•voter. *<& / •• 
 
 
 ■» o 
 
 • •• *A. 
 
 
 V - « • 
 
 
 **> ° BIBBS' °^ *^ 
 
 ' . « * 
 
 /*\ : - 
 
 . «^V 'WWW: ^\. 
 
 *oV* 
 
 * ^ %* ' 
 
 
 c v ** 
 
 o V 
 
 > ^ 
 
 
 
 *o. 
 
 
 * ^ v 
 
 ^\ 
 
 * J? 
 
 
 
 , V ^ 
 
 -^c,' 
 .^ V ^ 
 
 
A? 
 
 
 
 <*» 
 
 bK 
 
 7 >° * ^ v^ 
 
 • - ° ' a° V * • ' * • <r °^ " * • - ° - a u 
 
 " **tfr A** * 
 
 
 
 ■• ^ ** ^86v ^ ^ ^ 
 
 • ^ 
 
 o_ * 
 
 
 A V «*. " * " A~ 
 
 1 / 
 
 V . t • 
 
 ■~ .r 
 
 
 ^>. *o . i «• A 
 
 
 
 
 
 +** : 
 
 / -i-A""" ^^V" VUA v<^ 
 
 -, 
 
 
 * A* 
 
 * AT ^6 •^SiS* 4? &, -"M 
 * aV <>. TV' A v ^ "°. * A 
 
 >™ . « • 
 
 *b^ 
 
 ^ A* • jSfe*- % / 
 
 ;* ^ o^ v 
 
 
 '■!•$■ 
 
 
 %^ .♦Mtef-, %..^* .-isKai-. ^^ 
 
 a v -^ - 
 
 vv 
 
 \^<y 
 
 
 vv 
 
 
 x* V *V 
 
 a> ^,. # <, A ^ ^ A 
 
 > V* ♦l^L'* '^ AP 
 
 
 
SPEECH 
 
 MR. EVERETT, OF MASSACHUSETTS, 
 
 DELIVERED 
 
 IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES, FEB 8, 1854, 
 
 NEBRASKA AND KANSAS TERRITORIAL BILL. 
 
 WASHINGTON: 
 
 PRINTED AT THE CONGRESSIONAL GLOBE OFFICE. 
 
 1854. 
 
 :■'- 
 
D 
 
 Gift Of 
 
 Mi**- Eli".'« beth Curtis* 
 Oct,. 17, !?29 
 
NEBRASKA AND KANSAS. 
 
 Mr. EVERETT said : 
 
 Mr. President, I intimated yesterday that if 
 time had been allowed, I should have been glad 
 to submit to the Senate my views at some length 
 in relation to some of the grave constitutional and 
 political principles and questions involved in the 
 measure before us. Even for questions of a lower 
 order, those of a merely historical character, the 
 time which has elapsed since this bill, in its present 
 form, was brought into the Senate, which I think 
 is but a fortnight ago yesterday, has hardly been 
 sufficient, for one not previously possessed of the 
 information, to acquaint myself fully with the de- 
 tails belonging to the subject before us, even to 
 these which relate to subordinate parts of it, such 
 as our Indian relations. Who will undertake to 
 say how they will be affected by the measure 
 now before the Senate, either under the provisions 
 of the bill in that respect as it stood yesterday, or 
 as it will stand now that all the sections relative 
 to the Indians have been stricken out? And 
 then, sir, with respect to that other and greater 
 subject, the question of slavery as connected with 
 our recent territorial acquisitions, it would take a 
 person more than a fortnight to even read through 
 the voluminous debates since 1848, the knowledge 
 of which is necessary for a thorough comprehen- 
 sion of this important and delicate subject. 
 
 For these reasons, sir, I shall not undertake at 
 this time to discuss any of these larger questions. 
 I rise for a much more limited purpose — to speak 
 for myself, and without authority to speak for 
 anybody else, as a friend and supporter of the 
 compromises of 1850, and to inquire whether it is 
 my duty, and how far it is the duty of others who 
 agree with me in that respect, out of fidelity to 
 
 those compromises, to support the bill which ia 
 now on your table, awaiting the action of the Sen- 
 ate. This, I feel, is a narrow question; but this 
 is the question which I propose, at no very great 
 length, to consider at the present time. 
 
 I will, however, before I enter upon this subject, 
 say, that the main question involved in the pas- 
 sage of a bill of this kind is well calculated to exalt 
 and expand the mind. We are about to take a 
 first step in laying the foundations of two new 
 States, of two sister independent Republics, here- 
 after to enter into the Union, which already em- 
 braces thirty-one of these sovereign States, and 
 which, no doubt, in the course of the present cen- 
 tury, will include a much larger number. I think 
 Lord Bacon gives the second place among the 
 great of the earth to the founders of States — Con- 
 ditores imperiorum. And though it may seem to 
 us that we are now legislating for a remote 
 part of the unsubdued wilderness, yet the time 
 will come, and that not a very long time, when 
 these scarcely existing territories, when these al- 
 most empty wastes, will be the abode of hundreds 
 and thousands of kindred, civilized fellow-men 
 and fellow-citizens. Yes, sir, the time is not far 
 distant, probably, when Kansas and Nebraska, 
 now unfamiliar names to us all, will sound to the 
 ears of their inhabitants as Virginia, and Massa- 
 chusetts, and Kentucky, and Ohio, and the names 
 of the other old States, do to their children. Sir, 
 these infant Territories, if they may even at present 
 be called by that name, occupy a most important 
 position in the geography of this continent. They 
 stand where Persia, Media, and Assyria stood in 
 the continent of Asia, destined to hold the balance 
 of power — to be the centers of influence to the East 
 
and to the West.* Sir, the fountains that trickle from 
 the snow-capped crests of the Sierra Mad re flow 
 in one direction to the Gulf of Mexico, in another 
 to the St. Lawrence, and in another to the Pacific. 
 The commerce of the world, eastward from Asia, 
 and westward from Europe, is destined to pass 
 through the gates of the Rocky Mountains over the 
 iron pathways which we are even now about to lay 
 down through those Territories. Cities of unsur- 
 passed magnitude and importance are destined to 
 crown the banks of their noble rivers. Agriculture 
 will clothe with plenty the vast plains now roamed 
 over by the savage and the buffalo. And may 
 we not hope, that, under the aegis of wise consti- 
 tutions of free government, religion and lavye, 
 morals and education, and the arts of civilized 
 life, will add all the graces of the highest and 
 purest culture to the gifts of nature and the boun- 
 ties of Providence ? 
 
 Sir, I assure you it was with great regret, having 
 in my former congressional life uniformly concur- 
 red in every measure relating to the West which 
 I supposed was for the advantage and prosperity 
 of that part of the country, that as a member of 
 the Committee on Territories, I found myself un- 
 able to support the bill which the majority of that 
 committee had prepared to bring forward for the 
 organization of these Territories. I should have 
 been rejoiced if it had been in my power to give 
 my support to the measure. But the hasty ex- 
 amination which, while the subject was before the 
 committee, I was able to give to it, disclosed ob- 
 jections to the bill which I could not orercome; 
 and more deliberate inquiry has increased the 
 force of those objections. 
 
 I had, in the first place, some scruples — objec- 
 tions I will not call them, because I think I could 
 have overcome them — as to the expediency of 
 giving a territorial government of the highest order, 
 to this region at the present time. 
 
