exceptions, to my own chamber •, and from the beginning of the session up to this time, 
 my thoughts have been anxiou.'^ly directed to the object of finding some plan, of proposing 
 some mode of accommodation, which should once more restore the blessings ot concord, 
 harmony, and peace to this great country. I am not vain enough to suppose that 
 I have been successful in the accoinphsiiment of this object. But I have presented 
 a scheme ^ and allow me to say to honorable Senators, that if they find in that plan any- 
 thing which IS defective — if they find in it anything which is worthy of acceptance, but 
 is susceptible of improvement by amendment, it seems to me that the true and patriotic 
 coarse for them to pursue is, not to denounce it, but to improve it ; not to reject, with- 
 out examination, any project ot acconnnodation, having for its object the restoration of 
 harmony in this country, but to look at it, and see if it be susceptible of alteration or 
 improvement, so as to accomplish ihi; objict which I indulge the hope is common to all 
 and every one of us, to restore peace, and quiet, and haimony, and happiness to this 
 country. 
 
 V\'hen I came to consider this subject, there were two or three general purpo-ses 
 which -eeraed to me most desirable, if posii'ile, to accomplish. The one was to settle 
 aH tiie controverted questions arising out of the subject of slavery ; and it seemed to me 
 
 \ 
 
 \ 
 
4 
 
 to be doing very little if we settled one question and left other disturbing questions xin ■ 
 adjusted. It seemed to me to be doing but little if we stopped one leak only in the ship 
 of Slate, and left other leaks capable of producing danger, if not destruction to the ves- 
 sel. I therefore turned my attention to every subject connected with the institution of 
 slavery, and out of which controverted questions have sprung, to see if it were possible 
 or practicable to accommodate and adjust the whole of them. 
 
 Another p-incipal object which attracted my attention was to endeavor to frame such 
 a scheme <if accommodation as that neither of the two classes of States into which our 
 country is unhappily divided should make a sacrifice of any great principle. I l)elieve, 
 sir, that ihe series of re.«olutions which I have had the honor of presenting to the Senate 
 accomplish that object. 
 
 Another purjiose, sir, which I had in view was this: I was aware of the difference of 
 opinion |)rc"ailiiig between these two classes of States. I was aware that while a por- 
 tion of (lie Union. was pushing matter.'^, as it seemed to me, to a dangerous eiitremity, 
 another purtion of the fJnion was pushing them to an opposite, and perliaps to a no le-^s 
 dangerous extremity. It appealed to me, then, that if any arrangement, any saii.-.fac- 
 lory adjustment, could b'j made of the controverted (lucstious between the iwo classes of 
 States, that adjustment, that arrangement, could only be successful and effectual by ex- 
 acting trom botli parties some concessKm, not of principle — not nf principle at all — but 
 of feeling, of opinion in relation to ihe matters in controversy betwe<'n them. I l>e- 
 Bcve that the resolutions which I have prepared fulfil that object. I believe that you 
 will find upon thai cartful, rational, and attentive examination of them which 1 think 
 they deserve, that by thfm, neiiher party makes any concession of prini iple at all, though 
 the con<'essions of fbrbeaiance are ample. 
 
 In the next place, in resjwct to the slaveholding .'"tales, there are resolutions making 
 concessions to them by the class ol opposite States, without any compensation whatever 
 being rendered by them, to the non«slaveholding States. 
 
 I think every one of these characteristics which I have assigned to the measures 
 ■which I propose is susceptible of clear, satisfactory demonstration, by an attentive peru 
 eal and critical examination of the resolutions themselves. Let us take up the first, sir. 
 
 The tiist resolution. Mr. President, as you are aware, relates to California; and 
 it declares that California, with suitable limits, ought to he admitted as a meml'.er of this 
 Union, without the imposition of any restrictiim, either to interdict or to introduce sla- 
 very within lier limits. Now, is there any concession in this re.^olution by either 
 party to the oiher? I know that gentlemen wh > come from the slaveholding Slates say 
 that the jNorlh gets ail that it desires But by whom does it get it.' Dees it gel it by 
 sny action of Congress? If slavery be interdicted in California, is it done by (.'ongress, 
 by this Covernment.^ No, sir; tj^ interdiction is imposed by California herself And 
 has it not been the doctrine of allparties, that when a State is about to be admitted into 
 the Union, that Stale has a right to decide for itself whether it will or will not have 
 within its limits slavei^y.' The great principle which was in contest upon the mem- 
 orable occasion of the introduction of Missouri into the Union was, whether it was com- 
 petent oi was not competent for Congress to impcf cany restriction which should exist after 
 «he became a member of the llnion? V\ e, who were in favor of the admission of Mis- 
 souri, contenclcd that, by the Constitution, no such restriction could be imposed. We 
 rontei.dcd that, whenever she was once admitted into ihe Union, she had ail ihe rights 
 and priviie;.ies ot any pre existing State of the Union; and that of these rights and privi- 
 leges, one was to decide for herself whether slavery should or should not exist within 
 hcT hinits — that she had as much a right to decide upon the introduction of slavery, or 
 Qpun its abolition, as New York had a right to decide upon the introduction or abolition 
 of slavery ; and that she stood among her peers equsi, and invested with all the privile- 
 ge! that aiij one of the original thirteen States, aiid those subsequently admiited, had a 
 right to enjoy. 
 
 And so i thought that tho.sc who have been contending with so much earnestness 
 and willi so much perseveranre for the Wilmot Proviso, ought to reflect that even if they 
 c«uld carry thtir object, and adopt ihe Wihnot Proviso, it would cease the moment any 
 "State to whi'se territory it was applicable came to be admitte<l as a member of the 
 Union. No one contends now — no one believes — that with regard to the northwes- 
 tern States, to which ihe ordinance of 178/ was applied — Ohio, In liana, Illinois, and 
 Michigan — no one now believes that any one of those States, if tiiej Ibouglit pruprr to 
 do It, has not just as much aright to introduce slavery wnhin her borders as Vii^iinia hss 
 a right to manilain the existence of slavery valhin iiers. 
 
TVnjfin this struggle of power an' empire betwfen the two classes of States, a 
 decision of Caiifornia has taken place adverse to the wishes of the southern States, it is 
 a decision not made by the general government ; it is a decision respecting which they 
 cannot complain to the genera! government. It is a decision made by California herself, 
 and which ('alifornia had incontestably a right to make under the Constituiion of the 
 United States. There is, then, in that first resolution, according to the observation 
 which I made some tinie ago, a case whore neither party concedes ; where the question 
 of slavery, either of its introduction or interdiction, is silent as respects theaction of this 
 government ; and if it has been decided, it has been decided by a different body — by a 
 different power — by California herself, wbo had a right to make that decision. 
 
 Mr. President, the next resolution of the series which I have offered, I beg gentlemen 
 candidly now to look at. I was aware, perfectly aware, of the perseverance with which 
 the Wilmot Proviso was insisted u[)on. I knew that every one of the free States of this 
 Union — I believe without exception — had, by its legislative bodies, passed r esolutions in- 
 ,«tructing its testators and requesting its representatives to get that restriction incorporated 
 into any territorial bill that might be offered under the auspices of (congress. I knew how 
 much — although I regretted liow much— the free States had — if I may say so - put their 
 hearts upon the adoition of this measure. In this second resolution I call upon them to 
 waive persisting in it. I ask them, for the sake of peace, and in a spirit of mutual for- 
 bearance to the other members of the Union, to give it up, and no longer to insist upon 
 it — to see, as they must see, if their eyes are open, the dangers which lie under it, if they 
 persevere in insisting upon it. 
 
 Well, when I called upon them in that resolution to do this, was I not bound to 
 offer for the surrender of that favorite measure of theirs some compensation — not an 
 equivalent by any means, but some compensation — as that spirit of mutual forbearance 
 which animates the one side ought at ihe same time to animate the other side ? What 
 is it that is offered thera ? It is a declaration of what I characterize and must style, with 
 great deference to all those who entertain the opposite opinion — I will not say incontes- 
 table, but to me clear, and I think they ought to be legarded as — indisputable truths. 
 And what are they ? The first is, that by law slavery no longer exists in any portion of 
 .the acquisition made by us from the republic of Mexico ; and the other is, that in our 
 opinion, according to all the probabilities of the case, slavery never will be introduced 
 into any portion of the territories so acquired from Mexico. 
 
 IS'ow I have heard it said that this declaration of what I c.all these two truths is 
 .equivalent to the enactment of the Wihnot Proviso. I have heard this asserted, but is 
 ;that the case ? If the Wilinot Proviso were adopted in territorial governments establish- 
 ed in these countries acquired from Mexi< o, it would be a positive enactment, a prohibi- 
 tion, an interdiction, as to the introduction of slavery within them. But with regard to 
 those truths, I had hoped, and still indulge the hope, that, those who represent the free 
 States will be inclined noi to insist that we shall give— and indeed it would be extreme- 
 ly difficult to give to these declarations — ^the form of a positive enactment. I had hoped 
 that they would ba satisfied with the simple expression of the opinion of Congress, leav- 
 ing it upon the basis of tliat opinion, without asking for what seems to be almost imprac- 
 ticable, if not impossible — for any su!>.sequent enactments to be introduced into the bill 
 by which territorial governments shall be established. I can only say that that jsecoud 
 resolution, even without the declaration of these two truths, would be more acoeptable 
 to me tlian with them. But I could not forget that I was proposing a sc heme of ar- 
 rangement and compromise; and I could not, therefore, depart from tlie duty which the 
 preparation of the scheme seemed to me to impose, while we ask upon the one side a 
 surrender of their favorite measure, of offering upon the other side some compensation 
 for that surrender or sacrifice. 
 
 Mr. President, the first of these truths is, that by law slavery does not exist within 
 the territories o.-ded to us by the republic of Mexico. It is a misfortune in the 
 various weighty and important topics which ase connected with the subject that J am 
 now addressing you upon, that any one of the five or six embrac<Kl in these resolutions 
 would of Itself lurnisli a theme for a lengthened speech; and I am, therefore, nduced 
 to the necessity, 1 think, at least in this stage of tlieiiiscussion, of limiting myself rather 
 to the expression of opinions, th^n to going at any great lennth into the discussion of all 
 these various topics. Now with respect to the opinion here as.-erted, tliat slavery 
 does not exist in the territories celled to the United States by Mexico, 1 can only refet 
 to the fact of the passage of a law by the supreme Government of Mexico abJishinj 
 it, 1 think in the year 1824, and the subsequent passage of a law by ihe Icislaiive body 
 of Mexico — I lorget in what year — by which they propoee — what, it is liue, they uevei 
 
 \ 
 
yet carried into full effect— a compensation to the owners of slaves for the property of 
 which they were deprived by the act of abolition. I can only refer to the aciiuie3c«nce 
 of Mexico in the abolition of slavery, from the time of this extinction down to the time 
 of the treaty by which we acquired those countries. All Mexico, so far as I know, ac- 
 quiesced in the non-existence of slavery. Gentlemen, I am aware, talk about the irre- 
 gularity of the acts by which slavery was abolished ; but docs it become us, a foreign 
 power, to look into the modes by which an act was accomplished by a foreign power, 
 when she herself is satisfied with what is done, and when she, too, is exclusively the 
 judge whether the object, then local, municipal in Mexico, has or has not been aboliched 
 in conformity with her fundamental law^ Mexico, upon this subject, showed to the last 
 moment her anxiety. In the documents which were laid before the country upon the 
 subject of the negotiation of the treaty by Mr. Trist, you w.U iind this passage contained 
 in one of his despatches : 
 
 " Among the points which came under discussion was the exclusion of slavery from 
 all territory which should pass from Mexico. In the course ot' their remarks on the 
 subject, I was told that if it were proposed to the people of ihe United States to part with 
 a portion of their territory, in order that the i/ifjuisition t^hould be therein established, 
 the proposal could not excite stronger feelin<js of abhorrence than tho=e awakened in 
 Mexico by the prospect of the mtroduction of slavery in any tenitory parted with by her. 
 Our conversation on this topic was perfi;clly frank, and no less friendly; and the more 
 effective upon their minds, inasmuch as I was enabled to say, with perfect securiy, that 
 although their impressions respecting the practical fact of slavery, as it existed in the 
 United States, were, I had no doubt, entirely erroneous, yet there was probably no dif- 
 ference between my individual views and setitinients on slivery. considered in itself, and 
 those which they entertained I concluded by assuring them that the bare tnendon of 
 the subject in any treaty to which the United Slates were a party was an ab.solute im- 
 possibility ; that no President of the United States would dare to present any such treaty to 
 the Senate; and that if it were in their power to offer me the whole territory described in 
 our projet, increased tenfold in value, and in addition to that, covered a foot thick all 
 over with pure gold, upon the single condition that lilavery should be excluded therefrom, 
 I could not entertain the offer for a moment, nor think even of communicaiing it to 
 Washington. The matter ended in their being fully satisfird that thi« topic was one not 
 to be touched, and it was dropped, with good feeling on both sides." 
 
 Thus you find that, in the very act of negotiation by which the treaty was concluded, 
 which ceded to us the country in question, the diplomatic representatives of the Mexican 
 republicurged theabhorrence with which Mexico would view the introduction of slavery into 
 any portion of the territory whii h she was about to cede to the United States. But a prohibi- 
 tion of its introduction was not inserted, in consequence of the lirm ground taken by 
 Mr. Trist, and his declaration that it was an utter impossibility even to mention the sub 
 ject. I take it then, for granted, — availing myself ot the benefit of the discussions 
 which took place upon this topic at a former session, which I think liave left the whole 
 country under the impression of the non existence of slavery in the ceded Territories — 
 I take it for granted that what I have said will satisfy the f^enate of that first truth — that 
 slavery does not exist there by law, unless slavery was carried there the moment the treaty 
 was ratified by the two parties to the treaty, under the operation of the Constitution of 
 the United States. 
 
 Now, really, I must say that the idea that eo i/ntanii, upon the consummation of 
 the treaty, the Constitution of the United Stales sjiread itself over the acquired country, 
 and carried along with it the institution of slavery, is so irreconcilable with any compre- 
 hension or any reason which I possess, that I hardly know how to meet it. Why, sir, the.se 
 United States consist of thirty States. In fifteen of them, there was slavery; in fifteen, 
 slavery did not exist- How can it be argued that the fifteen slave States, by the opera- 
 tion of the Constitution of the United States, carried into the ceded country their institu- 
 tion of slavery, any more than it can be argued, upon the other side, that by the opera- 
 tion of the same Constitution, the fifteen free States carried into the ceded territories the 
 principle of freedom, which they, from policy, have chosen to adopt within their limits? 
 Let me suppose a case. Let me imagine that Mexico had UHver abolished slavery 
 there at all. Let me suppose that it v as existing there, by virtue of law, from the shores 
 of the Pacific to those of the Gulf of Mexico, at the moment of the cession of those countries 
 to us by the treaty in question. With what patience would gentlemen, coming from 
 the slaveholding States, hsten to an argument which should be urged by the free 
 States, that notwithstanding the existence of slavery within those territories, the Consti- 
 tution of the United States, the moment it operated upon and took effect within the ce- 
 
iei territories, abolished slavery, and rendered thrm free ' Well, is there not just as 
 much ground to contend, where a moiety of the States are free, and the other moiety are 
 Biaveholding States, that the principle of freedom which prevails in the one class shall 
 operate as the principle of slavery which prevails in the other class of States shall operate? 
 Can you, am'dst this conflict of interests, of principles, and of legislation, which prevails 
 in the two parts of the Union — can you come to any other conclusion than that which I 
 undert-tand to be the conclusion of the public law of the world, of reason, and of justice, 
 that the status of law, as it existed at the moment of the conquest or acquisition, remains 
 unchanged until it is altered hy the sovereign authority cftheconquering or acquiring power? 
 That is a great principle, and you can scarcely turn over a page of the public law where you 
 ■will not find it recognized. The laws of Mexico, as they existed at the moment of the ces- 
 sion of the ceded territories to this country, remained their laws still, unless they were 
 altered by that new sovereign power which this people and these territories came under, 
 in consequence of the treaty of cession to the United States. I think, then, Mr. Presi- 
 dent — without trespassing further, or exhausting the little stock of strength which I have, 
 and for which I shall find ample occasion in the progress of the argument — that I may 
 leave that part of the subject with two or three observations only upon the general pow- 
 er which, I think, appe: tains to this government upon the subject of slavery within those 
 territories 
 
 But, before I approach that subject, allow me to say that, in my humble judg- 
 ment, the institution of slavery presents two question? totally distinct, and resting upon 
 entirely different grounds; slavery within the States, and slavery without the States. 
 Congress, the general government, has no power, unler the Constitution of the United 
 States, to touch slavery within the Slates, except in the three specified particulars in that 
 instrument; to adjust the subject of representation, to impose taxes on slaves when a system 
 of direct taxation is made, and to perform the duty of surrendering, or causing to he di iiver- 
 ed up, fugitive slaves when they e^cape from the service which they owe in the slave 
 States, and take refuge in the free States. And I am ready to say that if < ongress 
 were to attack within the Stal,?s the institution of slavery, witJi the purpose of the over- 
 throw or the extinction of slaverj', then, Mr. President, " my voice Wiuld be for war." 
 Then would be made a case which would justify in the s-ight of God, and in the presence 
 of the nations of the earth, resistance on the part of the slave States to such an unconsti- 
 tutional usurped attempt as would be made under the supposition I have stated. Then 
 •we should b,- acting in defence of our rights, of our domiciles, of our property, of our 
 safety, of our lives. Then I think would be furnished a case in which the slave States 
 would be justified by all the considerations which appertain to the happiness or security 
 of man, to employ every instrument which God ct nature has placed in our hands, to 
 resist such an nttempt upon the part of this government. Then if, unfortunately, 
 civil war should break out, we should present to the nations of the earth the spectacle of 
 one portion of this Union endeavoring to subvert an institution of another portion, in 
 violation of the Ccn.stitution and the most sacred obligations. \^'e should present a spec- 
 tacle in which we should have the sympathy and good wishes, and desire for our suc- 
 cess, of all men wh > love jui^tice and truth. 
 
