C> 'o , » « 
 
 '•^<^ 
 
 '•> 
 
 
 
 
 
 ■>' 
 
 
 ^0' 
 
 ,^^ '"^^ 
 
 
-*! 9^ -^ 
 
 ^°- 
 
 v/ -^^ %>/ :mMx \<^' fA\ \/ - 
 
 
 ^ V \W^: ^^^\ "-Ills'*' ^^'"V, o^ 
 
 
 •-• y ^^^V'^^*/ V^^-^/ %'^.To'^o- 
 
 ^''^^^'\ ^-^"vVivo^ .A''>!^^*>^. ./ •" 
 
 
 .o> V^^,/ 'V'^^-/ *<>/^-\** . 
 
 
SPEECH 
 
 HON. JOHN A. DIX, OF NEW YORK, 
 
 ON THE BILL TO ESTABLISH 
 
 GOVERNMENTS IN THE TERRITORIES. 
 
 DELIVERED 
 
 
 IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES, JULY 26, 1848. 
 
 WASHINGTON: 
 
 PRINTED AT THE CONGRESSIONAL GLOBE OFFICE. 
 
 1848. 
 

 I. 
 
OREGON, NEW MEXICO, AND CALIFORNIA. 
 
 The bill to establish Territorial Governments in 
 Oregon, New Mexico, and California, being un- 
 der consideration — 
 Mr. DIXsaid: 
 
 Mr. President: It is with great reluctance that 
 I throw myself on the indulgence of the Senate a 
 second time in this discussion. But since I spoke, 
 positions have been taken in the debate, and asser- 
 tions made, which I cannot pass by without com- 
 ment; and especially am I unwilling to be silent 
 when the whole subject is presented to us under a 
 new phase by the report of the committee of eight, 
 and brings up a train of considerations, having an 
 important bearing upon the question. 
 
 Before I proceed to notice, as I shall very briefly, 
 the provisions of the bill reported by the committee, 
 I desire to say something on other topics which 
 have been introduced into the discussion. 
 
 The northern States have been repeatedly charged 
 in this debate, and on many previous occasions, 
 with aggression, and violations of the constitu- 
 tional compact, in their action oh the subject of 
 slavery. With regard to the surrender of fugitive 
 slaves — the case most frequently cited — it is pos- 
 sible that there may have been some action, or inac- 
 tion, in particular States, not in strict accordance 
 with the good faith they ought to observe in this re- 
 spect. I know not how it is; but we know there is 
 an effective power to legislate on this subject in 
 Congress; and I am sure there will be no want of 
 cooperation on our part, in carrying out the re- 
 quirements of the Constitution, by providing all 
 reasonable means for executing them. 
 
 The Senator from South Carolina, [Mr. But- 
 ler,] in the remarks he addressed to the Senate 
 yesterday, made repeated allusions to me in con- 
 nection with the suggestion of a superior civiliza- 
 tion in the non-slaveholding States. I have made 
 no such suggestion. I have drawn no parallel. I 
 have made no distinction, in this respect, between 
 the North and the South. And in the case to 
 which he particularly referred, and in which I 
 spoke of "spires pointing to the skies," in lan- 
 guage perhaps somewhat more flowery than I am 
 accustomed to use, I expressly said that I made 
 no distinction between the two great sections of 
 the Union. 
 
 But this is a matter on which I shall not dwell. 
 I am but an individual; and a misapprehension 
 which concerns only myself, is comparatively of 
 
 little importance. But when the Senator, turning 
 from me, assails the State I have the honor to 
 represent; when the misconception does injustice 
 to those who have given me their confidence, he 
 wounds me in a more tender point, and I cannot 
 pass his remarks by without a more extended 
 notice. 
 
 Mr. President, I endeavored to get the floor yes- 
 terday when the Senator took his seat, and I made 
 repeated attempts afterwards, in all of which I was 
 unsuccessful. I wished to notice, at the moment 
 and on the spot, the imputations which he had cast 
 on the State of New York, in language I regretted 
 to hear from any Senator on this floor. He said 
 a requisition had been made, some years ago, on 
 the Governor of the State by the Executive of Vir- 
 ginia, for the surrender of persons convicted of 
 stealing a slave within the jurisdiction of the latter 
 State; that the Governor had refused to surrender 
 them, and that this refusal had been sustained 
 by both branches of the Legislature; and on this 
 statement, he charged New York v/ith a want of 
 "common honesty." Sir, these are harsh epi- 
 thets — epithets which should not have been applied 
 to us without a full knowledge of the facts. The 
 Senator labors under a great misapprehension. 
 The responsibility, which he charged on the State, 
 rests upon the Governor alone. The facts are 
 these: 
 
 In 1841 a requisition was made by the Executive 
 of Virginia on the Governor of New York, for 
 three persons, charged with stealing a slave in the 
 former State. The Governor refused to surren- 
 der them, for the reason assigned in the following 
 resolution, which was adopted by both branches of 
 the Legislature of New York early in 1842: 
 
 " Whereas the Governor of the State has refused to de- 
 liver up, on the demand of the Executive autiiority of Vir- 
 ginia, Peter Johnson, Edward Smith, and Isaac Gansey, 
 alleged fugitives from justice, charged with the crime of 
 theft, viz: stealing a sliive within the jurisdiction and 
 against the laws of Virginia: and whereas the Governor has 
 assigned, as the reason for such refusal, that the stealing of 
 a slave within the jurisdiction of and against the laws of 
 Virginia, is not a felony or otiier ciime within the meaning 
 of the second section of the fourth article of the Constitu- 
 tion of the United States: 
 
 " Resolved, That, in the opinion of this Legislature, steal- 
 ing a slave within the jurisdiction and against the laws of 
 V^irginia, is a crime witliin the meaning of the second sec- 
 tion of the fourth article of the Constitution of the United 
 States. 
 