 In the debate on this subject in the House of 
 Representatives last year, inquiries were made as 
 to the number of inhabitants in the Territory, and 
 1 believe no one undertook to make out that there 
 were more than four hundred, or five hundred, or, 
 at the outside, six hundred white inhabitants in 
 the region in which you are now going to organize 
 two of these independent territorial governments, 
 with two Legislative Councils, each consisting of 
 thirteen members, and two Legislative Assemblies 
 of twenty-six members each, with all the details 
 and apparatus of territorial governments of the 
 highest rank. 
 
 •Tin- Idea in tlii« sebtenei was lllggosttd l>y n very sirik- 
 i ■ . <iiiuii;;l article in a laic nuiulnr of the St. Louis Daily 
 Intelligencer. 
 
 It seems to me that this is not called for by the 
 condition of the country, and is somewhat prema- 
 ture. It was the practice in the earlier stages of 
 our legislation to have a territorial government 
 of a simpler form. In the Territories which were 
 organized upon the pattern prescribed by the or- 
 dinance of 1787, there was a much simpler govern- 
 ment. A governor and judges were appointed by 
 the President of the United States, and authorized 
 to make such laws as might be necessary, sub- 
 ject of course to the allowance or disallowance 
 of Congress; and that organization served very 
 well for the nascent state of the Territories. 
 There was a limit prescribed to governments of 
 this kind. When the population amounted to five 
 thousand male inhabitants, I think it was, they 
 were allowed to have a representative government. 
 This may, perhaps, be too high a number, and may 
 not be in entire accordance with the character of 
 our people, and the genius of our institutions; but 
 still, sir, I do think, that a government of this 
 kind which we propose now to organize, with a 
 constituency so small as now exists, cannot be 
 that which the wants or the interests of the people 
 require, and is in many respects objectionable. It 
 brings the representative into dangerous relations 
 with the constituent; and bestows upon a mere 
 handful of men too much power in organizing the 
 government, and laying the foundations of theState. 
 
 It is true, we are told, that the moment the in- 
 tercourse act is repealed, there will be a great in- 
 flux of population. I have no doubt that will be 
 the case. There is also a throng of adventurers 
 constantly pouring through this country towards 
 the West, which requires an efficient Government. 
 But even making all due allowance for these cir- 
 cumstances, I do think that it is somewhat prema- 
 ture to give this floating, and — if I may so call it 
 — unstationary population, all the discretionary 
 powers to be vested in a territorial government 
 of the first class. 1 think it is giving too much 
 power, too much discretion, to a population that 
 will not probably amount at first to more than a 
 few hundred individuals. Still, however, I admit 
 that this is but a question of time. I do not think 
 it a point of vital importance. 
 
 When I consider the prodigious rapidity with 
 which our population is increasing by its native 
 growth — when I consider the tide of immigration 
 from Europe, a phenomenon the parallel of wnitb 
 does not exist in the history of the world, an immi- 
 gration of three or four hundred thousand, of which 
 the greater part are adults, pouring into this country 
 every year, adding to our numbers an amount of 
 population greater than that of some of the older 
 States, and those not of the smallest size, and this 
 
double tide flowing into the West, so that what is 
 a wilderness to-day is a settled neighborhood to- j 
 morrow — when 1 consider these things, 1 do admit 
 that a question of this nature is but a question of 
 time; and if there were no other difficulty attend- 
 ing the bill, I should not be disposed to object to it 
 on this score. 
 
 But, sir, the relation of the Indian tribes to the 
 question is, I confess, in my mind, a matter of 
 greater difficulty. Senators all know that the 
 eastern strip of this Territory — I believe for its 
 whole extent — certainly from the southern bound- 
 ary of Kansas, far up to the north — is occupied 
 by Indian tribes, and the fragments of Indian 
 tribes. They are not in their original location. 
 All the Indians who are there, I believe, have 
 already undergone one removal, and- some of them 
 two. In pursuance of the policy which was car- 
 ried into execution on so large a scale under the 
 administration of General Jackson, a large num- 
 ber of trib.es and fragments of tribes were col- 
 lected upon this eastern frontier of the proposed 
 Territories of Kansas and Nebraska, and have re- 
 mained there ever since, some of them having made 
 considerable progress in the arts of civilized life. 
 
 The removal of the Indians was one of the 
 prominent measures of General Jackson's ad- 
 ministration. It was my fortune, sir — it was 
 twenty- four years ago, I believe — my friend from 
 Tennessee [Mr. Bell] will recollect it — as a 
 member of the other House, to take an active 
 part in the discussion of this question. He will 
 remember, I am sure, the ardent, but not un- 
 friendly, conflicts between himself, as chairman 
 of the Committee on Indian Affairs, and myself 
 on that subject. I then maintained that it was 
 impossible, if you removed these Indians to the 
 West, to give them a " permanent home;" for 
 that was the cardinal idea, .the very corner-stone 
 of the policy of General Jackson — to remove the 
 Indians from their locations east of the Missis- 
 sippi river, where they were crowded by the white 
 population, and undergoing hardships of various 
 kinds, so far west as would allow them to find a 
 permanent home. I ventured to say then that, 
 in my opinion, they could find no more permanent 
 home west than east of the Mississippi. My friend 
 from Tennessee thought otherwise, and said so, 
 speaking, I am sure, in as good faith as I did in ex- 
 pressing the opposite opinion. But the policy was 
 carried through, and an act was passed authoriz- 
 ing an exchange of the lands occupied by the 
 Indians east of the Mississippi for other lands 
 we3t of that river. I will read a single short sec- 
 tion from that act: 
 
 " Sec. 3. And be it further enacted, That hi making of 
 
 such exchange or exchanges, it shall and may be lawful for 
 the President solemnly to assure, the tribe or nation with 
 which the exchange is made, that the United States will for- 
 ever secure and guaranty to them, and their heirs and suc- 
 cessors, the country so exchanged with them ; and if they 
 prefer it, the United States will cause a patent or grant to be 
 made and executed to them for the same: Prodded, always, 
 That such lands shall .revert to the United States, if the In- 
 dians become extinct, or abandon the same." 
 
 This was the legislative foundation of the policy; 
 and General Jackson deemed it of so much con- 
 sequence that, in his Farewell Address, he congrat- 
 ulated the country on the success with which it had 
 been carried out; and his successor, Mr. Van Bu- 
 ren, in one of his annual messages, spoke of it in 
 the same glowing terms. 
 
 Now, sir, these were the hopes, these were the 
 expectations on which the policy of removing the 
 Indians west of the Mississippi proceeded. I do 
 j not recall the recollection of the subject reproach- 
 fully; I have no reproach to cast upon any one. 
 j Events which no mortal could have foreseen have 
 ; taken place. The whole condition of our western 
 frontier has been changed. Our territorial acqui- 
 sitions on the Pacific, and the admission of a sister 
 State in that quarter to the Union, have created a 
 political necessity of an urgent character for im- 
 I proved means of communication, and I fear that 
 I it is not possible to preserve intact this Indian 
 j barrier. But I want information on that subject. 
 I should like to hear other Senators, who under- 
 ' stand the subject much better than I do, tell us 
 how that matter stands; and whether it is abso- 
 lutely necessary that this measure should go on, 
 in the manner described by the bill, which, it 
 seems to me, if not conducted with the utmost 
 care, will be attended with great inconvenience, if 
 not utter destruction, to those remnants of tribes. 
 