 Far different would, I fear, he our case, if, unhappily, we should be led into war, into 
 civil war-- if the two parts of this country should be placed in a hostile po.sition towards 
 each other, in order to carry rlavcry into new territories acquired from Mexico. Mr. 
 President, we have heard — all of us have read — of the efforts of France to propagate — 
 what, on the continent of Europe'' Not i^lavery, sir, not slavery, but the rights of man; 
 and we know the (ate of her ellbrts of ptopagandism of that kind. But i(, unhappily, 
 we should be involved in war, in civil war, betw een the two parts of this confederacy, in 
 "whit h the effort upon the one side should be to restrain the introduction of slavery into 
 the new territories, and upon the other side to force its introduction there, what a spec- 
 tacle should we present to the astonishment of mankind, in an effoit, not to propagate 
 ri; hts, but — I must say it, though I trust it will be understood to be said with no 
 design to excite feeling — a war to propagate wrongs in the territories thus acquired from 
 Mexico. It would be a war in which we .should have no sympathies, no good wishes ; 
 in which all mankind would be a.:ainst us ; in which our own history itself would be 
 against us ; for, from the commencement of the revolution down to the preserit time, we 
 have cons: wtly reproached our British ancestors for the introduction of slavery into this 
 country. And allow me to say, that, in my opinion, it is one of the best defences which 
 ^ can bo made to |)resprve the institution of slavery in this country, that it was forced upon 
 \us a;a!ii3t the wis'iei ot our ancestors — of our own American colonial ancestors — and 
 \y the cupidity of our B-dtish commercial ancestors. 
 
8 
 
 Tlie power, then, IMr. President, in my opinion — and I extend it to the introducficm 
 as well as to the prohibition of slavery in the new territories — does exist in Congress j 
 and I think there is this important distincti(m between slavery outside of the States and 
 slavery inside of the States; that all out^^ide of the States is debatable, and all inside of 
 the States is not debat;ible. The Government has no riu;ht to attack the institution with- 
 in the States; but whether she has, and to what extent she has or has not, the right to 
 attack slavery outside of the States, is a debatable question— one upon which men may 
 honorably and fairly differ; and however it may be decided, furnishes, I trust, no just 
 occasion for breaking up this glorious Union of ours. 
 
 I am not going to take up that part of the subject which relates to the power of Congress 
 to legislate on slavery — I shall hive occasion to make some observations upon that subject 
 inthecourseof my remarks — whether in this Dif^ttict of Columbia or in the territories; but 
 I must say in a few words that I think there are two sources of jjower, either of which 
 is sutncient, in my judgment, to authorize the exercise of the power either to introduce 
 or keep out slavery, outside of the !:^tates and within the territories. Mr. Presi- 
 dent, I shall not take up time, of which so much has been consumed already, to show 
 that the claust; which '."ives to Congress the power to make needful rules and reg\ilati(ms 
 respecting the territory and other property ol the United Slates, conveys the power to 
 legislate tor the territories. I caimot concur with my worthy friend — and I use the term 
 in^its best and most emphatic sense— my friend from Michigan, (Mr. Cass) — for I believe 
 we have known each other longer than I have known, and longer than he has known, any 
 other Senator in this hall— I say I cannot concur with that honorable Senator, though I 
 entertain the most profound respect for the opinion which he has advanced adver.se to 
 my own ; hut I must say, that when a point is settled by all the elementary authori- 
 ties, and by the uniform interpretation and action of every department of our Govern- 
 ment— leo-islative, executive, and judicial— and when that point has been Fettled during 
 a period of lifty years, and never was seriously disturbed until recently, I think that if 
 we are to regard anything as fixed and settled under the administration of this Constilu- 
 tution of ours, it is the question which has been thus invariably and uniformly settled. 
 Or, are we to come to the conclusion that notbincr — nothing upon earth is settled under 
 this Constitution, but the principle that everything is unsettled? 
 
 Mr. President, we are to recollect that it is very possible — that it is, indeed, quite 
 
 jitely that when that Cunstitut on was formed, the application of it to such territories 
 
 as Louisiana, Florida, California, and New Mexico, was never within the contemplation 
 of the framers of that instrument. It will be recollected that, when that Constitution 
 was formed, the whole country northwest of the Ohio was unpeopled ; and it must be 
 recollected, also, that the exercise of the power to make governments for territories in 
 their infant state is in the nature of the power temporary, and such as must terminate 
 whenever they have acquired a population competent to self government. Sixty thou- 
 sand is the number specified in the ordinance of 17b;7. IVow, sir, recollect that, when 
 this Constitution was adopted, that territory was unpeopled; and how was il possible 
 that Congress, to whom it had been ceded, for the connnon benefit of the ceding States 
 and the o°ther States of the Un;on, had no power whatever to declare what description of 
 settlers should occupy the public lands ? Suppose that Congress had taken up the notion 
 that slavery would enhance the value of the land, and, with a view to replenish the pub- 
 lic treasury and augment the revenue from that source, that the introduction of .slavery 
 there would be more advantageous than its exclusion, would they not have had the right, 
 under that clause which authorizes Congress to make the necessary "rules and regula- 
 tions respecting the territory and other property belonging to the United States'' — would 
 -they have no tight, discretion, or authority — whatever you may choose to call it— to say 
 that anybody who chose to bring his slaves and settle upon the land and improve it 
 should do so? It might be said that it would enhance the value of the property ; it 
 would give importance to the country ; it would build up towns and villages; and in fine 
 we may suppose that Congress might think that a greater amount of revenue might be 
 derived from the waste lands by the introduction of slavery than could be secured by its 
 exclusion ; and will it be contended, if they so thought, that they would have no right 
 to make such a rule? Why, sir, remember how those settlements were made. They 
 becran with very few persons Marietta was, I think, the first place settled in the north- 
 west territory. My friend now before me (Mr. Corwin) will correct me if I am 
 wrong. It was a small settlement, made by some two or three hundred persons from 
 New England. Cincinnati was the next, and was settled by a handful of persons from 
 New Jersey, perhaps, or some other of the tetates. Had those few settlers the 
 ri"ht, from the moment they arrived there — a mere handful of men, who may have 
 
9r 
 
 planted themselves at Marietta or Cincinnati — to govern and dispose of the territories, or 
 to govern themselves as a sovereit^n commnnity? or was it not in the mean time right 
 and proper, and within the contemplation of the Constitution, that <-ongress, who owned 
 the soil, acting under the anthority therein contained, should regulate the settlement of 
 the soil, and govern the fettlers in those infant colonies until they should reach a suffi- 
 cient degree of consideration, in respect of numbers and capacity for self government, to 
 he constituted into more regular municipal organizations, and be allowed to govern 
 themselves i' 
 
 I will not further dwell upon this part of the subject. But I have said there is 
 another source of power equally satisfactory in my mind— equally conclusive as that 
 ■which relates specifically to the territories. This is the treaty making power — the ac- 
 quiring power. Now, I put it to gentlemen, is there not at this moment a power some- 
 where existing either to admit or exclude slavery from the territories acquired Irom Mexico? 
 It is not an annihilated power. That is impossible. It is a substantive, actual, existing 
 power. And where does itexist? Itexisted — no one, Ipresume, denies — in Mexico, prior 
 to the cession of those territories. Mexico could have abolished slavery or have introduced 
 slavery either in California or New Mexico. Now, that power must have been ceded. 
 Who will deny that' Mexico has parted with the territory, and with it the sovereignty 
 over the territory; and to whom did she transfer it? She transferred the territory and the 
 sovereignty over the territory to the Government of the United States. The Government 
 of the United States then acquired all the territory and all the sovereignty over that terri- 
 tory which Mexico held in California and New Mexico prior to the cession of these ter- 
 ritories. Sir, dispute that who can. The power exists, or it does not exist. No one 
 will centend for its annihilation. It existed in Mexico. No one, I think, can deny that 
 Mexico alienates her sovereignty over the territory to the Government of the United 
 States. The Government ot the United States, therefore, possess all the powers which 
 Mexico possessetl over those territories ; and the Government of the United States can 
 do with reference to them — within, I admit, certain limits of the Constitution — whatever 
 Mexico could have done. There are prohibitions upon the power of Congress within 
 the Constitution, which prohibitions, I admit, must apply to Congress whenever it legis- 
 lates, whether for the old States or the new teriitories; but within the scope of those 
 prohibitions — and none of them restrain the exercise of the power of Congress upon the 
 sulijcct of slavery — the powers of Congress aie coextensive and coequal with the powers 
 of Mexico prior to the cession. 
 
 Sir, with regard to this treaty-making power, all who have had any occasion to exam- 
 ine into its character, and into the possible extent to which it may be carried, know that 
 it is unlimited in its nature, excfpt in so far as any limitations may be found w'thin the 
 Consiitution of the United States;' but upon this subject there is no limitation which 
 prescribes the extent to which the power shall Ive exercised. 
 
 I know, that it is argued that there is no grant of power, in express terms, in the 
 Constitution over the subject of slavery. But there is no grant in the Constitution, spe- 
 cifically, over a vast variety of subjects upon which the powers of Congress are unques- 
 tionable. The major includes the minor. The general grant of power comprehends all 
 the particulars of which that power consists. The power of acquisition by treaty draws 
 with it the power to govern all the territory acquired If there be a power to acquire, 
 there must be a power to govern ; and I think, therefore, without at present dwelling 
 further upon this part of the subject, that from the two sources of authority in Congress 
 to which I have referred may be traced the power of the Government of the United States 
 to act upon the territories in general. 
 
 I come now to the question of the extent of the power. I think it is a power 
 adequate either to introduce or to exclude slavery. I admit the argument in both 
 its forms of application. I admit that, if the power exists of excluding, the power must 
 also exist of introducing or tolerating slavery within the territories. But I have 
 been drawn off so far from the second resolution, which I have now under consideration, 
 that I have almost lost it cut of view. In order, therefore, that we may come back un- 
 derstandingly to the subject, I will again read it : 
 
 Resolutd, That as slavery does not exist by law, and is not Ukely to be introduced 
 into any of the territory acquired by the United States from the republic of Mexico, it 
 is inexpedient for Congress to provide by law either for its introduction into, or exclusion 
 from, any part of the said territory; and that appropriate territorial governments ought 
 to he established by Congress in all of the said territory not assigned as the boundaries 
 of the proposed State of California, without the adoption of any restriction or condition 
 on the subject of slavery. 
 
10 
 
 The other truth, as I respectfully and with great deference submit, is this : I propose 
 to admit and announce that slavery is ni^t 'likely to be introduced into any of those ter- 
 ritories. Weil, is not that the fact ? Is there a member of this body who doubts it' 
 What has occurred within the last three montlis' In California, more than in any other 
 portion of the ceJed territories, was it most probable, if slavery was adapted to the in- 
 dustrial habits of the people, that slavery would be introduced ; yet wil'un the last three 
 months slavery has been excluded by the vote — the unanimous vote — of the Convention, 
 against its introduction — a vote, as I observed on a former occasion, not confnied to men 
 from the non-slaveholdinj; States. There were men from the siaveholding States as well, 
 who concurred in thit declaration ; and that declaration has been responded to by the 
 people of California of a! Iciasses, and from all parts of the United States, and from for- 
 eign countries. Well, if we come down to those mountainous ridges which abound in 
 New Mexico, the nature of its soil, its barrenness, its unproductive character, everything 
 that we know, everything that we h-^ar of it, must necessarily lead to the conclusion 
 which I have mentioned, that slavery is not likely lo be introduced there. 
 
 If it be true, then, that by I.iw slavery does not now exist in the territories — if it is 
 not likely to be introduced into the territories — if \ou Senators here, or a majority of 
 you, believe these truths, as I am persuaded a large majority of you do — where isthedif- 
 ficulty in your announcing it to the whole world ' VV by hesitate or falter in the decla- 
 ration of these indisputable truths' On the other hand, with regard to the ."^'enators 
 from the free Stales, allow me to make a reference to ('alifornia in one or two other nb 
 servations. When this feeling within the limits of your States was gotten up — when 
 the V\ ilmot Proviso was disseminated through them did you not fear, whatever may 
 have been the state of the facts — did you not at that time apprehend the introduction of sla- 
 ver)' there' You did not know much in relation to the country or its inhabitants They 
 were far distant from jou, and you were truly apprehensive that slavery might be intro- 
 duced there, and you felt that the Wilmot Proviso was a necessary medsure of prevention. 
 It was in this state of want of information that the whole North blazed up in behalf of this 
 Wilmot Proviso. It was in the apprehension that slavery might be introduced there that 
 you left your constituents when yon came here; for at the time you left your respective 
 residences, you did not know ihefact, which has reached us since the commencement of 
 the session of Conaress — you did not know the fact that a constitution had been unani- 
 mously adopted by the people of California, excluding slavery. 
 
 Well, now, let me suppose that two jears ago it had been known in the free States 
 that such a constitution would be ac'opted ; let me suppose that it had been believed that 
 in no other part of the territory did slavery exist by law^ and that it could not be intro- 
 duced except by a positive enactment ; suppo.^e that, in relation to this whole subject — 
 the solicitude in relation to slavery — the people of the North bail supposed that there 
 was no danger ; let me also suppose that they had foreseen the excitement, the danger,' 
 the irritation, the resolutions which have been adopted by the southern legislatures, and 
 the manifestations of the people of the slave States ; let me suppose all this had been 
 known at the North at the time the agitation was beina excited upon the subject of this 
 Wilmot Proviso, do you believe that it would ever have reathed the height to which it 
 has since risen'' Do any of you believeit.'' And if, prior to your departure from your re- 
 spective homes, you had had the opportunity of conversing with your constituents upon 
 tliis great, controlling, and important fact of the adoption of a constitution excluding sla- 
 very in California, do you believe, senators and representatives coming from the free State.s, 
 that if you had had the aid of this fact in a calm, serious, fireside conversati'm, your 
 constituents would not have told you to come here an J settle all these questions without 
 danger to the Union ? What doyou want ' — what do you want ' — you who reside in the 
 free States. Do you want that there shall be no slavery introduced into the territories 
 acquired by the war with Mexico ' Have you not your desire in California ' And in 
 all human probability you will have it in New Mexico also. What more do you want ' 
 You have got what is worth more than a thousand Wilmot Provisos. You have nature 
 on your side — facts upon your side — and this truth staring you in the face, that there is 
 no slavery in those territories. If you are not infuriated, if you can elevate yourselves 
 from the mud and mire of mere party contentions, lo the purer regions of patriotism^ 
 what will you not do' Look at the tact as it exists. You will see that this fact was 
 unknown to the great majority of the people; you will see that they acted upon one state 
 of facts, while we have another and far different state of facts before us; and we will act 
 as patriots — as responsible men, and as lovers of liberty, and lovers, above all, of this 
 Union. We will act upon this altered state of facts which were unknown to our con- 
 stituents, and appeal to their justice and magnanimity to concur with us in this action for 
 peace, concord, and harmony. 
 
llr 
 
 I think, entertaining these views, that there is nothing extravagant in the hope which 
 I intlulged at the time these resolutions were proposed — nothing extravagant in the hope 
 that the North might coiitent itself even with striking out these two declarations. They 
 are unnecessary for any purpose which the free States have in view. At all events, If 
 they should insist upon Congress expres.sing the opinions which are here asserted, they 
 might even limit their wishes to the simple a-ssertion of that, without insisting on their 
 being incorporated in any territorial government which might be devised for the territo 
 ries in question. 
 