 If we must use that hateful plea of necessity, 
 which I am always unwilling to take upon my 
 lips; if we must use the tyrant's plea of necessity, 
 j! and invade " the permanent home" of these chil- 
 j dren of sorrow and oppression, I hope we shall 
 I treat them with more than justice, with more than 
 | equity, with the utmost kindness and tenderness. 
 j! Now, I am unable to say, not having ample in- 
 !i formation on the subject, how their condition will 
 i be affected by the clauses in the bill which were 
 I: struck out yesterday. I am unable to say how it 
 !, will be affected by leaving the bill without any 
 ;] provisions in reference to that subject. There are, 
 
 I of course, to be appropriations for negotiating with 
 !'; the Indians in other bills; the Senator from Illinois 
 j| intimated as much; but what the measures to be 
 [! proposed are, I should like to be better informed. I 
 jl have no suspicions on the subject; I have no mis- 
 
 II givings. 1 have no doubt that Senators and the 
 
6 
 
 Executive will be animated with the purest spirit 
 of humanity and tenderness toward these unfor- 
 tunate fellow-men; but I should like to know what 
 is to be done with them. I should like to know 
 how the bill in its present condition, or with such 
 supplementary measures as are to be brought in 
 hereafter, will leave these persons who depend 
 upon us, upon our kindness, upon our consider- 
 ation, for their very existence. I hope that, before 
 this debate closes, we shall hear something on this 
 point from members of the body who are compe- 
 tent to speak on the subject. Unless the difficulty 
 
 " Except the 8th section of the act preparatory to the ad- 
 mission of Missouri into the Union, approved March 6, 182H, 
 which was superseded by the principles of the legislation of 
 1850, commonly called the compromise measures, and is 
 hereby declared inoperative." 
 
 On the day before yesterday the chairman of the 
 Committee on Territories proposed to change the 
 words "superseded by" to "inconsistent with," 
 as expressing more distinctly all that he meant to 
 convey by that impression. Yesterday, however, 
 he brought in an amendment, drawn up with great 
 skill and care, on notice given the day before, 
 
 , which is to strike out the words "which was 
 which 1 feel on this point shall be removed, I i • • , «• tU i • i .• e 
 
 w ' , . , , superseded by the principles of the legislation of 
 
 shall be compe led, on this ground alone, to op- ' J ' 
 
 1 • ,,■,, ! 1850, commonly called the compromise measures, 
 
 pose any such territorial bill. 
 
 Trusting, however, that proper precautions will 
 be taken, and that measures will be adopted, if 
 possible, to give to the more advanced individuals of 
 these tribes, personal reservations of land, to save 
 them from being driven off to some still more remote 
 resort in the wilderness ; trusting that this, or 
 some other measure of wisdom and kindness will 
 be pursued, I think I could cheerfully support the 
 territorial bill, which passed the House of Repre- 
 sentatives at the last session, and was lost in this 
 body, I believe, for want of time, in the very 
 
 last hours, certainly on the very last day, of the II chairm J n . of ° he committee yesterday, that this is 
 late session of Congress. If I could have been 1 
 assured that proper safeguards were contained in 
 
 and is hereby declared inoperative," and to insert 
 in lieu of them .the following: 
 
 " Whieh, being inconsistent with the principle of non-in- 
 tervention by Congress with slavery in the States and Ter- 
 ritories, as recognized by the legislation of 1S.30, commonly 
 called the compromise measures, is hereby declared inop- 
 erative and void ; it being the true intent and meaning of 
 this act not to legislate slavery into any Territory or State, 
 nor to exclude it therefrom, but to leave the people thereof 
 perfectly free to form and regulate their domestic institu- 
 tions in their own way, subject only to the Constitution of 
 the United States." 
 
 Now, I agree with the remark made by the 
 
 that bill for the Indians, I should have been will- 
 ing to support it; and when it was revj^ed at this 
 session of Congress, by the Senator from Iowa, 
 [Mr. Dodge,] and referred to the Committee on 
 Territories, of which I have the honor to be a 
 member, I did certainly hope that, if it were 
 
 a change in the phraseology alone. It covers a 
 somewhat broader ground, but the latter part of it 
 is explanatory; and as to the main point in which 
 it is proposed to declare the Missouri restriction 
 of 1820 " inoperative and void," I do not find any 
 change between this amendment and the words 
 contained in the bill on our tables. Itseemstobe 
 the design of both to carry out the principle which 
 
 thought expedient to report any bill for organizing ^ lai( f down . the « lairman in his rep0 rt. I 
 
 this Territory, that one would have been adopted 
 
 by the committee. The majority thought other- 
 wise, however, and they have reported the bill 
 
 before the Senate. 
 
 I will not take up the time of the Senate by 
 
 going over the somewhat embarrassing and per- . 
 
 plexed history of the bill, from its first entry into 
 
 the Senate until the present time. I will take it as 
 
 it now stands, as it is printed on our tables, and 
 
 with the amendment which was offered by the , 
 
 Senator from Illinois [Mr. Douglas] yesterday, 
 and which, I suppose, is now printed, and on our 
 tables; and I will state, as briefly as I can, thediffi- II who were immediately interested in, and alone responsible 
 
 , . , . . „ .... for. its consequences." 
 
 culties which I have found in giving my support . ' 
 
 to this bill, either as it stands, or as it will stand \\ This I suppose is the principle and the policy 
 when the amendment shall be adopted. My chief to which it is intended, either as it stood at first or 
 objections are to the provisions on the subject of as it is now proposed to amend it, to give the force 
 slavery, and especially to the exception, which is j; of law in the bill now before us. 
 contained in the 14lh section, in the following Now, sir, I think, in the first place, that the 
 won ] s . || language of this proposed enactment, being ob- 
 
 will read from that report the following sentences, 
 for I conceive them to be those which give the key 
 to the whole measure: 
 
 "In the judgment of your committee, those measures 
 [the compromise measures of 1850] were intended to have 
 a far more comprehensive and enduring effect than the mere 
 adjustment of the difficulties arising out of the recent ac- 
 quisition of Mexican territory. They were designed to 
 establish certain great principles which would not only 
 furnish adequate remedies for existing evils, but in all lime 
 to come avoid the perils of a similar agitation, by withdraw- 
 ing the question of slavery from the halls of Congress and 
 the political arena, and commit it to the arbitrament of those 
 
scure, is of somewhat doubtful import, and for 
 that reason, unsatisfactory. I should have pre- 
 ferred a little more directness. What is the con- 
 dition of an enactment which is declared by a sub- 
 sequent act of Congress to be "inoperative and 
 void?" Does it remain in force? I take it, not. 
 That would be a contradiction in terms, to say that 
 an enactment which had been declared by act of 
 Congress inoperative and void, is still in force. 
 Then, if it is not in force, if it is not only inopera- 
 tive and void, as it is to be declared, but is not in 
 force, it is of course repealed. If it is to be re- 
 pealed, why not say so? I think it would have 
 been more direct and more parliamentary to say 
 "shall be and is hereby repealed." Then we 
 should know precisely, so far as legal and technical 
 terms go, what the amount of this new legislative 
 provision is. 
 