 I pass from the second resolution to the third and fourth, which relate to the Texas 
 question. But allow me to say, Mr President, that I approach the subject with a full 
 knowledge of all its difficulties: and of all the questions connected with or growing out of 
 tliis institution of slavery, which Congress is called upon to pass upon at this time, 
 there are none so ditiieult and troublesoiiie as this which relates to Texas; because Tex- 
 as, has the question of lx)undary to s«tle. The question of ^^laverJ•, or the feeling con- 
 nected with the institution of slavery, runs into the question of the boundary of Texas. 
 The North aic, perhaps, anxious to contract Texas within the narrowest possible limits, 
 in order to exclude all beyond them, and to make it free territory. The South, on the 
 contrary, are anxious to extend their limits to the source of the Rio Grande, for the pur- 
 pose of obtaining an additional theatre for slavery; and it is this question of the limits of 
 Texas, and the proper settlement of her boundaries, which embarrass all others. Vou 
 will perceive that these difficulties of the boundary question meet us at every step we take, 
 in which there is a third question also adding to the difficulty. By the resolution of an- 
 nexation, all territory north of 36° 30' was interdicted from slavery. But of New Mexi- 
 co, all that which lies north of 36° 30' embraces about one-third of the whole of New 
 Mexico east of the Rio Grande; so that free and slave territoiy, slavery and non-slavery, 
 are mixed "up together. All these difficulties are to be met. And allow me to say, that 
 among the considerations which induced me to think that it was necessary to settle all 
 these questions, was the state of things that now exists in New Mexico, and a state of 
 things to be apprehended both here and in the territories. Why, sir, at this moment — 
 and I think I shall have the concurrence of the two senators from that State, when I 
 mention the fact — there is a feeling approximating to abhorence, on the part of the peo- 
 ple of New Mexico, of any union with Texas 
 
 Mr. RUSK. Only on the part of office-holders, office-seekers, and those they could 
 infliHiice. 
 
 Mr. CLAY. Well, that may be; and I am afraid that New Mexico is not the only 
 place where office holders and office-seekers compose the majority of the population of 
 the country. [Laughter.] They are a terribly large class, I assure you, sir. Now, if 
 the questions are not settled which relate to Texas, her boundaries, etc., and which re- 
 late to the territory not claimed by Texas and included in New Mexico, all these ques- 
 tions being left open will but tend to agitation, confusion, disorder, and anarchy there, 
 and agitation here There will be, 1 have no doubt, parties at the North crying out for 
 the imposition of the V\ ilmot Proviso, or some other restriction upon the subject of sla- 
 very. And in my opinion we absolutely do nothing, or next to nothing, if we do not 
 provide against these difficulties, and the recurrence of these dangers. With respect to 
 the state of things in New Mexico, allow me to call the attention of the Senate to what 
 I consider as the highest authority I could offer, as to the .'tate of things there existing — 
 I mean the act of their Convention, unless that Convention happened to be composed of 
 office seekers and office holders, etc. I will call your attention to what they say of their 
 situation, if my colleague will be so kind as to read for me. 
 
 Mr. UNDERWOOD read as follows- 
 
 " We, the people of New Mexico, in Convention assembled, having elected a dele- 
 gate to represent this Territory in the ( ongress of the United States, and to urge upon 
 the supreme Government a redress of our grievances, and the protection due to us as 
 citizens of our common country, under the < onstitution, instruct him as follows : That 
 whereas for the last three years, we have suffered under the paralyzing effects of a gov- 
 eriiment undefined and doubtful in its character, inefficient to protect the rights of the 
 people, or to discharge the high and absolute duty of every Government, the enforcement 
 and regular administration of its own laws, in consequence of which industry and enter- 
 prise are paralyzed, and discontent and confusion prevail throughout the land : the want 
 of proper protection against the various barbarous tribes of Indians that surround us on 
 ■every side has prevented the extension of settlements upon our valuable public domain, 
 and rendered utterly futile every attempt to explore or develope the great resources of the 
 territory. Surrounded by the Utahs, Comanches, and Apaches, on the north, east, and 
 
south, by the Navijos on the west, with Jicarillas within our limits, and without any 
 adequate piotection against their hostile inroads, our flocks and herds are driven off by 
 thousands,- our fellow citizens — men, women, and children— are murdered or carried into 
 captivity; many of our citizens, of all ages and sexes, are at this moment suffering all 
 the horrors of barbarian bondage, and it is utterly out of our power to obtain their re- 
 lease from a condition to which death would be preferable. The wealth of our terri- 
 tory is being diminished. We have neither the means nor any adopted plan by govern- 
 ment for the education of the rising generation. In fine, with a government temporary, 
 doubtful, uncertain, and inefficient in character and in operation, surrounded and des- 
 poiled by barbarous foes, ruin appears inevitably before Uf, unle.^s speedy and eflcctual 
 protection be extended to us by the Congress of the United States." 
 
 Mr. CLAY. Now, sir, there is a vivid and faithful exhibition of tlie actual condition 
 of things there, and if we go beyond the Rio Grande, to that part not claimed by Texas, 
 we, I apprehend, shall find no better t^tate of things. In fact, I cannot for a moment 
 reconcile it to my sense of duty to suffer Con.ress to adjourn without an effort at least 
 being made to extend the benefits and blessing.'^ (?f government to those people who have 
 recently been acquired by us. V\ ith regard to that portion of New Mexico which lies 
 east of the Rio Grande, undoubtedly if it v*'ere conceded to Texas, there vi-ould be two 
 incongruous, if not hostile populations thrown together, endangering public peace and 
 tranquility. And all beyond, including New Mexico, De.~eret, and north of ( 'alifor- 
 nia, beyond the Rio Grande, would be still open to all the consequences of disorder, con- 
 fusion, and anarchy, without .some stable government emanating from the authority of 
 that nation of which they form now a part, and with which they are but little acquainted. 
 I think, therefore, that all these questions, difficult and troublesome as they may be, 
 ought to be met iti a spirit of candor and calmness, and decided upon as a matter of duty. 
 Now, sir, the resolutions which I have immediately under consideration propose a deci- 
 sion of these questions. I have said that there is scarcely a resolution in the scries I 
 have offered that did not contain some mutual concession, or evidence of mutual for 
 bearance; that the concession was not altogether from the nonslaveholding States or the 
 slaveholding States. These resolutions propose a boundary to 'i'exas. What is iti' V\'e 
 know the diversity of opinion which exists in this country upon the suliject of that boun- 
 dary. We know that a very large portion of the people of the United states have sup- 
 posed that the western limit of Texas was the Nueces — that it did not extend to the Rio 
 Grande. We know that the question of what is the western limit and the northern limit 
 of Texas was an open question — has been all along an open question — was an open 
 question when the boundary was run in virtue of the act of 1838 marking the boundary 
 between the United States and Texas At that time, the boundary authori/.ed by that 
 act of 18-38 was to begin at the mouth of the Sabine, run up to its head to the Red river, 
 and thence westwardly, with that river, to the 100° of longitude. Well, that did not 
 go as far as Texas now claims, and why! Because it was an open question. War was 
 waging between Texas and Mexico, and it was at that time impossible to say whatm'ght 
 ultimately be established as the western and northern limits of Texas. But when we 
 come to the question of what was done at the time of her annexation, the whole resolu- 
 tion which relates to boundaries, from beginning to end, assumes an open, unascertained, 
 and unfixed boundary to Texas on the west. What is the first part of the resolution? 
 It is " that Congress doth consent that the territory properly included within and right- 
 fully belonging to Texas may be erected into a new State " " Propeily included" — 
 •'rightfully belonging." It specifies no boundaries — it could specify no boundary. It 
 assumes the state of uncertainty which in point of fact we know existed. Now, sir, 
 what does the resolution further provide? Why, "first, said State to lie formed, sub- 
 jecf to the adjustment by this Government of all questions of boundary that may arise 
 with other governments." These boundaries at the west and north, it was asserted, 
 the Government of the United States retained to itself the power to settle wjth any fo- 
 reign power. 
 
 It is impossible for me to go into the whole question. I mean to express rather my 
 opinion than to go into the whole extent of the argument. The western boundary of 
 Texas being unsettled, and Congress letaining to itself the power to settle it, I ask — sup- 
 pose that power had been exercised, and that no cession of territory to the United States 
 had ensued, and that the negotiarious between the two countries had been limited to the 
 settlement of the western and northern limits of Texas — could it not have been done by 
 the United States and Mexico conjointly? Sufpose that a treaty of the limits of Texas^ 
 had been concluded between Mexico and the United States, fixing the Nueces as the 
 boundary, would not Texas have been bound by it? Or suppose it had been the Rio- 
 
13 
 
 Grande, Colorado, or any other point, whatever limit had been fixed upon hy the joint act 
 of the two powers, would it not have been obligatory upon Texas, by the express terms 
 of the resolution by which it was annexed? 
 
 Well, now, if Mexico and the United States conjointly by treaty might have fixed 
 upon the western and northern limits of Texas, and if the United States have acquired 
 all the territory on which the two powers acting together must have established the limits 
 of 'J'cxas, have not the United States, in virtue of that cession to them, become solely 
 and exclusively possessed of all the power which they jointly had prior to the cession? 
 It seems to me that the conclusion and reasoning are perfectly irresistible. If Mexico 
 and the United States could have fixed upon any western limits for Texas, and did not 
 do it, and if the United States have acquired to theraiclves by the treaty any extent of 
 the territory upon which the western limit was to be fixed antl must be fixed, it seems to 
 me that no one can resist the logical conclusion that the United States now has the power 
 to do what the United States and Mexico conjointly could have done. I admit that it is 
 a delicate power — an extremely delicate power. I adniit that it ought to he exercised 
 with a spirit of justice, generosity, and liberalit?,' towards this youngest member of the 
 great American family. 
 
 Possibly if the United States fixes it in a way contrary to the desire and rights of 
 Texas, she might bring it before the Supreme Court of the United States, and have the 
 question again decided. I say possibly, because I am not of that claiss of politicians who 
 believe that every question is a proper question for the Supreme Court of tho United 
 States. There are questions too large for any tribunal of that kind to decide — great po- 
 litical, national, and territorial questions, which transcend their limits, and to which they 
 are utterly incompetent. Whether this is one or not, I will not decide; but I will main- 
 tain that the United States are now invested solely andexclusively with that power which 
 was in both nations, to fix, ascertain, and settle the western and northern limits of Texas. 
 
 Sir, the other day my honorable friend who represents so well the State of Texas, 
 (Mr. RcsK, ) said that we had no mi)re right to touch the limits of Texas than we have to 
 touch the limits of Kentucky; that the ^tate is one and indivisible, and that the Federal 
 Government has no right to separate it. I agree with him that, when the limits are cer- 
 tain and ascertained, they are undisputed and indisputable. The General Government 
 has no right or power to interfere with the limits of a State whose boundaries are fixed, 
 known, ascertained, and recognized — no power at least to interfere with it voluntarily. 
 An extreme case may be put — one which I trust in God never will happen to this Union — 
 of a conquered nation and of a constitution adapting itself to the state of subjugation and 
 conquest to which it has been reduced, and the giving up of whole States, as well as 
 parts of the State, in order te save what remains from the conquering arm of the succes- 
 ful invader. I say such a power may possibly exist for a case of extremity such as this; 
 and I admit that short of such an extremity, voluntarily, the General Government has no 
 right to separate a State, or to take any portion of its territory from it, or to regard it other- 
 wise than an itepec — one and indivisible 
 
 But then I assme — what does not exist in the State of Texas — that this boundary was 
 known, ascertained, and indisputable On the contrary, it was open — it was unfixed, 
 and rema ns unfixed to this moment, with respect to her western limits and north of the 
 head of the Nueces. Why, sir, we gave fiiteen millions of dollars for these territories 
 that we bought — and God knows what a costly bargain to this country that waa! 
 We gave fifteen millions of dollars for the terr tories ceded by .Mexico to us, and can 
 Texas, justly, fairly, and honorably claim all she has asserted a right to, without paying 
 any portion of that fifteen millions of dollars? She talks, indeed, about the United States 
 being her agent — her trustee. Why, sir, she was no more her agent or tru.stee than 8he 
 ■ was the agent or trustee of any other part of the United States. 
 
 Texas involved the United States in a war with Mexico; I make no reproaches — none, 
 none. Texas brought them into the war; hut when they got into it, it was not a war of 
 Texas and Mexico — it was a war of the whole thirty ?tates with Mexico — a war in which 
 the Government of the United States comlucted the hostilities, and was as much the trus- 
 tee and agent of the twenty-nine other States composing this Union as she was the trus- 
 tee and agent of Texas. With respect to all circumstances on which Texas relies to 
 make out a title to New Mexico, such as the map annexed to the recent treaty with 
 Mexico, and the opinions of individuals, highly respectable and eminently elevated indi- 
 viduals, as was the lamented Mr. Polk, late President of the United States, I must say 
 it was his individual opinion, that he had no right, as President of the United States, or 
 in any other character, otherwise than as negotiating with Mexico — and then the Senate 
 had to act in concurrence with him — to fix a boundary. In respect to that map, which 
 
14 
 
 is attacheJ to the treaty, it is sufficient to say that the treaty itself is silent, from l)egir>ning 
 to end, npoii the limita of Texas; and the annexing of the map to the treaty no morecoji- 
 firms the truth of anything delineated upon that map in relation to Texas than it does in 
 relaiioH to any other geographical subject which composes the map. 
 
 Mr. President, I have said that I thought the power has been concentrated in the United 
 States to fix upon the limits of Texas. I have said that this power ought to be exerci.sed 
 in a spirit of great liberuhty and justice, and I put it to you, to say. upon this second 
 resolution of mine, whether thit liberality and justice have not been displayed in the re- 
 solution. ^^ hit is proposed^ To confine her to the Neuces' IV o, sir. To extend it 
 from the Sabine to the mouth of the Rio Grande — and thence up the Rio Grande to the 
 8oul3»cni limits of New Mexico, and thent^e, with that limit, to the boundary between the 
 United i^tates and Spain, a-s marked out under the treaty of 1819. Why, sir, here is a 
 vast country. I have made no estimate about it, but I believe it is equal in amount of 
 acres — of square miles — to what Texas oast of the Nueces and extending to the ^'abine 
 had befo;e. But who is there that can say, with truth and justice, tliat there is no reci- 
 procity, no Concession, in these resolutions made to Texas, even with reference to the 
 question of boundafy hne> They give her a va.st country, equal in amount nearly, I re- 
 peat, to what she indisputably possessed before — a Ct)uiilry sufficiently large, with her 
 consent hen after, to carve out of it some two or three additional State-s, when the condi- 
 tion and number of the population may render it expedient to make new States. Well, 
 sir, is not that concessic>n liberalitj* and justice' 
 
 But, sir, that is not all we propo.se to give. The second resolution proposes to pay a 
 certain amount of the debt of Texas. A blank is left because I have not hitherto been 
 able to ascertain the amount. 
 
 Mr. FOG IE. Wd! the honorable Senator alK>w me to make a motion that we now go 
 into executive session, in order to enable him to finish his remarks to morrow? 
 
 Mr CLAY. I do not think it will be possible for me to conclude to-day, although I 
 wished to go through as much as possible. 
 
 Mr. FOOTE. I will make the motion at anj time that the Senator may feel disposed 
 to give way. 
 
 Mr. CLAY. If the Senate will allow me, I will merely conclude what I have to say 
 in relation to Texas, and then 1 will give way if the Senator desires. 
 
 "Mr. President, I wa>- about to remark, independent of the most liberal and generous 
 boundary tendered to Texas, we propo-e to ofler by this second resolution a sum which 
 the worthy Senator from Texas, in my eye, thinks will not be less than about three mil- 
 lions of dollars — the exact amount neither he nor I yet posse.'ises the requisite materials to 
 ascertain. Well, you get this large boundary and three millions of your debt paid. I 
 shall not repeat the argument I ofTeied upon a former occasion, as to the obligation of the 
 United States to pay that debt ; but I was struck upon reading the treaty of limits, first, 
 between the United States and Mexico, then the treaty of limits between the United 
 States and Texas, to find in the preamble^ of both these treaties a direct recognition of 
 the principles out of which, I think, spring our obligations to pay the debt for which the 
 duties of foreign imports were pledged while Texas was an independent State. 
 
 The principle asserted in the treaties of limits with Mexico is, that whereas, by the 
 treaty of 18 lb between Spain and the United States, a limit was fixed between Mexico 
 and the United States, .Mexico composing then a portion of the possessions of the Span- 
 ish crown, although ^Mexico was, at the date of the treaty with her, severed from the 
 crown of Spain, yet she was bound, as having been a part of the crown of Spain when 
 the treaty of 1819 was made — she was bound by that treaty as much as if it was made 
 with herself instead of Spain. In other words, that preamble asserts that the severance 
 of any part of a common empire cannot exonerate either portion of that empire from the 
 obligations which are created, when the empiie is entire and unsevered. So ihe same 
 principle is asserted in the treaty of 1<?38 between Texas and the United States; the 
 principle asserted being that the treaty of I8:i8 between Mexico and the United States 
 having been made when Texas was a part of Mexico, and now Texas being dissevered 
 from Mexico, she nevertheless remains bound by that treaty, as if no such severance had 
 taken place. In other words, the principle is this : that when an independent power 
 creates an obligation or a duty, no subsequent political misfortune — no subsequent politi- 
 cal severance of tlie Territory of that power — can exonerate it from the obligations which 
 were created while it was an independent power. In other words to bring it dov/n and 
 apply it to this specific case, Texas being an independent power, and having a right to 
 take loans, and to make pledges, having taken loans, and having pledged the specific 
 imports arising from the customs to the public creditor, the public creditor became vested 
 
15 
 
 with a right to that fund of which he cou'd not be divested by any other act but hts own 
 consent — by no political changes which Texas might subsequently think proper to make. 
 In the absorption or merging of Texas in the United States, the creditor, being no party to 
 the treaty by which that of)eiation was performed, did not lose his rights, but retained his 
 rights to demand the fulfilment of the pledge and the appropriation of the fund, just as 
 if there had never been any annexation of Texas to the United States. 
 
 That was the foundation upon wlii(,b 1 arrived a itlic coiiclufion ciubroKi! in lliut ic 
 echiticii. The United Statea, having apiirojiiiattd to thomsclvcs the duties aiisi.ig fi jm 
 imports which have been pledged to the creditor by Texas, as an honorable and just 
 power, ought now to pay the debt for which these duties were solemnly pledged by a 
 power independent and competent to make the pledge. 
 
 Well, sir, I think that were you to give to Texas the large boundary that is assigned 
 to her, when you take into view the abhorrence — for I think I am warranted in using 
 that expression — with which the people of New Mexico, east of the Rio Grande, would 
 look upon any political connexion with Texas, and when you take into view the large 
 amount of money, liberating and exonerating Texas from a portion of her public debts, 
 equal to that amount — when you take all these circumstances into consideration, I think 
 they present a case, with regard to which, I confess, I should be greatly surprised, if the 
 people of Texqs themselves, when they come to deliberate upon this seriously, should 
 hesitate a moment to accede. 
 
 I have finished my remarks upon this lesolution, and if the Senator wishes it, I will 
 give way to an adjournment 
 
 Mr. FOOTE moved that the Senate proceed to the consideration of executive busi- 
 ness, but gave way to 
 
 Mr. MANGU.M, who moved an adjournment i which was agreed to, and 
 
 The Senate thereupon adjourned 
 
 Wedi\esd.4.y, February 6, 1850. 
 Mr. CLAY rer>nnied and conclnded his speech, as follows: 
 
 Mr. President, if there be in this vast assemblage of beauty, grace, eleganae, and 
 intelhgence any who have come here under the expectation that the humble indivit ual 
 who now addresses you means to attempt any display, or to use any ambitious language, 
 any extraordinary ornaments or decorations of speech, they will be utterly disappointed. 
 The season of the year, and my own season of life, both admonish me to abstain from 
 the use of any unnecessary ornaments; but, above all, Mr. President, the grave and mo- 
 mentous subject upon which it is my duty to address the Senate and the country forbids 
 my saying anything but what appertains strictly to that subject ; and my sole desire is to 
 make myself, with seriousness, soberness, and plainness, understood by you, and by those 
 who think proper to listen to me. 
 
 When, yesterday, the adjournment of the Senate took place, at that stage of the dis- 
 cussion of the resolutions which I have submitted, which related to Texas and her boun- 
 daries, I thought I had concluded the whole subjt ct; but I was reminded by a friend that 
 perhaps I was not sufficiently explicit upon a single point, and that is, the relation of 
 Texas to the Government of the United States, in regard to t!iat portion of the debts of 
 Texas lor which I think a responsibility exists upon the part of the Government of the 
 United States. It was said that it mii;ht perhaps be understood that in the proposed 
 grant of three millions — or whatever may be the sum when it may be ascertained — to 
 Texas, in consideration of her surrender of her title to New Mexico, on this side of the 
 Rio Grande, in that grant we merely discharge the obligations which exist upon the part 
 of the Government of the United States, in consequence of the appropriation of the im- 
 ports receivable in the ports of T( xas while she was an independent power. But that 
 is not my understaniling, Mr President, of the subject, as between Texas and the United 
 States. The obligation on the part of Texas to pay the portion of the debt referred to, 
 is complete and uncancelled; and there is, as between these two parties, no obligation 
 on the part of the United States to discharge one dollar of the public debt of 'I'exas. On 
 the contrary, by an express declaration in the resolution of admission, it is declared and 
 provided that in no event are the United States to be liable to or charged with any por- 
 tion of the debt or liabilities of Texas. It is not, therefore, from any responsibility 
 which exists to the State of Texas on the part of the Government of the United States, 
 that I think provision ought to be made for that debt No such thing. As between 
 these two parlies, the responsibility upon the part of Texas is complete to pay tlie debt. 
 
16 
 
 and there is uo responsibility upon the part of the United States to pay one cent of it. 
 But then there is a third party, no party to tlie annexation whatever — that is to say, 
 the creditor of Texas, who advanced his money upon the credit and faith of a solemn 
 pledge made by Texas to him to reimburse the loan, and by the appropriation of duties 
 receivable upon foreign imports. The last is the party to whom we are bound, according 
 to the view I presented upon the subject IN'or, sir, can the other creditors of Texas 
 complain that a provision is made for a particular portion of the debt, leaving the residue 
 unprovided for by the Government of the United States; because insofar as we may ex- 
 tinguish any portion of the debt of Texas, under which she is now bound, insofar we 
 shall contribute to the benefit of the residue of the creditors of Texas by leaving the 
 funds of the public lands held by Texas, and what other sources she may have applica- 
 ble to the payment of tliose other debts, with more effect than if the entire debt, including 
 the pledged portion of it, as well as the unpledged, was obligatory upon her, and she stood 
 bound by it. 
 
 Nor can those creditors complain for another reason. Texas has all the resource.-* 
 which she had when an independent power; with the exception of the duties receivable 
 in her ports upon foreign imports; and she is exempted from certain charges, expendi- 
 ture?, and responsibilities, which she would have had to encounter if she had remained 
 a separate and independent power. For example, she would have had to providu for a 
 certain amount of naval force, in order to protect* herself against Mexico or against any 
 foreign enemy whatever; but, by her annexation to the United States, she becomes libe- 
 rated from all those charges, and of course those entire revcn ues may be applied to the pay- 
 ment of her debts, except those only which are applicable to the support of the Govern- 
 ment of Texas. But, if the United States should discharge that portion of the debt of 
 Texas for which the duties on foreign imports were pledged, Texas would become the 
 debtor of the United States to the extent of the extinguished debt With this explana- 
 tion of that part of the subject, I pass to the next resolution in the series which I had 
 the honor to submit. It relates, if I am not mistaken, to this District .- 
 
 5th. Resolved, That it is inexpedient to aboli.sh slavery in the District of Columbia, 
 whilst that institution continues to exist in the State of Maryland, without the consent 
 of that State, without tlie consent of the people of the District, and without just com- 
 pensation to the owners of slaves within the District. 
 
 Mr. President, an objection was made to this resolution by some honorable Senators 
 upon the other side of this body, that it did not contain an assertion of the unconstitu- 
 tionality of the exercise of the power of abolition upon the part of Congress, with regard 
 to this District, I said then, as I have uniformly maintained in this body, as I contend- 
 ed in 1838, and ever have done, that the power to abolish slavery in the District of Co- 
 lumbia has been vested in Congress by language too clear and explicit to admit, in my 
 judgment, of any rational question whatever. 
 
 What is the language of the Constitution? Congress shall have power — 
 "To exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever over such district, not ex- 
 ceeding ten miles square, as may, by cession of particular States, and the acceptance of 
 Uongress, become the seat of Government of the United States." 
 
 (Congress, by this grant of power, is invested with all legislation whatsoever over the 
 District Not only is it here invested, but it is exclusively invested with all legislation 
 whatsoever over the District. Now, can we conceive of any language more particular 
 and comprehensive than that which invests a legislative body with exclusive power in all 
 cases whatsoever of legislation over a given district of territory or country? Let me ask, 
 is there any power to abolish slavery in this District ? Let me suppose, in addition to 
 what I suggested the other day; that slavery had been abolished in Maryland and V'irginia; 
 let me add to that supposition that it was abolished in all the States in the Union; is there 
 power, then, to abolish slavei7 within the District of < olumbia — or is slavery planted 
 here to all eternity, without the possibility of the exercise of any legislative power for its 
 abolition? Itcannot le invested in Maryland, because the power with which Coneress is 
 invested is exclusive. Maryland, therefore, is excluded, as all the other Stales of the 
 Union are excluded. It is here, or it is nowhere. This was the view which I took in 
 1838; and I think there is nothing in the resolution which I offered upon that occasion 
 incompatible with the view which I now present, and which this resolution contains. 
 While I admitted the power to exist in Congress, and exclusively in Congres.s, to legis- 
 late in all cases whatsoever — and consequently in the case of the abolition of slavery with- 
 in this District, if it deemed it proper to do so — I admitted upon that occasion, as I con- 
 tend now, that it was a power which Congress cannot, in conscience and good faith, ex- 
 ercise while the institution of slavery continues within the State of Maryland. The ques- 
 
17 
 
 tion is a good deal altered now from what it was twelve years as^o, when the resolution 
 to which I allude was adopted by the Senate. Upon that occasion, Virginia and Mary- 
 land were both concerned in the exercise of the power: but in the retrocession of the por- 
 tion of the District which lies south of the Potomac, A^irginia has become no more inte- 
 rested in the question of the abolition of slavery in the rest of the District than any other 
 slaveholding State in the Union is interested in its abolition. The question now is con- 
 fined to Maryland. I said upon that occasion, that although the power was complete and 
 perfect, to abolish slavery, yet that it was a thing which never could have entered into 
 the conception of Maryland or Virginia that slavery would be abolished here while sla- 
 very continued to exist in either of those two ceding States. I said, moreover, what the 
 granting of the power itself indicates, that, although exclusive legislation in all cases over 
 the District was invested by Congress within the ten miles square, it was to make it the 
 seat of Government of the United States. That was the great, paramount, substantial 
 object of the grant- And, in exercising all the powers with which we are invested, com- 
 plete and full as they may be, yet the great purpose of the concession having been to 
 create a suitable seat of Government, that ought to be the leading and controlling idea 
 with Congress in the exercise of this power. And inasmuch as it is not necessary, in 
 order to render it a proper and suitable seat of Government of the United States, that sla- 
 very should be abolished within the limits of the ten mile square, and inasmuch as, at the 
 time of the cession, in a spirit of generosity, immediately after the formation of this Con- 
 stitution, when all was peace, and harmony, and concord— when brotherly affection, fra- 
 ternal feeling, prevailed throughout this whole Union — when Maryland and Virginia, in 
 a moment of generous impulse, and with feelings of high regard towards the principles 
 of this Union, chose to make this grant — neither party could have suspected that at some 
 distant and future period, after the agitition of this unfortunate subject, their generous 
 grant, without equivalent, was to be turned against them, and the sword was to be lift- 
 ed, as It were within their own bosom, to strike at their own hearts. This implied 
 faith, this honorable obligation, this honesty and propriety of keeping in constant view 
 the object of the cession— these were the considerations which, in 1838, urged me, as 
 they now influence me, in the preparation of the resolution which I have submitted for 
 your consideration. Now, as then, I do think that Congress, as an honorable body, 
 acting in good faith, according to the nature and purpose, and objects of the cession at 
 the time it was made, and looking at the condition of the ceding States at this time — 
 Congress cannot, without forfeiture of all those obligations of honor which men of honor, 
 and nations of honor, will respect as much as if they were found literally, in so many 
 words, in the bond itself, interfere with the institution of slavery in this District, 
 without a violation of those obligations, not, in my opinion, less sacred or less binding 
 than if they had been inserted in the constitutional instrument itself 
 
 Well, what does the resolution propose? The resolution neither affirms nor disaffirms 
 the constitutionality of the exercise of the power of abolition in the District. It is silent 
 upon the subject. It says that it is inexpedient to do it, but upon certain conditions. 
 And what are those conditions? Why, first, that the State of Maryland shall give its 
 consent ; in other words, that the State of Maryland shall release the United States from 
 the obligation of that implied faith which, I contend, is connected with the act of cession 
 by Maryland to the United States. Well, if Maryland, the only State now that ceded 
 any portion of the territory which remains to us, will consent— in other words, if she re- 
 leases Congress from the obligation growing out of the cession with regard to slavery — 
 I consider that that would remove one of the obstacles to the exercise of the power, if it 
 were deemed expedient to exercise it ; but it is only removing one of them. There are 
 two other c>nditions which are inserted in this resolution; the first is the consent of the 
 people of the District. 
 
 Mr. President, the condition of the people of this District is anomalous — a condition 
 in violation of the great principle which lies at the bottom of our own free institutions, 
 and of all free institutions, because it is the case of a people who are acted upon by le- 
 lislative authority, and taxed by legislative authority, without having any voice in the 
 administration of affairs. The government of the United States, in respect to the people 
 of this District, is a tyranny, an absolute government — not exercised hitherto I admit, 
 and I hope it will never be so exercised — tyrannically or arbitrarily. But it is in the na- 
 ture of all arbitrary power; for if I were to give a definition of arbitrary authority, I 
 would say it is that power which is exercised by an authority over a people who have no 
 voice nor influence in the enactment of laws, or the imposition of taxes; and that is the 
 precise condition of the people to whom I have referred. 
 
 Well, that being their condition, and this question of the abolition of slavery affecting 
 them in all the relations of life which we can imagine — of property, society, comfort, 
 
18 
 
 peace — I think we should require, as another of the conditions upon which alone this 
 power should be exercised, the consent of the people of the District of Columbia And 
 I have not stopped there This resolution requires still a third condition; and that is, 
 that slavery shall not be abolished within the District of Cohimbia, although Maryland 
 consents, and although the people of the District itself consent, without the third condi- 
 tion — that of making compensation to the owners of slaves within the District And, 
 sir, it is imuiaterial to me upon what basis this obligation to compensate the slaveholders 
 in the District for such slaves as may be liberated under the autJiority of Congress, is 
 placed. There is a clause — an amendment of the Constitiidon of Ihe United States 
 which provides tha tno prcpcity — no private piopeily — shall be taken for public use, 
 willioii iju3 icciiipcnsulion to the owners of such property. Well, I think that in a just 
 and liberal inierpretatii>n of that clause, we are restrained from taking the property of the 
 people of the District of Columbia in slaves, in consideration of any public policy, with- 
 out full and complete compensation. But if there be no constitutional restriction such as 
 is contained in the amendment I have referred to, upon principles of eternal justice it is 
 wrong to deprive those who have property in slaves in this Distrtct of that property with 
 out compensation. 
 