 If the form is somewhat objectionable, I think 
 the substance is still more so. The amendment 
 is to strike out the words "which was super- 
 seded by," and to insert a provision that the act 
 of 1820 is inconsistent with the principle of con- 
 gressional non-intervention, and is&therefore in- 
 operative and void. I do not quite understand 
 how much is conveyed in this language. The 
 Missouri restriction of 1820, it is said, is inconsist- 
 ent with the principle of the legislation of 1850. 
 If anything more is meant by " the principle" of 
 the legislation of 1850, than the measures which 
 were adopted at that time in reference to the Ter- 
 ritories of New Mexico and Utah — for I may 
 assume that those are the legislative measures re- 
 ferred to — if anything more is meant than that a 
 certain measure was adopted, and enacted in ref- 
 erence to those Territories, I take issue on that point. 
 I do not know that it could be proved that, even in 
 reference to those Territories, a principle was en- 
 acted at all. A certain measure, or, if you please, 
 a course of measures, was enacted in reference to 
 the Territories of New Mexico and Utah; but I 
 do not know that you can call this enacting a prin- 
 ciple. It is certainly not enacting a principle 
 which is to carry with it a rule for other Terri- 
 tories lying in other parts of the country, and in 
 a different legal position. As to the principle of 
 non-intervention on the part of Congress in the 
 question of slavery, I do not find that, either as 
 principle or as measure, it was enacted in those 
 territorial bills of 1850. I do not, unless I have 
 greatly misread them, find that there is anything 
 at all which comes up to that. Every legislative 
 act of those territorial governments must come be- 
 fore Congress for allowance or disallowance, and 
 under those bills, without repealing them, without 
 departing from them in the slightest degree, it 
 
 would be competent for Congress to-morrow to 
 pass any law on that subject. 
 
 How then can it be said that the principle of non- 
 intervention on the part of Congress in the sub- 
 ject of slavery was enacted and established by 
 the compromise measures of 1850? But, whether 
 that be so or not, how can you find, in a simple 
 measure applying in terms to these individual Ter- 
 ritories, and to them alone, a rule which is to 
 govern all other Territories with a retrospective 
 and with a prospective action ? Is it not a mere 
 begging of the question to say that those com- 
 promise measures, adopted in this specific case, 
 amount to such a general rule? 
 
 But, let us try it in a parallel case. In the earlier 
 land legislation of the United States, it was cus- 
 tomary, without exception, when a Territory be- 
 came a State, to require that there should be a 
 stipulation in their State constitution that the pub- 
 lic lands sold within their borders should be ex- 
 empted from taxation for five years after the sale. 
 This, I believe, continued to be the uniform prac- 
 tice down to the year 1820, when the State of 
 Missouri was admitted. She was admitted under 
 this stipulation. If I mistake not, the next State 
 which was admitted into the Union — but it is not 
 important whether it was the next or not — came 
 in without that stipulation, and they were left free 
 to tax the public lands the moment when they 
 were sold. Here was a principle; as much a prin- 
 ciple as it is contended was established in the Utah 
 and New Mexico territorial bill; but did any one 
 suppose that it acted upon the other Territories ? 
 I believe the whole system is now abolished under 
 the operation of general laws, and the influence of 
 that example may have led to the change. But, 
 until it was made by legislation, the mere fact that 
 public lands sold in Arkansas, were immediately 
 subject to taxation, could not alter the law in re- 
 gard to the public lands sold in Missouri, or in 
 any other State where they were exempt. 
 
 There is a case equally analogous to the very 
 matter we are now considering — the prohibition 
 or permission of slavery. The ordinance of 1787 
 prohibited slavery in the territory northwest of the 
 Ohio. In 1790 Congress passed an act accepting 
 the cession which the State of North Carolina 
 had made of the western part of her territory, with 
 the proviso, that in reference to the territory thus 
 ceded Congress should pass no laws " tending to 
 the emancipation of slaves." Here was a pre- 
 cisely parallel case. Here was territory in which, 
 in 1787, slavery was prohibited. Here was terri- 
 tory ceded by North Carolina, which became the 
 territory of the United States south of the Ohio, 
 1 in reference to which it was stipulated with North 
 
8 
 
 Carolina, that Congress should pass no laws tend- 
 ing to the emancipation of slaves. But I believe 
 it never occurred to any one that the legislation of 
 1790 acted back upon the ordinance of 1787, or 
 furnished a rule by which any effect could be pro- 
 duced upon the state of things existing under that 
 ordinance, in the territorry to which it applied. 
 
 I certainly intend to do the distinguished chair- 
 man of the committee no injustice; and I am not 
 sure that I fully comprehend his argument in this 
 respect; but I think his report sustains the view 
 which I now take of the subject: that is, that the 
 legislation of 1850 did not establish a principle 
 which was designed to have any such effect as he 
 intimates. That report states how matters stood 
 in those new Mexican territories. It was al- 
 leged on the one hand that by the Mexican lex 
 loci slavery was prohibited. On the other hand 
 that was denied, and it was maintained that the 
 Constitution of the United States secures to every 
 citizen the right to go there and take with him any 
 property recognized as such by any of the States 
 of the Union. The report considers that a simi- 
 lar state of things now exists in Nebraska — that 
 the validity of the eighth section of the Missouri 
 act, by which slavery is prohibited in that Terri- 
 tory, is doubtful, and that it is maintained by 
 many distinguished statesmen that Congress has 
 no power to legislate on the subject. Then, in 
 this state of the controversy, the report maintains 
 that the legislation of Congress in 1850 did not un- 
 dertake to decide these questions. Surely, if they 
 did not undertake to decide them, they could not 
 settle the principle which is at stake in them; and, 
 unless they did decide them, the measures then 
 adopted must be considered as specific measures, 
 relating only to those cases, and not establishing 
 a principle of general operation. This seems to 
 me to be as direct and conclusive as anything can 
 be. 
 
 At all events, these are not impressions which 
 are put forth by me under the exigencies of the 
 present debate or of the present occasion . I have 
 never entertained any other opinion. I was called 
 upon for a particular purpose, of a literary nature, 
 to which I will presently allude more distinctly, 
 shortly after the close of the session of 1850, to draw 
 up a narrative of the events that had taken place 
 relative to the passage of the compromise meas- 
 ures of that year. I had not, I own, the best 
 sources of information. I was not a member of 
 Congress, and had not heard the debates, which is 
 almost indispensable to come to a thorough under- 
 standing of questions of this nature; but I inquired 
 of those who had heard them, I read the reports, 
 and I had an opportunity of personal intercourse 
 
 with some who had taken a prominent part in all 
 of those measures. I never formed the idea — I 
 never received the intimation until I got it from 
 this report of the committee — that those measures 
 were intended to have any effect beyond the Ter- 
 ritories of Utah and New Mexico, for which they 
 were enacted. I cannot but think that if it was 
 intended that they should have any larger applica- 
 tion, if it was intended that they should furnish 
 the rule which is now supposed, it would have 
 been a fact as notorious as the light of day. 
 
 Look at the words of the acts themselves. 
 They are specific. They give you boundaries. 
 The lines are run. The Territories are geographic- 
 ally marked out. They fill a particular place on the 
 map of the continent; and it is provided that with- 
 in those specific geographical limits a certain state 
 of things, with reference to slavery, shall exist. 
 That is all. There is not a word which states on 
 what principle that is done. There is not a word 
 to tell you that that state of things carries with it 
 a rule which is to operate elsewhere — retrospect- 
 ively upon territory acquired in 1803, and pros- 
 pectively on territory that shall be acquired to the 
 end of time. There is not a word to carry the 
 operation of those measures over the geographical 
 boundary which is laid down in the bills them- 
 selves. 
 
 It would be singular if, under any circumstances, 
 the measures adopted should have this extended 
 effect, without any words to indicate it. It would 
 be singular, if there was nothing that stood in the 
 way; but when you consider that there is a posi- 
 tive enactment in the way — the eighth section of 
 the Missouri law, which you now propose to re- 
 peal because it does stand in the way — how can 
 you think that these enactments of 1850 in refer- 
 ence to Utah and New Mexico were intended to 
 overleap these boundaries in the face of positive 
 law to the contrary, and to fall upon and decide 
 the organization of Territories in a region pur- 
 chased from France nearly fifty years before, and 
 subject to a distinct specific legislative provision, 
 ascertaining its character in reference to slavery? 
 Sir, it is to me a most singular thing that words of 
 extension in 1854 should be thought necessary in 
 this bill to give the effect supposed to have been 
 intended to the provisions of the acts of 1850, and 
 that it should not be thought necessary in 1850 to 
 put these words of extension into the original bills 
 themselves. 
 
 Now, sir, let us look at the debates which took 
 place at that time, because, of course, one may 
 always gather much more from the debates on one 
 side and the other on any great question, as to the 
 intention and meaning of a law, than can begath- 
 
9 
 
 ered from the words of the statute itself. I have 
 not had time to read these debates fully. That is 
 what I complained of in the beginning. I have 
 not had time to read, as thoroughly as I could 
 wish, those voluminous reports — for they fill the 
 greater part of two or three thick quarto volumes; 
 but in what I have read, I do not find a single 
 word from which it appears that any member of 
 the Senate or House of Representatives, at that 
 time, believed that the territorial enactments of 
 1850, either as principle, or rule, or precedent, or 
 by analogy, or in any other way, were to act re- 
 trospectively or prospectively upon any other Ter- 
 ritory. On the contrary, I find much, very much, 
 of a broad, distinct, directly opposite bearing. I 
 forbear to repeat quotations from the debates 
 which have been made by Senators who have pre- 
 ceded me. 
 
 The proviso itself, which forms so prominent a 
 characteristic and so important a part of this bill, 
 the proviso that when the Territory, or any part of 
 it, shall be admitted into the Union as a State or 
 States, it shall be with or without slavery, as their 
 constitution at the time of admission may pre- 
 scribe, was no part of the original compromise, as 
 I understand it. The compromise consisted in 
 not inserting the Wilmot proviso in the Utah and 
 New Mexico bills. That was moved and rejected, 
 and the Territory was to come in without any such 
 restriction. That was the compromise in reference 
 to those Territories; and after the Wilmot proviso 
 had been voted down , a distinguished Senator from 
 Louisiana, [Mr. Soule,] not now a member of this 
 body, but abroad in the foreign service of the 
 country, moved the proviso which I have just re- 
 cited; and he did it, as he said, "to feel the pulse 
 of the Senate." Mr. Webster, in voting for that 
 motion of Mr. Soule, as he had just voted against 
 the Wilmot proviso, used these remarkable words: 
 
 " Be it remembered, sir, that I now speak of Utah and 
 New Mexico, and of them alone." 
 
 It was with that caveat that Mr. Webster voted 
 for the proviso which forms the characteristic 
 portion of this bill, and which is supposed to carry 
 with it a law applying to this whole Territory of 
 Nebraska, although covered by the Missouri re- 
 striction of 1820. Mr. Webster had on a former 
 occasion, in the great speech of the 7th of March, 
 1850, to which I shall in a moment advert again, 
 used the following remarkable language: 
 
 " And I now say, sir, as the proposition upon which I 
 stand this day, and upon the truth and firmness of which 
 I intend to act until it is overthrown, that there is not at 
 this moment within the United States a single foot of land 
 Die character of which, in regard to its being free-soil ter- 
 ritory or slave territory, is not fixed by some law, and some 
 irrepealable law, beyond the power of the action of the 
 Government." 
 
 He meant, of course, to give to the Missouri 
 restriction the character of a compact which the 
 Government in good faith could not repeal; and 
 there was in the course of the speech a great deal 
 more said to the same purpose. 
 
 And now, sir, having alluded to the speech of 
 Mr. Webster, of the 7th March, 1850, allow me 
 to dwell upon it for a moment. I was in a po- 
 sition next year — having been requested by that 
 great and lamented man to superintend the publi- 
 cation of his works — to know very particularly 
 the comparative estimate which he placed upon 
 his own parliamentary efforts. He told me more 
 than once that he thought his second speech on 
 Foot's resolution was that in which he had best 
 succeeded as a senatorial effort, and as a specimen 
 of parliamentary dialectics; but he added, with an 
 emotion which even he was unable to suppress, 
 " The speech of the 7th of March, 1850, much as 
 I have been reviled for it, when I am dead, will be 
 allowed to be of the greatest importance to the 
 country." Sir, he took the greatest interest in 
 that speech. He wished it to go forth with a spe- 
 cific title; and after considerable deliberation, it 
 was called, by his own direction, " A Speech for 
 the Constitution and the Union." He inscribed 
 it to the People of Massachusetts, in a dedication 
 of the most emphatic tenderness, and he prefixed 
 to it that motto — which you all remember — from 
 Livy, the most appropriate and felicitous quota- 
 tion, perhaps, that was ever made: " True things 
 rather than pleasant things" — Vera pro gratis: and 
 with that he sent it forth to the world. 
 
 In that speech his gigantic intellect brought 
 together all that it could gather from the law of 
 nature, from the Constitution of the United States, 
 from our past legislation , and from the physical fea- 
 tures of the region, to strengthen him in that plan 
 of conciliation and peace, in which he feared that 
 he might not carry along with him the public sen- 
 timent of the whole of that portion of the country 
 which he particularly represented here. At its close, 
 when he dilated upon the disastrous effects of sepa- 
 ration, he rose to a strain of impassioned eloquence 
 which has never been surpassed within these walls. 
 Every topic, every argument, every fact, was 
 brought to bear upon the point; and he felt that all 
 his vast popularity was at stake on the issue. Let 
 me commend to the attention of Senators, and let 
 me ask them to consider what weight is due to 
 the autarky of such a man, speaking under such 
 circumstances, and on such an occasion, when 
 he tells you that the condition of every foot of 
 land in the country, for slavery or non -slavery, is 
 fixed by some irrepealable law. And you are now 
 about to repeal the principal law which ascertained 
 
10 
 
 and fixed that condition. And, sir, if the Senate 
 will take any heed of the opinion of one so humble 
 as myself, I will say that I believe Mr. Webster, 
 in that speech, went to the very verge of the pub- 
 lic sentiment in the non-slaveholding States, and 
 that to have gone a hair's breadth further, would 
 have been a step too bold even for his great weight 
 of character. 
 