 No one of the European powers — Great Britain, France, nor any other of the powers 
 which have undertaken to abolish slavery in their colonics — have ever ventured to do it 
 without making compensation to the owners. They were under no such constitutional 
 obligation as I have referred to; but they were under that obligation to which all men 
 ought to bow — that obligation of eternal justice, which declares that no man ought to be 
 deprived of his property without full and just compensation for its value. Whether un- 
 der the constitutional provision or not, the case is the same. I know, sir, that it has 
 been argui d that this clause of the Constitution which requires compensation to be made 
 for property, when taken by the Government for the public use, would not apply to the 
 case of the abolition of slavery, because the property is not taken by the Government f^ir 
 the public use. Perhaps literally it would not be taken for the use of the public, but it would 
 be taken in consideration of a policy and a purpose adopted by the Government for the good 
 of the public, or cue which it was deemed expedient to carry into full effect and o[)eration. 
 By a liberal interpretation of the clause, it seems to me, however, that slave property would 
 be so far regarded — that it "iighl to be so far regarded — as taken for the use of the public, or 
 at the instance of the public, as to entitle the ownersof the slaves so taken to a compensa- 
 tion, under and by virtue of the clause itself, to the full extent of the value of the slaves 
 liberated. It appears to me that this is an effectual and constitutional restriction upon 
 Ihe power of Congress over the subject of slavery within this District. If this be not 
 so, then the power is unrestiicted — I mean unrestricted by any constitutional injunction 
 or inhibition. But the restriction imposed by the obligation of justice remains; and I 
 contend that that would be sufficient to render it oppressive and tyrannical to use the 
 power, without at the same time making the compensation. I put it to gentlemen whe- 
 ther that would not be a better condition for the slaveholders of the District than to as- 
 sume (he rigid application of the amendment of the Constitution to which I have re- 
 ferred !* It would always be an equitable, and, I doubt not, a sufficient cause for exact- 
 ing from Congress a full and just compensation for the value of the property taken. 
 
 Mr. President, I said on yesterday that there was no one of these resolutions, except 
 the fh-st, which contained any concession by either party, that did not either contain 
 some mutual concession by the two parties, or did n,)t contain concessions al'ogether from 
 the North to the fouth. Now, with respect to the resolution under consideration; 
 the North has contended that the power exists under the Constitution to abolish slavery 
 here. I am aware that the South, or a greater portion of the South, have contended for 
 the opposite doctrine. What does this resolution ask^ It asks of both parties to for- 
 bear urging their respective opinions — the one to the exclusion of the other. But it con- 
 cedes to the South all that the South, it appears to me, ought in reason to demand, inas- 
 much as it requires such conditions as amount to an absolute security for the property in 
 slaves within the District — such conditions as will make the existence of slavery in the 
 District coeval and coextensive with its existence in any of the States out of or beyond the 
 District. The second clause of this resolution provides that it is expedient to prohibit 
 within the District the slave trade in slaves brought into it. 
 
 Mr. President, if it be conceded that Congress has the power of legislation — exclusive 
 legislation — in all cases whatsoever, how can it be doubted that Congress has the power 
 to piohiliit what is called the slave trade within the District of Columbia? My interpre- 
 tation of the Constitution is this: that with regard to all those portions of jurisdiction 
 which operate upon the States, Congress can exercise no power which is not granted, or 
 
19 
 
 not a necessary implication from a granted power. Such is the rule for the action of 
 Congress in relation to its legislation upon the States. But in relation to its legislation 
 upon this District, the reverse, I take it, is the true rule — that Congress has all power 
 which is not prohibited by some provision of the Constitution of tu« United States. In 
 other words, Congress has a power within the district equivalent to and coextensive with 
 the power which any State itself possesses within its own limits. Well, can any one 
 doubt the power and right of any State in this Union — of any slaveholding State— to 
 forbid the introduction as merchandise of slaves within its own limits^ Why almost 
 every slaveholding State in the Union has exercised its power to prohibit the introduc- 
 tion of slaves as merchandise. It is in the constitution of my own State ; and after all 
 the asitation and e.xcitement upon the subject of slavery which has existed in the State 
 of Kentucky during the last year, the same principle is incorporated in the new consti- 
 tution. It is jn the constitution, I know, of Mississippi also. That Stat« prohibits the 
 introduction of slaves within its Umits as merchandise. I believe it to be in the consti- 
 tution or law.s of Maryland and Virginia, and in the laws of most of the slaveholding 
 States. It is true, that the policy of the several slaveholding States has vacillated from 
 time to time upon this subject — sometimes tolerating and sometimes excluding the trade ; 
 but there has never been the slightest diversity of opinion as to the right— no depaVture 
 from the great principle that every one of them has the power and authority to prohibit 
 the introdu* tion of slavery within their respective limits, if they choose to exercise it. 
 
 Well, then, I really do not think that this resolution, w^iich jiroposes to abolish that 
 trade, ought to be considered as a concession by either class of States to the other class. 
 I think it should be regardwl as an o'jcrt acceptuble to both, conformable to the wishes 
 and feehngs of both; and yet, sir, in these times of fearful and alarming excitement — 
 in these times when every night that I go to sleep, and »very morning when I awake, 
 it is with the ap()rehension of some new and terrible tidings upon this agitating subject — 
 I have seen, sir, that in one of the neighboring States, amongst the various contingencies 
 which are enumerated, upon the happening of any one of which, delegates are to be sent 
 to a famous Convention, to assemble in Nashville in June next — amongst the substan- 
 tive causes for which delegates are to be sent to the Convention to which I refer, one is, 
 if Congress abolishes the slave trade within the District of Columbia. That is to be the cause 
 for assembling in convention — in other words, cause for considering whether this Union 
 ought to be dissolved or not. Is it possible to contemplate a greater extent of wildness 
 and extravagance to which men can be carried by the indulgence of their passions? Why, 
 sir, there has been no time in my public life— in which statement I concur with what 
 was said the other day by the honorable Senator from Alabama (Mr. King)— there has 
 been no time of my public life that I was not willing, for one, to co-operate in any steps 
 for t: e abolition of the slave trade in the District of Columbia. I was willing to do so 
 while the other portion of the District south of the Potomac remained attached; and 
 there is still less ground for objection now that a large portion of the District has 
 been retroceeded to Virginia, and when the motive or reason for concentrating slaves here 
 in a depot for the purpose of transporting them to distant foreign markets is lessened to 
 the extent of the diminution of the territory by the act of retrocession. Why should 
 the slave tradeiB who buy their slaves in Maryland or Virginia come here with them, in 
 order to transport them to New Orleans or other southern markets' Why not transport 
 them from the States in which they are purchased' Why should the feelings of those 
 who are outraged by the scenes that are exhibited, by the corteges which pass along our 
 avenues of manacled human beings— not collected in our own District, nor in our own 
 neighborhood, but brought from distant portions of the neighboring States--why should 
 the feelings of those who are outraged by such scenes — who are unable to contemplate 
 such a spectacle without horror — why should they be thus outraged by the continuance 
 of a trade so exceptienable, so 'repugnant, as this' Sir, it is a concession, I repeat, 
 neither from one class of the States nor the other It is an object upon which both of 
 them, it seems to me, should readily unite, and which one set of States as well as the 
 other should rejoice to adopt, inasmuch as it lessens by one the causes of irritation and 
 discontent which exist as connected with this subject. 
 
 Abolish the slave trade within the District of Columbia, reassert the doctrine of the 
 resolution of 18 J8, that by an implied obligation, on the part of Congress, slavery ought 
 not to be abolished within the District of Columbia, so long as it remains in the State of 
 Maryland — reassert the principle of that resolution, and adopt the other measures pro- 
 posed in these resolutions, or some other similar measures — for I am not attached to any- 
 thing as the production of my ©wn mind, and am quite willing to adopt instead the bet- 
 ter suggestions of anybody else — adopt these or similar measures, and I venture to predict 
 
so 
 
 that, instead of the distractions and anxieties which now prevail, we shall have peace and 
 quiet for thirty years hereafter, such as followed the disposition of the same exciting and 
 unhappy subject after the Missouri compromise. 
 
 The next resolution is as follows : 
 
 7th. Riolvf^d, That more effectual provision ought to he made by law, according to 
 the requirement of the Constitution, for the restitution and delivery of persr)ns bound to 
 service or labor in any State who may escape into any other State or Territory of this 
 Union. 
 
 Well, Mr. President, upon this subject I go with him who goes farthest in the inter- 
 pretation of that clause in the Constitution which relates to this subject. In my humble 
 opinion, that is a requirement by the Constitution of the United States which is not limit- 
 ed in its operation to the Congress of the I'niled States, but which extends to every 
 State in the Union, and to the officers of every State in the Union. And I go one step 
 farther. It extends to every man. in the Union, and devolves upon him the obligation to 
 assist in the recovery of a fugitive slave from labor, who takes refuge in or escapes into 
 one of the free States. And I maintain all this by a fair interpretatian of the Constitu- 
 tion. The clau.se is as follows ; 
 
 "No person held to service or labor in one State, under the laws thereof, escaping 
 into another, shall, in con.^equcnce of any law or regulation therein, be discharged from 
 such service or labor, but shall be delivered up on claim of the party to whom .such ser- 
 vice or labor may be due." 
 
 It will be observed, Mr. President, that this clause in the Constitution is not amongst 
 the enumerated powers granted to Congress — where, if it had been placed, it might have 
 been argued that Congress alone can legislate and carry it into eRect — but it is one of the 
 general powers, or one of the general rights secured by this <'onstitution or instrument, 
 and it addresses itself to all who are bound by the Constitution of the United states. 
 Now, the officers of the General Government are bound to take an oath to support the 
 Constitution of the United States. All State officers are required by the Constitution to 
 take an oath to support it, and all men who love their countrj', and are obedient to its 
 laws, are bound to assist in the execution of those laws, whether fundamental or deriva- 
 tive. I do not say that a private individual is obliged to make the tour of his whole 
 State, in order to assist the owner of a slave to recover his property; but I do say, if he 
 is present when the owner of a slave is about to assert his rights and regain possession 
 of his property, that he, that every man present, whether officer or agent of the State 
 Governments, or private individual, is bound to assi.<t in the execution of the laws of 
 their country. What is the provision ? It is that such fugitive "shall be delivered up 
 on claim of the party to whom such service or labor may be due." It has been already 
 remarked, in course of debate upon the bill which is now pending upon this subject, 
 that the terms used in regard to fugitives from criminal offences and fugitives from labor 
 are p-ecisely the same. The fugitive from justice is to be delivered up, and removed to 
 the State having jurisdiction. The fugit've from labor is to be delivered up on claim of 
 the party to whom such service is due. Well, sir, has it ever been contendeJ by any 
 State that she is not bound to surrender a fugitive from justice upon the demand of the 
 State Jrom which he has fled ? I think there have been some exceptions to the perform- 
 ance of this duty enjoined in the Constitution, but they have not denied the general 
 right ; and if they have refused in any instance to give up the persons demanded, it has 
 been upon some technical or legal ground, not at all as questioning the general right to have 
 the fugitive surrendered on the application to deliver him up, as enjoined by the (Jon- 
 stiiution. 
 
 I think, Mr. President, that with regard to the object of this provision there can be no 
 doubt. It imposes an obligation upon the States — free. or slaveholding — it imposes an ob- 
 ligation upon the officers of Government, State or Federal — and I add upon the people 
 of the United States, under particular circumstances -to assist in the recovery and sur- 
 render of fugitive slaves from their masters. There has been some confusion, and I think 
 misconception, upon the subject, in consequence of a recent decision of the Supreme 
 Court of the United States. I think that decision has been entirely misapprehended. 
 There is a vast difference between imposing imp^iments, and affording ficilities in the 
 way of recovf ring the fugitive slave. The Supreme Court of the United States have only 
 decided that the laws of impediments are unconstitutional. I know, sir, there are some 
 general expressions in the opinions to which I have referred -the case of Maryland and 
 Pennsylvania — that would seem to import otherwise; but I think that when vou come to at- 
 tentively read the whole opinions pronounced by the judges, and take the trouble that I have 
 taken to converse with tbe judges themselves, you will find that the whole extent of the 
 
21 
 
 principle which they intended to adopt was, that any laws of impediment enacted by tlie 
 States were laws forbidden by the provision of the Constitution to which I have referred, 
 and that the General Government had no right to impose obligations upon the State of- 
 ficers that were not imposed by the authority of their own constitutional laws. Why, it 
 is impossible! If the decision had l>een otherwise, it would have been extra judicial. 
 The court had no right to decide whether the laws of facility were or were not unconsti- 
 tutional. The only question before the court was upon the laws of impediment passed 
 by the Legislature of Pennsylvania. If they have gone beyond the case before them to 
 decide upon a case not before them, the decision is what lawyers call "obiter dictum,'" 
 and IS not binding upon that court itself, or upon any other tribunal. I say it is utterly 
 impossible for that court with the case before them of the passage of a law by a State Le- 
 gislature, affording aid and assistance to the owner of the slave to get back his property 
 again; it is utterly impossible that that or any other tribunal should pronounce the decis- 
 ion that such aid and assistance rendered by the authorities of the State under this pro- 
 vision of the Constitution of the United States was unconstitutional and void. The court 
 has not said so; and even if they had said so, they would have transcended their autho- 
 rity, and gone beyond the case which was before them. 
 
 The laws passed by States in order to assist the General Government, so far from being 
 laws repu^'nant to the Constitution, are rather to be regarded as laws carrying out, en- 
 forcing, and fijfdling the constitutional duties which are created by that instrument. Why, 
 sir, as well might it be contended that if Congress were to declare war— and no one will 
 doubt that the power to declare war is vested exclusively in Congress, and that no State 
 has a right to do it- no one will contend that after the declaration of war, it would be 
 unconstitutional on the part of any State to lend its aid and assistance for the vigorous 
 and effectual prosecution of that war. And yet it would be just as unconstitutional to 
 lend their aid to a successful and glorious termination of that war in which we might be 
 engaged, as it would be unconstitutional for them to assist in the performance of a high 
 duty, which presents itself to all the States and to all the people in all the States. Then, 
 Mr. President, I think that the whole class of legislation, beginning in the northern 
 States, and extending to some of the western States, by which obstructions and impedi- 
 ments have been thrown in the way of recovery of fugitive slaves, are unconstitutional, 
 and have originated in a spirit which I trust will correct itself when these States come to 
 consider calmly upon the nature of their duty. Of all the States in this Union, unless it 
 be the State of Virginia, the State of which I am a citizen suffers most by the escape of 
 slaves to adjoining States. I have but little doubt that the loss of Kentucky, in conse- 
 quence of the escape of her slaves, is greater, in proportion to the total number of slaves 
 which are held in that Commonwealth than it is in the State of Virginia; and I know too 
 well, and so do the honorable Senators from Ohio know, that it is at the utmost hazard 
 and insecurity of life itself that a Kentuckian can cross the river and go into the interior 
 and take back the fugitive slave to the ^tate from which he has fled. A recent example 
 occurred in the city of Cincinnati. One of our most respectable citizens having visited — 
 not Ohio at all— ^ but having visited Covington, on the opposite side of the river, a little 
 slave ol his escaped over to L incinnati He pursued it, recovered it— having found it in 
 a house where he was concealed— took it out; but it was rescued by the violence and force 
 of a negro mob from his possession--the police of the city standing by, and either un- 
 willing or unable to afford assistance to him.* 
 
 Upon this subject, I do think we have just and serious cause of complaint against the 
 free States. I think that they f.iiled in fulfilling a great obligation; and the failure is pre- 
 cisely upon one of those subjects which, in its nature, is most irritating and inflammatory 
 to those who live in shve 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 cannot now in any degree 
 of safety travel in a free State with his servant, although he has no purpose of stopping 
 there any longer than a short time. Upon this subject the Legislatures of the free States 
 have altered for the worse m the course of the last twenty or thirty years. Most of those 
 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 
 Suues with their servants. I recollect, sir, a case, that occurred during the war, of my 
 friend, Mr. Cheves, from South Carolina Instead of going home during the vacation, 
 he went to Philadelphia, taking his family and his family servant with him. Some of 
 the abolitionists of that day sued oi^t a writ of habeas corpus for the slave, and the ques- 
 tion was brought before the Supreme Court of the State of Pennsylvania. It was argued 
 for days; and it was necessary, during the progress of the argument, to refer to a great 
 variety of statutes passed from lime to time by the State of Pennsylvania in behalf of 
 
22 
 
 sojourners, guarantying and securing to them the possession of their property during their 
 temporary passage or abode in the Commonwealth. Finally, the court gave their opin- 
 ion seriafi'ii, each judge delivering his separate opinion, until it cnme to Judge Breck- 
 enridge, who was the youngest judge upon the bench, to deliver his. During the de- 
 livery of tlicir opinions they had frequent occasion to refer to those acts passed for the 
 benefit of sojourners; and each of the judges who preceded Judge Brcckenridge always 
 pronounced the word "sudjourner." When it came to Judge Brcckenridge to deliver 
 his opinion, he said: " I agree in all my leained brethren have prcBOunced upon this oc- 
 casion, except their pronunciation of the word ' sojourner.' They pronounced it 'sud- 
 journer;' and I think it should be pronounced 'sojourner.'" (Laughter.) NoiV, sir, 
 all these laws in behalf of sojourners in the free States are swept away, I believe, in all 
 the States except Rhode Island. 
 