 I pass over a number of points to which I wished 
 to make some allusion, and proceed to another 
 matter. The chairman of the Committee on Ter- 
 ritories did not, in my judgment, return an entirely 
 satisfactory answer to the argument drawn from 
 the fact that the Missouri restriction, or the com- 
 promise of 1820, is actually and in terms recog- 
 nized and confirmed by the territorial legislation of 
 1350, in the act organizing the Territory of New 
 Mexico. The argument is this: that act contains 
 a proviso that nothing therein contained shall be 
 construed to impair or qualify the third article of 
 the second section of the resolutions for annexing 
 Texas. When you turn to that third article of 
 the second section of the resolution, you find that 
 it recognizes by name the Missouri compromise. 
 Now I understood the chairman of the Com- 
 mittee on Territories to say, that all that part of 
 Texas to which that restriction applied, north of 
 36° 30', was cut off and annexed to New Mexico. 
 Mr. DOUGLAS. Not all annexed, but a large 
 portion annexed, and all cut off. 
 
 Mr. EVERETT. But it does not seem to me 
 that this is an adequate answer. In the first place, 
 the Senator tells us that all north of 36° 30' was 
 cut off from Texas. But there was a consider- 
 able portion of territory, as large as four States of 
 the size of Connecticut, which was not incorpo- 
 rated into New Mexico, and to which the proviso 
 still attaches. But whether that be so or not, 
 would it not be a strange phenomenon in legisla- 
 tion that a subsequent act should be construed to 
 supersede, to nullify, to render inoperative and 
 void, by any operation, or in any way or form, a 
 former act, which it expressly states nothing there- 
 in contained shall qualify or impair? It does 
 Beem to me that this is so formal a recognition, 
 that it is unnecessary to inquire whether there is or 
 is not any portion of territory to which, in point 
 of fact, it attaches, especially when the question 
 now is, not*vhether it operates in Texas, but 
 whether it operates in Nebraska in its original 
 location. 
 
 The Senator stated that, in point of fact, to some 
 extent the Missouri compromise was actually re- 
 pealed by the territorial legislation of 1850; and the 
 facts by which he supported that statement were 
 these: that a portion of territory was taken from 
 
 Texas, where it was subject to the Missouri restric- 
 tion, and incorporated into New Mexico, where it 
 came under the compromise of 1850; and, in like 
 manner, that a portion of the territory now em- 
 braced in Utah was taken from the old Louisiana 
 purchase, where it was subject to the Missouri re- 
 striction, and was incorporated into the Territory 
 of Utah, where, in like manner, it came under the 
 compromise of 1850. But I think the answers to 
 be given to these statements are perfectly satisfac- 
 tory. 
 
 In the first place, it was a very small portion of 
 territory, very small, indeed, compared with the 
 vast residuum; and can we suppose that the few 
 hundred, or it may be the few thousand, square 
 miles taken off in this way from Texas and the old 
 Louisiana purchase, and thrown into New Mexico 
 and Utah, can, by way of principle or rule, or in 
 any other way, qualify, or modify, or repeal a 
 positive enactment covering the remaining space, 
 which is as large as all the British Islands, France, 
 Prussia, the Austrian Empire, and the smaller Ger- 
 manic States put together? 
 
 In the next place, in reference to New Mexico, 
 if I understand it, the territory which was thus 
 transferred never was subject to the restriction of 
 1820 — to the real Missouri compromise, now pro- 
 posed to be declared " inoperative and void." It 
 was subject to the Texas annexation resolutions, 
 which extended the Missouri line, but it was no 
 part of Louisiana, never had been, and was not 
 subject to the restriction which it is now proposed 
 to repeal. 
 
 Then, in the next place, it was a mere ques- 
 tion of disputed boundary. I do not wish to do 
 the statement of my worthy friend, the chairman 
 of the Committee on Territories, any injustice, but 
 I think he was incorrect if he said, that " the 
 United States purchased this strip of land from 
 Texas." These are not the terms of the act. They 
 are very carefully stated more than once. The 
 United States gave a large sum of money to Texas, 
 not to sell this strip of land, but to " cede her 
 claim" to it. That was all. Texas claimed it. 
 The United States did not allow or disallow the 
 claim, but they gave Texas a large consideration 
 to cede her claim. It was, therefore, a matter of 
 disputed boundary; and it is not decided whether 
 the ceded territory originally belonged to Texas 
 or New Mexico. 
 
 In reference to Utah, it is true, there is a small 
 spot, a very small spot in the Sierra Madre, that 
 was taken from the old Louisiana purchase and 
 thrown into Utah; but I venture to say that pro- 
 bably not a member of the Senate, except the 
 worthy chairman of the Committee on Territories, 
 
11 
 
 was aware of that fact. I do not mean that he 
 made any secret of it, but it was not made a point 
 at all. The Senate were not apprised that if they 
 took this little piece of land, which Colonel Fre- 
 mont calls the Middle Park, out of the old Louis- 
 iana purchase, and put it into Utah, they would 
 repeal the Missouri compromise of 1820, which 
 covers half a million of square miles. I say, sir, 
 most assuredly the Senate were told no such 
 thing; nor do I think it was within the knowledge 
 or the imagination of an individual member of the 
 body. 
 
 I may seem to labor this point too much; but as 
 it is the main point to which I solicit the attention 
 of the Senate, I will state one more consideration. 
 It has been alluded to already, but I propose to 
 put it in a little different light, which seems to me 
 to be absolutely decisive of the whole subject. 
 The proposition to organize Nebraska Territory 
 is not a new one. The chairman of the Commit- 
 tee on Territories has had it in view for several 
 years — as far back, I believe, as 1844 or 1845. It 
 is so stated in Mr. Hickey's valuable edition of 
 the Constitution. Whether it was actually before 
 the Senate in 1850 1 know not; but it was certainly 
 in the mind of the Senator from Illinois. Now, sir, 
 during the pendency of these compromise meas- 
 ures, while the Utah and the New Mexico bills 
 were in progress through the two Houses of 
 Congress, if they carried with them a principle 
 or rule which was to extend itself over all other 
 Territories, how can we explain the fact, that 
 ther"e is not the slightest allusion in those bills to 
 the Territory of Nebraska, which the vigilant 
 Senator must have had so strongly on his mind ? 
 Is it not a political impossibility, that if it was 
 conceived at that time, that measures were going 
 through the two Houses which were to give a 
 perpetual law to territorial organization, the Ne- 
 braska bill would not then have been brought for- 
 ward, and in some way or other made to enjoy 
 the benefit of it, if benefit it be ? But not a word 
 to this effect was intimated that I know of. It was 
 entirely ignored, so far as I am aware; or, at any 
 rate, no attempt was made at that time to pass a 
 Nebraska bill, containing the provisions of the 
 Utah and New Mexico bills. 
 
 The compromise measures were the work of 
 the Thirty-First Congress, and at the Thirty- 
 Second Congress a Nebraska bill was brought in 
 by a member from the State of Missouri, in the 
 other House. It passed that body by a majority 
 of more than two to one. It was contested on 
 tV ground of injustice to the Indians; but, as far 
 as » Know — I speak again under correction — I have 
 not had time to read all these voluminous de- 
 
 bates — nothing, or next to nothing was said on the 
 subject of slavery. At any rate there was no at- 
 tempt made to incorporate the provisions of the 
 present bill on the subject of slavery. It came 
 up here, and was adopted by, and reported from, 
 the Committee on Territories, and brought up 
 in the Senate towards the close of the last ses- 
 sion, and on that occasion contested on the same 
 ground; and no attempt was made, or a word 
 said, in reference to these provisions on the subject 
 of slavery. If at that time the understanding was, 
 that you were enacting a principle or a precedent, 
 or anything that would carry with it a rule govern- 
 ing this case, is it possible that no allusion should 
 have been made to it on that occasion ? 
 