 Mr. DAYTON. And in New Jersey. 
 
 Mr. CLAY. And in New Jersey, I am happy to hear. But in most of the free 
 States these laws have been abolished, showing a progressive tendency to a bad neigh- 
 borhood, and fti.kind action upon ihe part of the free States, towards the s!aveholding 
 States. Well, sir, I do wot mean to contest the ground ; I am not going to argue the 
 question whether if a man voluntarily carries his slave into a free State, he is or is not 
 entitled to his freedom. I am not going to argue that question. I kimw what its deci- 
 sion has been in the North. What I mean to say is, that it is unkind, unneighborly, it is 
 not in the spirit of that fraternal connexion existing between all parts of this confedera- 
 cy. But, as to the exact and legal [irinclple in the Way suggested, even supposing the 
 right is here, it is but proper, when there is no purpose of a permanent abode — of settling 
 finally and conclusively — of planting his slaves in the Commonwealth — it is but the right 
 of good neighborhood, and kind and friendly feeling, to allow the owner of the slave to 
 pass with his property unmolested. 
 
 _^AIIow me to say, upon thissubject, that, of all the instances in which the power is ex- 
 ercised to seduce slaves from their owners, there is no instance in which it is exercised 
 so unjustly as in the case of the seduction of family servants from the service of their 
 owners. Servants in the families are treated with all the kindness with which the cliild- 
 ren of the fa nily are treated. Everything they want for their comfort is given to them 
 with the most liberal indulgence. I have known more instances than one, where, by this 
 practice of seduction of family servants from their owners into free States, they have 
 been renden^d wretched and unhappy. In an instance in my own family, the seduced 
 slave addressed her mistress, begging and imploring her to furnish her the means of get- 
 ting back from tht state of freedom into which she had been seduced, into the state of 
 slavery in which she was much more happy. She returned to the State of Kentucky, 
 and to her misiressfrom whom she had been seduced. 
 
 Now, Mr. President,! think that the existing laws for the recovery of fugitive slavee, 
 and the restoration and delivering of them to their owners, being often inj-dequate and 
 ineffective, it is incumbent upon Congress — (and I hope that hereafter, when a better 
 state of feeling, when more harmony and good will prevails among the various parts of 
 this confederacy — I hope it will be regarded by the free States themselves as a part of 
 their duty) — to assist in allaying this subject, so irritating and disturbing to the peace of 
 this Union. At all events, whether they do it or not, it is our duty to do it. It is our 
 duy to make the laws more effective ; and I will go with the farthest Senator from the 
 South in this body to make penal laws, to impose the heaviest sanctions upon the recov- 
 ery of fugitive slaves and the restoration of them to their owners. 
 
 While upon this part of the subject, however, allow me to make one observation or 
 , two. I do not think that States, as States, are to be held responsible for all the mis- 
 conduct of particular individuals within those States. I think States are to be held 
 responsible only when ihey act in their sovereign capacity. If there are a few persons 
 indiscreet — mad, if you choose — fanatics, if you choose to call them so — who are tor dis- 
 solving the Union — (and we know there are some at the North who are for dissolving it, 
 in consequence of the connexion which exists between the free and slaveholding States) — 
 I do not think that any State ought to be held responsible for the doctrines which they 
 propagate, unless the State, itself adopts those doctrines. 
 
 There have been, perhaps, mutual causes of complaint. I know — at least I have 
 heard — that Massachusetts, in apology for some of her unfriendly laws upon the subject 
 of the recovery of fugitive slaves, urges the treatment which a certain minister of hers 
 received in Charleston, South Carolina, some years ago. A most respectable, venerable, 
 and worthy man, (Mr. Hoar,) was sent by Massachusetts to South Carolina to take 
 care of the free negroes of Massachusetts that might pass to Charleston in any of the 
 vessels of Massachusetts. I think it was a mission hardly worthy for Massachusetts to 
 
23 
 
 have created. I think she might as well have omitted to send Mr. Hoar upon any such 
 mission as that. She thought it her right, however, and sent him upon that mission. 
 He went for the purpose merely, as it was said, to ascertain the rights of the free people 
 of color before the courts of justice — to test the validity of certam laws of South Caro- 
 lina in regard to the prohibition of free negroes coming into her ports. I believe that 
 was the object — that was the purpose of his mission. He went there.'anl created no 
 disturbance, as I understand, except so far as a^rserting these rights and privileges in the 
 sense that Massachusetts had uiiderstjod them — except so ftr as her people of color 
 might create disturbance. Well he was virtually driven out of Charleston, as I believe 
 some other emissary of the same character was driven out of New Orleans. I do not 
 mean to say whether it was right or wrong to expel him from tha tcity ; but I do mean 
 to say that Massachusetts, for the treatment tnwanls those whom she cliose to ccnside 
 as citizens of the State of Massachusetts, on the part of South Carolina, determined 
 upon that course of legislation by which she has withdrawn all aid and assistance, and 
 interposed obstacles to the recovery of fugitive slaves. She gives this as her apology ; 
 but I think that it furnished her with no sufficient apology. If Soutk Carolina treated 
 her ill, it was no reason why she in turn should treat Virginia, Kentucky, and other 
 States ill. But she thought so. I mention the case of the expulsion from Charleston, 
 and the passage of the laws by Massachusetts — or rather the spirit in which they were 
 passed — not by way of reproach, but to show Senators that there have been, unhappily, 
 mutual causes of irritation, furnished, perhaps, by one class of the States as well as the 
 other, though I admit not in the same degree by slave States as by free States. I admit, 
 also, that the free States have much less cause fc»r any solicitude and inquietude upon 
 this whole subject of slavery than the slave States have, and that far more extensive ex- 
 cuses, if not justification, ought to be extended to the slave States than to the free States, 
 on account of the difference in the condition of the respective parties. 
 
 Mr. President, in passing from that resolution, I will add, that when the time comes 
 for final action, I will vote most cordial'y and willingly for the most stringent meaures 
 that can be devised to secure the execution of the constitutional provision it alludes to. 
 
 Mr. DAVIS, of Massachusetts, (interposing.) I am unwilling to interrupt the honor- 
 able Senator ; but if he will permit me, I will say one word in behalf of my State. 
 
 Mr. CLAY. Certainly, sir ; certainly. 
 
 Mr. DAVIS. I have never heard any apology which was offered by Massachusetts 
 for passing the laws to which reference has been made. On the contrary, I have always 
 understood that the laws that Massachusetts had passed for restoring fugitive slaves were 
 repealed because the courts, as they understood them, had pronounced them to be un- 
 constitutional. That is the ground they took. Whether they were wise in the legisla- 
 tion which they adopted, I will not undertake to say. But I wish to add one word in 
 regard to the mission, as it is termed by the honorable Senator from Kentucky, to South 
 Carolina. If I call the facts to my recollection aright, they are these : We are the own- 
 ers of much shipping ; we employ many sailors; among them we employ free people of 
 color, who are acknowledged in Massachusetts to be citizens of the United States, citi- 
 zens of the Commonwealth, entitled to the rights of citizens. These citizens were 
 taken trom our vessels when they arrived in South Carolina, and held in custody until 
 llie vessel sailed again. This our citizens complained of, whether justly or unjustly ; they 
 felt that it was an infringement, in the first place, of the rights of the citiztns, and, in the 
 next place, it was a great inconvenience to men engaged in this trade. H I remember 
 oorrecily, and I think 1 do, the people of Massachusetts authorized their government to 
 propose, at the expense of the State, some proper individual to go to the Slate of South 
 Carolina, to contest the right of that State to hold these citizens in custody in this way, 
 in the courts of the United States. If I remember, that was the complaint of our citi- 
 zens ; and the mission to which the honorable Senator refers was then instituted, and the 
 termination of it I believe he has correctly stated. And I wish it to be understood that 
 Massachuset's had no aggressive purpose whatever, but simply desired the judicial tribu- 
 nal to settle the question. They wanted nothing more — they asked nothing more. 
 
 Mr. CLAY. I hear with great pleasure, Mr. President, this explanation ; but I have 
 been informed by an eminent citizen of Massachusetts, whose name it is not necessary 
 to mention — not a member of this body — that the motive for the repeal of those laws of 
 restoration — or the passage of those laws of obstruction — that one of the motives was, 
 the treatment of Mr. Hoar in Charleston. I am glad to hear that it proceeded from 
 another cause — from what 1 conceive to be a misconcept o;i of the decision of the Su- 
 preme Court of the United States. When the true exposition of the opinion comes to 
 be known in Massachusetts, I trust that she will restore all those laws for the recovery 
 of those fugitive slaves that she repealed from a misconception of that decision. 
 
 Mr. President, I have a great deal more to say; but I shall pass from that resolution 
 with the observation that I believe I partly made before, that the most stringent provi- 
 
24 
 
 sions upon this subject that can be devised will meet with my hearty concurrence and co- 
 operation in the passage of the bill under consideration. 
 
 The last resolution declares — 
 
 " That Congress has no power to prohibit or obstruct the trade in slaves between the 
 slaveholding States ; but that the admission or exclusion of slaves brought from one into 
 another of them depends exclusively upon their own particular laws." 
 
 This is a concession — not, I admit, of any real constitutional provision, but a conces- 
 sion — of what is understood,! believe, by a great number at the North to be a constitu- 
 tional provision — from the North to the South, if the resolution be adopted. Take aw.iy 
 the decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States on that subject, and I know 
 there is a great deal that might be said on both sides of the subject in relation to the right 
 of Congress to regulate the trade between the States. But I believe the decision of the Su- 
 preme Court has been founded upon correct principles ; and I hope it will forever put an 
 end to the question whether Congress has or has not the power to regulate the slave 
 trade between the different States. 
 
 Such, Mr. President, is the series of resolutions which, with an earnest and anxious 
 desire to present the olive-branch' to both parts of this distracted, and, at this moment, 
 unhappy country, I thought it my duty to offer. Of all men upon earth, am I the 
 least attached to any jjroduction of my own mind. No man upon earth is more ready 
 than I am to surrender anything which I have proposed, and to accept, in lieu of it, any- 
 thing which is better. But I put it to the candor of honorable Senators upon the other 
 side, and upon all sides of the chamber, whether their duty will be performed by simply 
 limiting themselves to objections to any one or two of the series of resolutions which I have 
 offered. If my plan of peace, and accommodation, and harmony, is not right, present us 
 your plan. Let us see a conire projet. Let us see how all the questions that have arisen 
 out of this unhappy subject of slavery can be better settled, more fairly and justly settled, 
 to all quarters of the Union, than is proposed in the resolutions which I have offered. 
 Present me such a scheme, and I hail it with pleasure, and will accept it without the 
 slightest feeling of regret that my own is abandoned. • 
 
 Sir, while I was engaged in anxious consideration upon this subject, the idea of the 
 Missouri compromise, as it has been termed, came under my review, was considered 
 by me, and finally rejected, as in my judgment less worthy of the common acceptance 
 of both parties of this Union than the project which I offer to your consideration. 
 
 Mr. President, before I enter into a particular examination, 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 com- 
 promise, or rather the line of 36° 30', established by the agency of Congress. I do not 
 know whether anything 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 everywhere considered the author of the line of 
 36° 30', which was established upon the occasion of the admission of Missouri into 
 the Union. 
 
 It would take up too much time to go over the whole of that important era 
 in the public affairs of this country. I shall not attempt it ; although I have ample 
 materials before me, derived from a carefiil and 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 myself with stating tliat, so far from my having 
 presented as a proposition the line of 36" 30', upon the occasion of considering 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. Those who will cast their recollfction 
 back — and I am sure the honorable Senator from Missouri, (Mr. Bento.n,) more correctly 
 perhaps than anybody else — must bring to recollection the fact, that at the first Congress, 
 when the proposition was made to admit Missouri — or rather to permit her to hold a conven- 
 tion and to form a constitution, as preliminary to deciding whether she should be admit- 
 ted into this Union — the bill failed by a disagreement between the two Houses ; the 
 House of Representatives insisting upon, and the Senate dissenting from, the provision 
 contained in the ordinance of 1787 ; the House insisting upon the interdiction of slavery, 
 and the Senate rejecting the proposition for the interdiction of slavery. The bill failed. 
 It did not pass that session of Congress. 
 
 At the next session it was renewed ; and, at the time of its renewal, Maine was 
 knocking at our donr, also, to be admitted into the Union, In the House there was a 
 majority for a restriction of the admission of slavery ; in the Senate a majority was op- 
 posed to any such restriction. In the Senate, therefore, in order to carry Missouri 
 through, a bill or provision for her admission, or rather authorizing her to determine the 
 question of her admission, was coupled with the bill for the admission of Maine. They 
 
25 
 
 were connected together, and the Senate said to the House, you want the bill for the 
 admission of Maine passed ; you shall not have it, unless you take along with it the bill 
 for the admission of Missouri also. There was a majority — not a very large one, but a 
 very firm and decided majority — in the Senate for coupling them together. Well, 
 the bill went through all the usual stages of disagreement, and of com'nittees of con- 
 ference ; for there were two committees of conference upon trie occasion before 
 the matter was finally decided. It was finally settled to disconnect the two bills ; 
 to admit Maine separately, without any conne.xion with Missouri, and to insert 
 in the Missouri bill a clause — which was inserted in the Senate of the United 
 States — a clause which was proposed by Mr. Thomas, of Illinois, in the Senate, 
 restricting the admission of slavery north of 3(P 31)', and leaving the question open 
 south of 30° 30', either to admit or not to admit slavery. The bill was finally passed. 
 The committees of conference of the two houses recommended the detacliment of the 
 two bills, and the passage of the Missouri bill, with the clause of 36^30' in it. So it 
 passed. So it went to Missouri. So, for a moment, it quieted the country. But the 
 clause of 30° 30', I repeat, you will find, sir, if you will take the trouble to look into the 
 journals, was, upon three or four different occasions, offered. Mr. Thomas, acting in 
 every instance, presented the proposition of 3(P 30' ; and it was finally agreed to. But 
 I take the occasion to say, that among those who agreed to that fine were a majority ol 
 southern members. My friend from Alabama, in the Senate, ';Mr. King,) Mr. Pinckney, 
 from Maryland, and a majority of the Southern Senators, in this body, voted in favor of 
 the line of 36° 30' ; and a majority of the Southern members in the other House, at the head 
 of whom was Mr. Lawrence himself, voted also f(jr that line. I have no doubt that I did 
 also ; but, as I was Speaker of the House, and as the journal does not show which way 
 the Speaker votes, except in the cases of a lie, I am not able to tell, with certainty, how 
 I accujlly did vote ; but I liave no earthly doubt that I voted, in common with my other 
 Southern friends, for the adoption of the line of 3(P 30'. 
 
 So the matter ended in 18:20. During that year Missouri held a convention, adopted 
 a constitution, 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 pre- 
 vent the migration of free people of color into that State. She came here with the con- 
 stitution containing that provision ; and immediately Northern members 'ook exception 
 to it. 'I'he fiame which had been repressed at the previous session now burst out with 
 redoubled force and violence 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. 
 
 I did not arrive at Washington at that session until January ; and when I got here, I 
 found both bodies completely paralyzed by the excitement which had been produced in 
 the struggle to admit or to exclude Missouri from the Union, in consequence of that pro- 
 hibition. Well, I made an effort, first, in the House of Repieseniatives, to settle it. I 
 asked lor a committee of thirteen, and a committee of thirteen was granted to me, re- 
 piesenting all the old States of the Union. That committee met. I presented to the 
 committee a resolution, which was adopted by it and reported to thf House, not unlike 
 the one to which I will presently call the attention of the Senate. We should have car- 
 ried it through the House but for the votes of Mr. Randolph, of Virginia, Mr. Edwards, 
 of Norih Carolina, and Mr. Burton, of North Carolina — two, I think, of the three no 
 longer living. 7 hose three Southern votes were all cast against the compromise pro- 
 posed to the committee of thirteen by myself, as ohairman of that committee, and they 
 defeated it. 
 