 I conclude, therefore, sir, that the compromise 
 measures of 1850 ended where they began, with 
 the Territories of Utah and New Mexico, to which 
 they specifically referred; at any rate, that they 
 established no principle which was to govern in 
 other cases; that they had no prospective action 
 to the organization of Territories in all future time; 
 and certainly no retrospective action upon lands 
 subject to the restriction of 1820, and to the posi- 
 tive enactment that you now propose to declare 
 inoperative and void. 
 
 I trust that nothing which I have now said will 
 be taken in derogation of the compromises of 1850. 
 I adhere to them; I stand by them. I do so for 
 many reasons. One is respect for the memory of 
 the great men who were the authors of them — 
 lights and ornaments of the country , but now taken 
 from its service. I would not so soon, if it were 
 in my power, undo their work, if for no other 
 reason. But beside this, I am one of those — I am 
 not ashamed to avow it — who believed at that time, 
 and who still believe, that at that period the union 
 of these States was in great danger, and that the 
 adoption of the compromise measures of 1850 
 contributed materially to avert that danger; and 
 therefore, sir, I say, as well out of respect to the 
 memory of the great men who were the authors 
 of them, as to the healing effect of the measures 
 themselves, I would adhere to them. They are 
 not perfect. I suppose that nobody, either North 
 or South, thinks them perfect. They contain some 
 provisions not satisfactory to the South, and other 
 provisions contrary to the public sentiment of the 
 North; but I believed at the time they were the 
 wisest, the best, the most effective measures 
 which, under the circumstances, could be adopted. 
 But you do not strengthen them, you do not show 
 your respect for them, by giving them an applica- 
 tion which they were never intended to bear. 
 
 Before I take my seat, sir, I will say a few 
 words in a desultory manner upon one or two 
 
12 
 
 other statements which were made by the chairman 
 of the Committee on Territories. He said, if I 
 understood him, that the North set the first exam- 
 ple of making a breach in the Missouri compro- 
 mise; and I find out of doors that considerable 
 importance is attached to this idea, that the nullifi- 
 cation or repeal of the Missouri compromise at this 
 time is but a just retort upon the North for having, 
 on some former occasion, set the exam pie of viola- 
 ting it. I do not think that this is correctly stated. 
 The reference is to the legislation of 1843, when the 
 non-slaveholding States refused to extend the line 
 of 36° 30' to the Pacific Ocean, which was done, 
 the Senator said, under the influence of "north- 
 ern votes with free-soil proclivities," or some ex- 
 pression of that kind. I do not think the Senator 
 shows his usual justice, perhaps, I may say, not 
 his usual candor, on this occasion. That took 
 place two years before the compromise of 1850, 
 and that compromise has been commonly con- 
 sidered, if nothing else, at least as a settlement 
 of old scores; and anything that dates from 
 1848 must be considered, in reference to those 
 who took part in it, as honorably and fairly set- 
 tled and condoned in 1S50. But, sir, how was the 
 case ? This was not a measure carried by northern 
 votes with free-soil proclivities. Far from it. If 
 I have read the record aright, the amendment 
 which the Senator moved in the Senate, to incor- 
 porate the Missouri line into the territorial bill for 
 Oregon, was opposed by twenty-one votes in this 
 body. Among those twenty-one voters was every 
 voter from New England. There was the Sen- 
 ator from Massachusetts, Mr. Webster. There 
 was the lately deceased Senator from New Hamp- 
 shire, Mr. Atherton. Both of the votes from 
 Ohio: Mr. Allen one of them; and both from 
 Wisconsin, were given against this extension of 
 the Missouri compromise. Mr. Calhoun voted 
 in favor of the amendment; but if I am not in 
 error, when the question next came up upon the 
 engrossment of the bill, as amended, he voted with 
 those twenty-one; he voted side by side with those 
 who were included in the designation of the Sen- 
 ator from Illinois. In the House, the vote stood, if 
 I remember the figures, 121 to 82 — a majority 
 of 39. This was, I suppose, the whole vote, or 
 nearly the whole vote of the entire non-slavehold- 
 ing delegation. That surely, then, ought not to 
 be said to be brought about by northern voters 
 with free-soil proclivities, using those words in 
 the acceptation commonly given to them, which I 
 suppose the Senator wishes to do. 
 
 No, sir, that vote was given in conformity with 
 the ancient, the universal, the traditionary opin- 
 ion and feeling of the non-slaveholding States, 
 
 which forbid a citizen of thoseStates to do anything 
 voluntarily, or except under a case of the sternest 
 compulsion, such as preserving; the union of these 
 States — and really I would do almost anything to 
 effect that object — to acquiesce in carrying slavery 
 into a Territory where it did not previously exist. 
 It was that feeling which, in the revolutionary 
 crisis, was universal throughout the land; for the 
 anti-slavery feeling of that time I take to have 
 been mainly a political sentiment, rather than a 
 moral or religious one. It was the same feeling 
 which, in 1787, led the whole Congress of the 
 Confederation to unite in the Ordinance of 1787. 
 Mr. Jefferson, in 1784, had proposed the same 
 proviso, in reference to all the territory possessed 
 by the United States, even as far down as 31°, 
 which was their southern boundary. It was the 
 same feeling, I take it, which led respectable 
 southern members of Congress, as late as 1820, 
 to vote for the restriction of slavery in the State of 
 Missouri — of which class, I believe, there were 
 some. And, sir, it is a feeling, I believe in my 
 conscience, which, instead of being created, or 
 stimulated, or favored, by systematic agitation of 
 the subject, is powerfully repressed and discour- 
 aged by that very agitation; and if this bill passes 
 the Senate, as to all appearance it will, and thus 
 demonstrate that that feeling is not so strong now 
 as it was in 1820, I should ascribe such a result 
 mainly to the recoil of the conservative mind of the 
 non-slaveholding States from this harassing and 
 disastrous agitation. 
 
 A single word, sir, in respect to this supposed 
 principle of non-intervention on the part of Con- 
 gress in the subject of slavery in the Territories. 
 I confess I am surprised to find this brought for- 
 ward, and stated with so much confidence, as an 
 established principle of the Government. I know 
 that distinguished gentlemen hold the opinion. The 
 very distinguished Senator from Michigan [Mr. 
 Cass] holds it, and has propounded it; and I pay 
 all due respect and deference to his authority, 
 which I conceive to be very high. But I was not 
 aware that any such principle was considered a 
 settled principle of the territorial policy of this 
 country. Why, sir, from the first enactment in 
 1789, down to the bill before us, there is no such 
 principle in our legislation. As far as I can see it 
 j would be perfectly competent even now for Con- 
 | j gress to pass any law that they pleased on the sub- 
 :,ject in the Territories under this bill. But how- 
 \\ ever that may be, even by this bill, there is not a 
 law which the Territories can pass, admitting or 
 j excluding slavery, which it is not in the power of 
 this Congress to disallow the next day. This is 
 
13 
 
 not a mere brutumfidmen. It is not an unexecuted 
 power. Your statute-book shows case after case. 
 I believe, in reference to a single Territory, that 
 there have been fifteen or twenty cases where ter- 
 ritorial legislation has been disallowed by Con- 
 gress. How, then , can it be said that this principle 
 of non-intervention in the government of the Ter- 
 ritories is now to be recognized as an established 
 principle in the public policy of the Congress of 
 the United States ? 
 
 Do gentlemen recollect the terms, almost of dis- 
 dain, with which this supposed established princi- 
 ple of our constitutional policy is treated in that 
 last valedictory speech of Mr. Calhoun, which, 
 unable to pronounce it himself, he was obliged to 
 give to the Senate through the medium of his friend, 
 the Senator from Virginia. He reminded the 
 Senate that the occupants of a Territory were not 
 even called the people — but simply the inhabitants — 
 till they were allowed by Congress to call a con- 
 vention and form a State constitution. 
 
 Mr. President, I do regret that it is proposed 
 to repeal the eighth section of the Missouri act. I 
 believe it is admitted that there is no great mate- 
 rial interest at stake. I think the chairman of the 
 committee, [Mr. Douglas,] the Senator from 
 Kentucky, [Mr. Dixon,] and perhaps the Senator 
 from Tennessee [Mr. Jones] behind me, admitted 
 that there was no great interest at stake. It is 
 not supposed that this is to become a slaveholding 
 region. The climate, the soil, the staple produc- 
 tions are not such as to invite the planter of the 
 neighboring States, who is disposed to remove, to 
 turn away from the cotton regions of the South, 
 and establish himself in Kansas, or Nebraska. 
 A few domestic servants may be taken there, a few 
 farm laborers, as it were, sporadically; but in the 
 long run I am quite sure that it is generally ad- 
 mitted that this is not to be a slaveholding region; 
 and if not this, certainly no part of the Territory 
 still further north. 
 
 Then, sir, why repeal this proviso, this restric- 
 tion, which has stood upon the statute-book thirty- 
 four years, which has been a platform of concilia- 
 tion and of peace, and which it is admitted does 
 no practical harm? You say it is derogatory to 
 you; that it implies inferiority on the part of the 
 South. I do not see that. A State must be either 
 slaveholding or non-slaveholding. You cannot 
 have it both at the same time; and a line of this 
 kind, taking our acquisitions together, considering 
 how many new slave States have sprung up south 
 of the line, and how few non-slaveholding States 
 north of it, makes a pretty equitable division be- 
 tween the slaveholding and the non-slaveholding 
 
 States. I cannot see that there is anything derog- 
 atory in it — anything that implies inferiority on 
 the part of the South. Let me read you a very 
 short letter, which I find in a newspaper that came 
 into my hands this morning, just before I started 
 to come to the Capitol. It is a very remarkable 
 one. It was written by the Hon. Charles Pinck- 
 ney, then a distinguished member of the House 
 of Representatives from South Carolina, and ad- 
 dressed to the editor of a newspaper in the city of 
 
 Charleston: 
 
 Congress Hall, MarchS, 1820, ) 
 3 o'clock at rrght. ] 
 
 Dear Sir : I hasten to inform you that this moment we 
 have carried the question to admit Missouri and all Louisi- 
 ana to the southward of 3t>° 30' free of the restriction of 
 slavery, and give the South, in a short time, an addition of 
 six, and perhaps eight, members to the Senate of the United 
 States. It is considered here by the slaveholding States 
 as a great triumph. The votes were close — ninety to eighty- 
 six, [the vote was so first declared] — produced by the seced- 
 ing and absence of a few moderate men from the North. 
 To the north of 36° 30' there is to be, by the present law, 
 restriction, which you will see by the votes I voted against. 
 But it is at present of no moment; it is a vast tract, unin- 
 habited only by savages and wild beasts, in which nota foot 
 of the Indian claim to soil is extinguished, and in which, 
 according to the ideas prevalent, no land office will be open 
 for a great length of time. 
 
 With respect, your obedient servant, 
 
 CHARLES P1NCKNEY. 
 
 So that it was thought at the time to be an ar- 
 rangement highly advantageous to the southern 
 States. No land office was to be opened in the 
 region for a long time; but that time has come. If 
 you pass this bill, land offices will soon be opened; 
 and now you propose to repeal the Missouri com- 
 promise ! 
 
 A word more, sir, and I have done. With 
 reference to the great question of slavery — that 
 terrible question — the only one on which the North 
 and the South of this great Republic differ irrecon- 
 cilably — I have not, on this occasion, a word to 
 say. My humble career is drawing near its close; 
 and 1 shall end it as I began, with using no other 
 words on that subject than those of moderation, 
 conciliation, and harmony between the two great 
 sections of the country. I blame no one who 
 differs from me in this respect. I allow to others, 
 what I claim for myself, the credit of honesty and 
 purity of motive. But for my own part, the rule 
 of my life, as far as circumstances have enabled me 
 to act up to it, has been, to say nothing that would 
 tend to kindle unkind feeling on this subject. I 
 have never known men on this, or any other sub- 
 ject, to be convinced by harsh epithets or denun- 
 ciation. 
 
 I believe the union of these States is the greatest 
 possible blessing — that it comprises within itself 
 all other blessings, political, national, and social; 
 and I trust that my eyes may close long before the 
 
14 
 
 day shall come — if it ever shall come — when that 
 Union shall be at an end. Sir, I share the opin- 
 ions and the sentiments of the part of the country 
 where I was born and educated, where my ashes 
 will be laid, and where my children will succeed 
 me. But in relation to my fellow-citizens in other 
 parts of the country, I will treat their constitu- 
 tional and their legal rights with respect, and their 
 characters and their feelings with tenderness. I 
 believe them to be as good Christians, as good pa- 
 triots, as good men, as we are; and I claim that 
 we, in our turn, are as good as they. 
 
 I rejoiced to hear my friend from Kentucky, 
 [Mr. Dixon,] if he will allow me to call him so — 
 I concur most heartily in the sentiment — utter the 
 opinion that a wise and gracious Providence, in 
 his own good time, will find the ways and the 
 channels to remove from the land what I consider 
 
 this great evil; but 1 do not expect that what has 
 been done in three centuries and a half is to be 
 undone in a day or a year, or a few years; and I 
 believe that, in the mean time, the desired end will 
 be retarded rather than promoted by passionate 
 sectional agitation. I believe, further, that the fate 
 of that great and interesting continent in the elder 
 world, Africa, is closely intertwined and wrapped 
 up with the fortunes of her children in all the 
 parts of the earth to which they have been dis- 
 persed, and that at some future time, which is 
 already in fact beginning, they will go back to the 
 land of their fathers the voluntary missionaries of 
 Civilization and Christianity; and finally, sir, I 
 doubt not that in His own good time the Ruler of 
 all will vindicate the most glorious of His preroga- 
 tives, 
 
 "From seeming evil still educing good." 
 
 1 
 
 
 W4<3 
 
- 
 A °* *- €st 
 
 <? ^ 
 
 ^*V \^-'V h V'*^v° \ X ^V 
 
 
y V 
 
 •v. ^ ^ \jS»- ^ <£ ^ 
 
 <5 *o . * * /\ 
 
 V\£RT 
 BOOKBINOfNC 
 
 CranMlle Pa 
 Jan Feb !98?