 In that manner things remained for several days. The greatest anxiety prevailed. 
 The couniry was ursetiled ; men were unhappy. There was a large majority in the 
 House then — as I hope and trust there is now a large majority in Congress — in favor of 
 the equitable accoinmodatioii and settlement of the question. I could have any collate- 
 ral question passed which I pleased, except that when it came to the vote, by ayes and 
 notes, unfortunately — more unfortunately then than now, 1 hope, should there be occa- 
 sion for it — there were but few Curtius's and Leonidas's, ready to rifk themselves for 
 ihe safety and honor of the country. But I endeavored to avail myself, as much as I 
 could of the good feeling ihat prevailed ; and after some days had elapsed, I hrought 
 forward another proposition, and a new one, perfectly unpractised ujion in the country, 
 before or since, so far as I know. I proposed a jomt committee of the two Houses; 
 that of the House consisted of twenty-thiee members ; that ol the Senate of — [ do not 
 recollect precisely how many, but of a proper number, to meet the committee of the 
 House; and that this committee be appointed by ballot. At that time, Mr. Taylor, of 
 New York, was in the chair ; and Mr. Taylor had been the very man who had first pro- 
 posed the restriction upon Missouri that she should only be admitted under itie provisions 
 
26 
 
 of the orJinnnce of 1787. I proposed, therefore, that the cominiitee should be choeen 
 by ballot. Well, sir, my motion was carried by a large innjority, and members came if> 
 me from all quarters of the House asking— who, Mr. Clay, do you want to serve with 
 you upon that committee? I named my selection ; and I venture to say that there hap- 
 pened upon that occasion what would hardly happen agnin ; eighteen of the twenty- 
 three were elected upon the first ballot, and the remaining five, having the largest num- 
 ber of votes, bat not a majority, *-ere appointed upon my list. I moved to dispense with 
 further balloting, and to take those five gentlemen who had received the greatest number 
 of votes, with the eighteen actually elected, to compose the committee df twenty three. 
 One or two gentlemen — Mr. Livermore, of New Hampshire, and ene or two oih-r 
 gentlemen — declined, and very much to my regret, and somewhat to my annoyance, the 
 lamented Mr. Randolph and one other gentleman were placed in thtir situation. I for- 
 get whether that was done by ballot or by the Speaker. The Senate immediately 
 agreed to the proposition, and appointed its committee. 
 
 We met. It was in this hall, upon the Sabbath day, within two or three days of the 
 close ot the session, when the whole nation was listening with breathless anxiety for 
 some final and healing measure upon that disJracting subject. We met here, and upon 
 that day. 'I he moment we met, .\lr. Randolph made a suggestion which I knew would 
 bft attended with the greatest embarrassment and difficulty. He contended that when 
 the two committees of the two houses nift together, the chairman of the committee of 
 the House, who was myself, had a right to preside. He was about insisting at some 
 length upon that proposition, that the chairman of the committee of the House should 
 preside over both comfiuilees when blended together — should be the prefidiiig officer ol 
 both. 1 instantly I'pposed, however, ibis plan, and stated that I did not consider this the 
 proper mode, but I thought that the chairman of the committee of each House should 
 preside over his own committee, and when the committee of either bran /h had adopted 
 a proposition, it should be submitted to the committee of the other brunch ; and if they 
 also agreed to it, then it should be reported back to the two Housis with the recommen- 
 dation of both committees. That mode was agreed upon, and Mr. Holmes, I think it 
 was, from Miiine, presided over the committee of the Senile. I — if I could be said to 
 preside tt all, when I took a more active part in the chair than I could have well taken 
 out of it ; and when, as at this se-sion, I was thought to manifest a desire rather to take 
 too much lead — presided over the committee of the House. 1 brought forward ihe pro- 
 position which I will read presently, and I appealed to the members of the committee, 
 if 1 may use the expression. Now, gen'lemen, said I, we do no not want a proposition 
 carried here by a small majority, thereupon reported to the House and rejecled. I am 
 for something practical, something conclusive, something decisive upon the question. 
 How will yon vote Mr. A. ? How will y )U vote Mr. B. ? How will you vole Mr. G. ? 
 I appealed in that way to the gentlemen of the North. To my very great happiness, a 
 sufficient number of them responded affirmatively to my question whether they would 
 vote for this proposition, to enable me to be confident that, if they co itinued to vote in 
 that way — of which 1 had not a particle of doubt — in the House we should carry the 
 proposition. Accordingly, that proposition having been agreed upon by both conimit- 
 tees,'wu8 reported by us to our respective houses, where it was finally adopted, and here 
 it is: 
 
 (Mr. C. here commenced reading a resolution but discontinued, staling that it was not 
 that to which he referred. A messenger went in search of the volume containing the reso- 
 lution, and Mr. Clay proceeded ) 
 
 That resolution, I said, was finally adopted. Probably I can state, without reading it, 
 ■what its provisions are. It declares that if the'e be any provisions in the constitution ot 
 Mis ouri incompatible with the Constitution of the United States, the State of Missouri 
 eliall foib<ar to enforce that repugnant provision in that constitution, and that she shall 
 by some solemn and authentic act, declare that she will not enforce any provision in her 
 consiiiutionincompaiibh with the Constitution of the United Siaies; and upon the passage 
 of such a solemn and authentic act, the President of the United States— who was Mr. 
 Monroe at that time — shall make a proclamation of the fact, and thereupon, and without 
 any further legislation ol Congress, Missouri shall be admitted into the Union. 
 
 Now, sir, I want to call your Btteniion to this period of our history, and to the tiarw- 
 actions during the progress of this discussion in Congress. During the discussions in 
 the House, troin day to day and from night to night — for they frequently ran into the night — 
 we, who were for admitting Missouri into the Unicn.said to our brethren from the North, 
 why, gentlemen, if there be any provision in that coiislitution of Mi-souri which is re- 
 pugnant to the Consiitution of the Uniii-d States, it is a nullity. The Consiitutio:i of 
 the I nited Siatts. by virtue of its own operation, vindicates itself. There is not a tri- 
 bunal upon earth, if the question should De brought before them, but would pronouncr. 
 
27 
 
 the Constitution of the United States paramount, and must pronounce as invalid any re- 
 pugnant pre vision in the constitution of Missouri. Sir, liiat argument wa^ 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. 
 
 Mr. UNDERWOOD, at the request of Mr. CukV, here read the resolution as follows; 
 Resolution providing for the admission of the State of .Missouri into the Union on a cer- 
 
 tam condition. 
 
 Resolved by the Senate and Huiise of Representatives of the United States of 
 America in Cn/igrc.is assembled, That Mi-souri shall be admitted into this Union on an 
 equal footing with the original States, in all respects whatever, upon the fundamental 
 condition, tluU tiic fourth clause of the tweiuy-sixih section of the third article of the con- 
 Bliiution, submitted on the part of said State co Congress, shall never be construed to au- 
 thorize t. e passage of any law, and that no law shall be passed, in conformity thereto, 
 by which any citizen, of eith."r of the States in this Union, shall be excluded form the 
 enjoyniei t of any of the privileges and immunities to which such citizen is entitled 
 under the Constitution of the United States: Provided, That the Legislature of the 
 said State, by a solemr. piib'ic act, sliall declare thj assent of the siid Stl^t■? lo the said 
 fundamental condition, and shall transmit to the President of the United States, on or 
 before the fcunh Monday in November next, an authentic copy of the said act; upon 
 the receipt whereof, the Presdent by proclamation shall announce the fact ; whereupon, 
 and without any further proceeding on the p^rt of Congress, the admission of the said 
 State into this Union shall be considered as complete. 
 
 (Approved, March 2, 1821.) 
 
 Mr. CLAY resumed. There is the resolution, sir, and you see it is precisely as I 
 stated. After all this excitement throughout the country had reached to such an alarm- 
 ing point, that the Union itself was supposed to be in the most imminent peril and dan- 
 ger, all parties were satitfied with a declaration of an incontestable principle of consti- 
 tutional law, that when the constitution of a State is violative, in its provisions, of the 
 Constitution of the United States, the Constitution of the United Stales is to be paramount, 
 and the constitution of the State in that particular is a nullity and void. That was all. 
 They wanted something for a justification of the course which 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 an authentic " act ; but at last, when you come to strip it of all 
 iis verbiage, it is nothing more than the principle I have announced ol the paramount 
 character of the Constitution of the United States over any local constitution of any one 
 of the States of this Union. 
 
 Mr. President, we may draw from these transactions in our history this moral, I hope. 
 Nowjfis then, if we will only suffer our reason to have its scope and sway, and il we 
 will still and hush the passion and excitement which have been created by the occasion, 
 difficulties will be more tl«.an half removed in the settlement, upon just and amicable prin- 
 ciples, of the question which unhappily divides us at this moment. 
 
 But, Iwish to contrast the plan of accommodation which is proposed by me with that 
 which is offered by the Missouri line, to be extt-nded to the Pacific ocean, 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 Mis- 
 souri line 1 Slavery was positively interdicted north of that line. The question of the ad- 
 m ssion or exclusion cf slavery south of that line was not settled. There was no provi- 
 sion that slavery should be admitted south of that line. Li point of fact it existed there. 
 In al the territory south of 36'-' 30', embraced in Arkansas and Louisiana, slavery was 
 then existing It was not ne< essary , 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 out it to 
 gentlemen Irom the South, are they prepared to be satisfied with the line of 36° 3(j', in- 
 terdicting slavery north of that line, and giving them no security for the admission of 
 slavery south of ihat line 1 The Senator fioni Mississippi (Mr. Davis) told us, the other 
 day, that he was not prepared to be satisfied with anything short of the positive introduc- 
 tion of slavery. 
 
 A Senator. Recognition. 
 
 Mr. Clay. A positive recognition of slavery south of the line of 3G*^ 30'. Is there 
 any body who believes that you can get twenty votes in this body, or a proportionate 
 number in the House, to declare in favor of the recognition of slavery south of the line of 
 3G° 30'? It is impossible. All that you can get— all that you can expect to get — all 
 that was proposed at ihe last session — is action north of ihit line, and non-action as re- 
 gards slavery south of that line — its interdiction upon the one side, with no correspond- 
 ing provisioii for its admission upon the other side of the line of 36° 3U'. 
 
28 
 
 When 1 came to consider the subject, and to compare the provisions of the line of 36^ 
 30' — the Missouri compromise Ime — with the phin which I have proposed for the accom- 
 modation of this question, said I to myself, if 1 offer the line of 36° 30' to interdict the 
 question of slavery north of it, and to leive it unsettled and open south of it, I offer that 
 which is illusory to the South — I offer that which wdl deceive them, if they suppose that 
 slavery will be received south of that line. It is belter 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 — lar bett-r that there should be noii-aciion both sides of the line than that there 
 should be action b> the interdiction on the one side, without action for the admission up- 
 on the other side of the line. Is it not so ? What is thf-re gained by the South if the 
 j\.is;-oun Ime is extended to the Pacific, with the interdiction of slavery north of it? 
 Why, the very argument which has bi en most often and most seriously urfied by the South 
 has been tliis: we do not want Congress to legislate upon the subject of slavery at all :, 
 you ought not to touch it. You have no power over it. 1 do not concur, as is well 
 known Iroin what I have said up.in 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 Mi.-^souri line, and thus ui'erdict slavery north of that line, 
 you do legislate upon the subject of slavery, and you legislate lor its ret^triction, without 
 a coirespoiiding equivalent of legislation south of that line for its admission ; fir I insist 
 that i( there be legislation interdicting slavery north o( the line, then tin- principles of 
 equaliiy would require that there stiould be legi'<lation admitting slavery souih of the line. 
 
 I have said that I never could vote for it myself, and I repeat that I never can, anci 
 never will vote, and no earthly power w.ll ever 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, th'^re ought to be a majority, if justice is done to the South, to 
 admit slavery s 'Uili of the line. And if there he a majority to accomplish both of these 
 purpost-s, a'tlioiigh 1 cannot concur in their action, I shall be one of the last to create any 
 disturbance ; 1 shall be one of the first to acquiesce in that legislation, although U iscon- 
 trary to my own judgineni and to my own coiii^ience. 
 
 1 hope then to keep the whole of these matters untouched by any legislation of Con- 
 gress upon the subject of slavery, leaving it open and und-'cided. Noii-aclion hy Con- 
 gress is best lor the South, and best for all the views which the South have disclosed to 
 VB from time to time as corresponding to their wishes. 1 know it has been said with 
 regard to ttie territories, and especially has it been said with regard to California, 
 that non-legislation upon the p^irl of Congress implies ttie same thing as the exclu- 
 sion of slavery. That vvc cannot help. That Congress it not responsible for. if 
 Nature has pronounced the doom of slavery in these territories— if she has de- 
 clared by her immutable laws that slavery cannot and shall not be introduced there — who 
 can you reproach but Nature and Nature's God 1 Congress you cannot. Congress ab- 
 stains. Congress is passive. Congress is non-acting, south and north of the line ; or 
 rather if Congress agrees to the plan which 1 propose, extending no line; it leaves the en- 
 tire theatre of the whole cestion of these territories untouched by leg slative enactments, 
 eiilier to exclude or admit slavery. Well, I ask again, if you will listen to the voice of 
 calm and dispassionate reason— 1 ask of any man of the South, to rise and tell me if it 
 is not heller lor that section of the Union, thai Congress should remain passive upon both 
 sides of the ideal line, rather than that we should luterdici slavery upon the one side of 
 that line, and be passive upon the other side of that line ] 
 
 1 am taxing both the physical and intellectual powers which a kind Providence has 
 bestowed upon me loo much, and I will endeavor soon to conclude; for I do not deaire 
 to trespass upon the lime and patience of the Senate. 
 
 Mr. M.ANGUM having offered to make a motion to adjourn, 
 
 Mi. clay taid: No, sir ; no, sir ; if the Senate will bear with me, I think I can go 
 thronsihwith it b^-tter to-day than I could to-morrow. 
 
 Mr. President this Union is ihreatened with subveision. I desire to take a very rapid 
 glance at the course of public measures in this Union jresently. I wanted, how- 
 ever, bef.ire I did that, to ask the Senate to look back upon the career which 
 this C)iintry has lun from the aJopion of the Conatiiution down to the preesnt day. 
 Was there ever a nation upon whic i the sun of Heaven has shone which has ex- 
 hibited so much of prosperity as ourovMi? At the commencement of this governmen*, 
 our popuiiition amounted to about four millions. It has now reached upwards of twenty 
 millions. Our territory was limited chit-fly and principally to that bordering upon the 
 At:antic ocean, and that which includes the soHthern shores of the interior lakes of onr 
 countiy. Our lerri'oiy now extends f oin the iiorlhern provinces of Great Britain lo the Rio 
 Grande and the Gulf of Mexico ; liom ihe Ailaniic ocean on the one side to the Piicifia 
 on the other— the largest extent of territory under one government existing upon earth. 
 
29 
 
 with only two solitary exceptions. Oar tonnage, from bt-iiig nothing, has risen to a 
 masnltude and aniomit to rival that ot" the nation which has been proudly called ihe inig- 
 trees of the ocean. We have gone througii many wars ; one with that very nation from 
 whom in 1776, we broke off, as weak and feeble colonies, when we asserted our inde- 
 pendence as a member of the family of nations. And, sir, we came out of that strug- 
 gle — unequal as it wag, armed as she was at all points inconsequence of the long strug- 
 gles of Europe, and unarmed as we were at all poin's, in consequence of the habits and 
 nature of our country and it.s institutions — we (;ame out of tliat war without the loss of 
 any honor whatever ; we emerged frum it gloriously. In every Indian war — we have 
 been engaged in many of them — our arms have been triumphant. And without speak- 
 ing at ail as to the causes of the recent war with Me.vico, whether they were right or 
 wiong, and abstaining from the expression of any opinion as to the justice or propriety 
 of the war when it conunenced, all must unitf in respect to the gallamy of ourarnis and 
 the glory of our triumphs. There is no page — there are no pages of history which ;e- 
 cord more brilliant successes. With respect to the one in command of an important 
 portion of our army, I need .say nothing in praise of him who has b-en borne by the 
 voice of his country to the highest station in it, niainly 'on account of his gloiious mili- 
 tary career. But of another military commander, less fortunate in other ret^pects, I 
 nmst take the opportunity of saying that for skill — for science — forstrategy — ibr bold and 
 daring fighting — for chivalry of individuals and of masses — that portion of the Mexican 
 war which was conducted by the gallant Scott, as chit f commander, stands unrivalled 
 either by tiie deeds of Cortes himself or by those of any other commander in ancient or 
 modern times. 
 
 Our prosperity is unbounded. Nay, Mr. President, f sometimes fear that it is the very 
 wantonness of our prosperity that leads U8 to these threatening ills of the moment, that 
 restlessness and these erratic schemes throughout the whole country, some o[ which 
 have even found ihier way into legislative halls. We want, I fear, the chastising wand 
 of Heaven to bring us back to a senJ^ of the immeasurable benefits and blessings which 
 have been bestowed upon us by Providence. At this moment, with the excej)iioii of here 
 and there a particular department in the manufacturing business of the country, all is 
 prosperons and happy — both the rich and poor. Our nation has grown to a maguituiie 
 in power and in greatness, to command the respect, if it does not ciU for the apprehen- 
 sions of all the powers of the earth with which we can come in contact. Sir, do I de- 
 pict With colors too lively the prosperity which lias resulted to us from the operation of 
 the Constitution under which we live 1 flave 1 exaggerated in any degree 1 
 
 Now, let me go a little into detail as to the sway in the councils of the nation, 
 wheiher of the North ot of the South, during the sixty years of unparalleled prosperity 
 that we enjoy. During the first twelve years of the adminisiiation of the goveinment, 
 Norihern counsels rather prevailed ; and out of them sprung the Bank ot the United 
 States; the assumption of the Stale tit bts; bounti'-s to the fisheries; protection to the 
 domestic manufactures — I allude to (he act of 1789 ; neutrality in the wars with Europe; 
 Jay's treaty ; alien and sedition laws ; and s.qvHsi war wi.h 1* ranee. I do not say, sir, 
 that those leading and prominent measures which wereadop:ed during the adniWiistraiioQ 
 of Wasliingtoir and the elder Adams were carried exclusively by Northern councils. 
 They could not have been, but were carried roainly by the sw.iy which Norihern council's 
 had obtained in the affaiis of the country. 
 
 t^o, also, with the latter party, for the iasi fifty years. I do not mean to say th&t 
 Southern counsels alone have carried tlie measures which I am about to enumerate. I 
 know they could not exclusively have carried them ; but 1 say they have been carried 
 by their preponderating influence, with co-operation, it is true, and larg'e co-operation,, 
 in some insiancee, from the n.rthern section of the linion. 
 
 And whiit are those measures during the fifiy years that Seuthern counsels have pre- 
 poi, delated ? The embargo and other coiinnerciai restrictions of noii-iiuercourse and 
 non-iin|)(. nation ; war wiih Great Biitain ; the Bank <<f the United States tiverihrown ; 
 protection to domestic manufactuiea enlarged and extended ; (I allude to the passage of 
 the act of lcl5 or 1816;) the Bank of the United Stales re-establii'hed ; the same bank. 
 put down ; re-established by Southern counsela and put di/Wii by Southern c( unsels; 
 Louisiana acquired ; Florida bought ; Texas annexed ; war with Mexico ; California 
 and other Territories acquired from Mexi-co by cor.qu<;st and purcha.se ; protection super- 
 seded and fiee trade et-tabli.shed ; Indians removed west ot the Missouri; fifteen new 
 Stales admitted inio the Union, i may very possibly have omitted some <.f the impor- 
 tant mcasuies which have been adop;ed dunni>; tht latter period or time to which I hate 
 referred — ihe last fiiiy years; b..t iii,"se I btlieve are the most iirominent. 
 
 I do not deduce ;roni the enumeration of the acis of the one side or the other any just 
 cause of reproach to the one side or liie other, aitliough one side or the other has jirs- 
 
30 
 
 dominated in the two periods to which I have referred. It has been at least the work 
 of both, and neillier need justly repioach the other ; but I must say in all candor and 
 sincerity that least of all ought the South to reproach the North, when we look at the 
 long list of measures we have had under our sway in the councils of the nation, and 
 which have been adopted as the policy of the Government, when we reflect that 
 even opposite doctrines have been prominently advanced by the South and carried at 
 different times. A bank of the United States was established under the administration 
 of Mr. Madison, with the co-operation of the South. I <lo not, when I speak of the 
 South or North, speak of the entire South or North — 1 speak of the prominent and 
 larger proportions of the Si'Uth or North. It was during IVJr. Madison's administration 
 that the Bank of the United States was established. The fiiend (.Mr. Cai.iiou.n) whose 
 sickness 1 again deplore, as it prevents us from having his attendance here upon this oc- 
 casion, was the chairman of the committee of tlie House of Representatives, and car- 
 ried the measure through Congress. I voted for it with all my heart, although I had 
 been insrumenial in putting down the old Bank of the United States. I had change-d 
 my mind ; and I eo-o()erated in the establishment of the bank of 181G. That same 
 bank was again put down by Soutlii rn cc unsels, w'th General Jackson at their head, at 
 a later period, 'i'hen, with respect to the policy of protection ; the South, in 1615 — 
 I mean the prommeia and leading men of the Soutli, Lowndes, Calhoun, and edieis — 
 united in extending a certain measure ot protection lo the doniestii; manufactures of the 
 South, as Well as ol the North. You lind, a lew years afterwards, that the South op- 
 poses the most serious objection to this policy, at least one member of the Union staking 
 upon that objection the dissolution of the Union. 
 
 Let us take another view ; and of these several views no one is brought forward in 
 any spirit o" reproach, but in a spirit of conciliation — not to provoke or exasperate, but 
 to quiet and produce harmony and repose, if possible. What have been the territorial 
 acquisitions made by this country, and to what interests have they conduced? Florida, 
 where slavery exists, has been inirciduced. All tli? most valuable parts of Louisiana 
 have also added to the extent and consideration of the slavehoJding portion of the 
 Union ; for aliliough there is a large extent of that territory north of 30*^ 30', yet in 
 point of intrinsic value and importance, I would not give the single State of Louisiana 
 for the whole of it. All Louisiana, with the exception of what lies north of 3G° 31)', 
 including Oregon, to which we have obtained title mainly upon the ground of its being 
 a part of the acquisition of Louisiana — all Texas, all the territories which liave been 
 ac(}iiiied by the Government oi' the United Slates during sixty yeais of the operation of 
 that Government, have been slave territories — theatres of slavery — with the excep- 
 tion I have mentioned lying north of the line of 36° 30'. But how was it in the 
 case of a war made essentially by the South, growing out of the annexation of 
 Texas, which was a measure pressed by the South U()on the councils of the country, and 
 whi,-h led to the war with Mexico ? I do not say ot the whole Souih ; but a major por- 
 tion of the South pressed the annexation of Texas upon the c^nmtry, and that led to a 
 war with Mexico, and to the ultimate acquisition of these territories, which now con- 
 stitute the' bone ot contention between the members of the confederacy. And now, 
 when, lor the first time, any free territory — after these great acquisitions in Florida, Loui- 
 siana, and Tf xas, had been made and redounded to the benefit of the South — now, when, 
 for the first time, free teriitories are attempted to be introduced — territories wiihout the 
 institution of slavery, I put it to the heartsof my countrymen cf the South if it is right to 
 press matters to the disastrous consequences that have been intimated no longer ago than 
 this very morning, upon the presentation of the resoluiions from North Carolina. 
 
 A Senator here offered to move an adjournment. 
 
 Mr. CLAY. Mr. President, I hope the Senate will only have the goodness — if I don't 
 tire out their patience, to permit me to go on. I would prefer concluding to-day. I 
 begin to see land. I shall pretty soon arrive at the end. I had much rather oocupy half 
 an hour now than leave what I have to say for to-iaorrow — to trespass upon the patience 
 of the Senate another day. 
 
 Such is the Union, and such are its gloiious fruits. We are told now, and it is rung 
 throughout this entire country, ihat the Union is threatened with subversion and destruc- 
 tion. Well, the first question which naturally arises is, supposing the Union to be dis- 
 solved — having all the causes of grievance which are complained of — how far will a dis- 
 solution furnish a remedy tor those grievances] If the Union is to be dissolved for any 
 existing causes, it vill be dissolved because slavery is interdicted or nit allowed to be 
 introduced into the ceded territories; because slavery is threatened to be abolished ia 
 t-he District ol Columbia, and because fugitive slaves are not returned, as in my opinion 
 they ought to be, restored to their masters. Thrse I believe v.'ill be the causes, if these 
 be aay causes, which can had to the direful event to which I have referred. 
 
31 
 
 Well, now, let us suppose that the Union has been dipsolved. What remedy does it 
 furnish for the griev;incts complained of in its united condition T Will you he able to 
 push slavery into the ced-'d Territories? How are you to do it, supposing the North — all 
 the States norh of the Potomac, and which are opposed to it — in possession of the navy 
 and army of the United States ? Can yju expect, if there is a dissolution of the Union, 
 that you can carry slavery into California and New Mexico ? You cannot dream of 
 such a purpose. If it were abolished in ihe District of Columbia, and the I'nion was 
 dissolved, would the d ssoluticn of the Union restore slavery in the District of Columbia 1 
 Are you safer in the recovery of your fugitive slaves in a state of dissolution or of sever- 
 ance of the Union, than you are in the Union itself? Why, whnt 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 fiec States. In every case, so far as my information extends, where an 
 appeal has been made to the courts of justice for the recovery of fugitives, or for the re- 
 coverj of penalties inflicted upuu person'^ who have assisted in decoying slaves from 
 their m:isiers and aiding th.em in escaping from their masters — as far as I am informed, 
 the c urts 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 dissevered ? Why, sir, then the severed parts would be 
 independent of each other — foreign countrie.s ! Slaves taken from the one into the 
 other would be then like slaves now escaping from 'he United Stafs into Canada. 
 There would be no right of extn dition — no right to demand y(jur slaves — no right to 
 appeal to the courts of justice to demand your slaves which eS';ape, or the penalties 
 for decoying them. Wheie one 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 8v)vereignties were established 
 
 Well, finally, will you in a state of dissolution of the Union, be safer with yuur slaves 
 within the bosom of the States than you are now 1 Mr. President, that they will escape 
 much more frequently from the border Slates, no one will doubt. 
 
 But, I must take the occasion tn say that, m my opin:on, ih-^re is no right on the part 
 of one or more of the Stales to secede from the Union. War and the dissolution of the 
 Union are identical and niseparable. 'I'here can be no dissolution of ihe Union, rsccpt 
 by consent or by war. No one can exp"cl, in the existing state of things, ihat that con- 
 sent woiiid be given, and war is the only allernative by which a dissolution could be 
 accomplished. And, Mr. President, if consent were given — if possibly we were to se- 
 parate by mutual agreement and by a given line, in It-ss than sixty days after such an 
 agreement had been executed, war would break out between the free and slaveholdtng 
 portions of this Union — between the two ind.-pendent portions into which it would be 
 erecte I in virtue of th- act of separation. Yes, sir, sixiy days— in less than si.\iy days, 
 I believe, our slaves from Kentuiky would be fleeing over in nninhers to ihe other side 
 01 the river, would be pursued hy their jwiiers, and ihe excitable and ardctit aj) rits who 
 would eng.3ge in th" pursuit would be restrained by no sense of the rights winch apper- 
 tain to the indejiendence ol the other side of the river, supposing it, then, to be the line 
 of separation. They would pursue their shives ; thpy would be repelled, and war would 
 break out. In less ilia a siity days, wir would be blazing forth in every part oi this now 
 faappy and peaceable land. 
 
 But how aif you g<iing to separate them? In my humble opinion, Mr President, we 
 should begin at least with three conf'-deracies — the confrderacy of the N"r h, the con- 
 federacy of the Athtntic southern States, (t :e slaveholding States,) and the confederacy 
 of the valley of the Mississippi. My life upim it, sir, tliat vast population that has al- 
 ifd'^.y concentrated, and will concentrate, upon ihe headwateis mid inbnlaneB ot the 
 Mississippi, will never cons'-nt thcit the inumn of that river shall he held subject to the 
 power of any foreign .-tate whatever. Su'-h 1 believe w^uld be the consequ nees ot a 
 dissolution of the Union. Bui other confederacies would spring up, from tune to lime, 
 83 diss.iiisfaciion and discontent were disseminated over the country. There would be 
 the confederacy of the hkes— perhaps the confederacy of Aew England and of ths 
 middle States. 
 
 Eat, sir, the veil which covers these sad and disastrous events that li»» beyond a possi- 
 ble rupture of this Union is too thick to be penetrated or lifted by any morial eye or 
 hand. 
 
 Mr. President, I am directly opposed to any purpose of secession, of separation. lam 
 for staying within the Union, ami dr lying any poiiion of iliis Un <;n \o i-xpd or drive 
 me <iut of ihn Union. lam for stiiyiiii; withm tiie Uni'.n, ami fj^liting for my ng its— if 
 necessary, with the swoid — wiihin the hounds and uiidt-r the. safeguard o) lae Union. 
 lata lor vindicating thesj rights ; bat noi uy beaig driven out of the Union rasbly and 
 
32 
 
 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 
 prott ct myself, and to defy all power upon earth to exp^l me or drive me frum the situa- 
 tion in which 1 am placed. Will there not be more safety in fighting wiihbi the Union 
 than without it ? 
 
 Suppose your rights to be violated ; suppose wrongs to be done you, aggressions to be 
 perpetrated upon you ; cannot 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 light and vindicate your rights, expelled from the Union, and 
 driven from it without ceremony and without authority ? 
 
 I aaid 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 Consttution of the thirteen States was 
 made, not merely for the generation which then existed, but for posterity, undefined, un- 
 limited, permanent, and perpetual — for their posterity, and for every subsequent State 
 which ni'ijlii 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 pri- 
 vate life, it wa.« a marriag- that no human authority can dissolve or divorce the part es 
 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 ihe form of 
 human beings can be perfect ; let us then be kind to each other, forbearing, conceding ; 
 let us live in happintss and peace. 
 
 Mr. President, 1 have said what I solemnly believe — that the dissolution of the Union 
 and war are identical and inseparable ; that tiey are convertible terms. 
 
 Such a war, too, as that would be, following the dissolution of the Union! Sir, we 
 may search the pages of history, and none so turious, so bloody, so implacable, so exter- 
 mniating, from the wars of Greece down, including those of the Commonwealth ot En- 
 gland, and the revolution of France — none, none of them raged with such violence, or 
 was ever conducted wiihsijch bloodshed and enormities, as will that war which shall fol- 
 low that disastrous event — if that event ever happens — of dissolution. 
 
 And what would be its termination ? Standing armies and navies, to an extent drain- 
 ing the revenues of each portion of the dissevered empire, would be created ; extermina- 
 ting wars would follow — not a war of two nor three years, but of interminable duration — 
 an exterminating war would follow, until some Philip or Alexander, some Caesar or Na- 
 polean, would rise to cut the Gordian knot, and solve the problem of the capacity of man 
 for self government, and crush the liberties of both the dissevered portions of this Union. 
 Can you doubt it ? Look at history — consult the pages of all history, ancient or modern : 
 look at human nature — look at the character of the contest in which you would be en- 
 gaged in the fipposition of a war following the dissolution of the Union, such as I have 
 suggested — and I ask you if it is possible for you to doubt that the final but perhaps dis- 
 tant termination of the whole will be some despot treading down the liberties of the peo- 
 ple ? — that the final result will be the extinction of this last and glorious light, which is 
 leading all mankind, who are gazing upon it, to cherish hope and anxious expectation 
 that the liberty which prevails here will sooner or later be advanced throughout the civi- 
 lized world ? Can you, Mr. President, lightly contemplate theconsequences ? Can you 
 yield yourself to a torrent of passion, amidst dangers which 1 have depicted in colors far 
 short of what would be the reality, if the event should ever happen ? I conjure gentle- 
 men — 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 bestowed upon thenr such unnum- 
 bered 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 in the 
 yawning abyss below, which will inevitably lead to certain and irretrievable destruction. 
 
 And, finally, Mr. President, I implore, as the best blessing which Heaven can bestow 
 upon me upon earth, that if the direful and sad event of the dissoluiion of the Union 
 shall happen, I may not survive to behold the sad and heart-rending spectacle. 
 
LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 
 
 011 898 080 3 
 
 >^ 
 
 ^ 
 
 -^ 
 
 -tr 
 
 <^^ 
 
 / 
 
 JJ //■J'^