 " Resolved, That the Governor be requested to transmit 
 the foregoing preamble and resolution to the Executive De- 
 partmeiil of Virginia." 
 
These resolutions, as I have said, passed both 
 branches of the Legislature. I am unable to state 
 the vote; but 1 was then a member of t)ie Assem- 
 bly, and I remember that it passed that body by a 
 very decided majority. 
 
 Thus it seems that the Legislature of New York, 
 in both its brunches, representing tiie people of the 
 State in a double atpacity — for the Senate was at 
 that time the High Court for the Correction of 
 Errors — the hiu'hest judicial tribunal in the Slate — 
 disclaimed and condemned the act of the Governor, 
 and left the respon.-^i'iiliiy to rest on him alone. 
 Beyond this it could not go. The act to be per- 
 formed was Executive, and the Legislature had no 
 control over him to com;. el the performance. 
 
 But the Senator did not stop here. His speech 
 Mas replete with reproachful allusions to New 
 York, too indefinite to be met with a distinct re- 
 ply; and he concluded by saying that lie expected 
 nothing good froin her. Sir, there have been pe- 
 riods, in the history of the country, when she was 
 neither inactive nor inefficient in her efforts for the 
 public good. In 1837, when the whole banking 
 system throughout the Union exploded; when the 
 President of the Bank of the United States was 
 putting forth manifestoes and employing the whole 
 Strength of that institution to continue The suspen- 
 sion of specie payments; and when, I believe I 
 may say, most other portions of the Union were 
 disposed to yield — New York stood almost alone 
 in opposing it. She compelled her own banks to 
 resume the discharge of their obliirations under the 
 penalty of a forfeiture of their charters: she be- 
 came the centre of all that was sound in commerce 
 and finance; and through the influence and the 
 power of her example, the country was saved 
 from years of dishonor and pecuniary embarrass- 
 ment. 
 
 In 1814, when the whole southern coast was at 
 the mercy of the public enemy, and portions of it 
 ravaged and laid waste; when the Administration 
 here was too weak to defend the capital; and 
 when the very edifice in which we sit was given 
 to the flames by British vandalism, New York 
 stood again almost alone and unassisted, and car- 
 ried on the contest upon her own frontier chiefly 
 with her own means. She raised money and men, 
 and contributed to sustain the honor of our arms 
 in a series of the most desperate engagements ever 
 fought on this continent. 
 
 Of her institutions, social and political, I need 
 say nothing — the monuments she has reared to 
 science, and to the arts, her great artificial channels 
 of intercourse, and above all, her system of com- 
 mon school education, emlirncini: every child that 
 is born or is brought within her limits. Tlie.se are 
 well known to all who hear me; and they say for 
 her more than any words of mine can speak. 
 
 Less than n year ago two noble-spirited bands 
 stood, side by side, on one of the bloodiest battle- 
 fields of Mexico. They were led on by chival- 
 rous men, animated by the single resolution of 
 upholding their country^ honor and their own. 
 Ihcy were the Ni;w Ymk and the Palmetto iei;i- 
 mcnta. The blows tiiey gave fell upon the ranks 
 of llic enemy with i'r|ual force; iho.-^e they received 
 were nuslainel with e(pial firmness. More than a 
 third of these gallant crimbaiants fell together. 
 The grafls, which has grown up rich and rank upon 
 that battle-field, can tell where their blood was 
 
 poured out in common streams. The noble leader 
 of the Palmetto regiment was among the slain* — 
 borne from the field of carnage, perhaps, by the 
 united hands of those whom he led, and those who, 
 though coming from a distant part of the Union, 
 fought by his side with the same devotion as his 
 own followers. Sir, there should be something 
 in these sacred memories to di.sarm reproach— at 
 least of its injustice. Let me commend them to 
 the calm reflection of the Senator from South Car- 
 olina, who has so deep an interest in the glory and 
 the grief of that battle-field. He is neither ungen- 
 erous nor unjust. Let me ask him to think of 
 these things, and say whether some good may not 
 come from New York. 
 
 But I pass to a charge more immediately con- 
 nected with the subject under discussion — the ap- 
 plication of the principles of the ordinance of 1787 
 to the Territories of the United States. This 
 charge concerns the whole North; and I am ready 
 to meet it. 
 
 In 1846 and 1847, most of the nnn-slaveholding 
 Slates, on high considerations of moral and political 
 principle, declared, that no new territory ought to 
 be acquired without a fundamental provision exclu- 
 ding slavery. These declarations had a.n express 
 and an exclusive reference to acquisitions from 
 Mexico, where slavery had long been abolished, 
 both by executive and constitutional acts. They 
 amounted practically to declarations against the 
 extension of slavery to free territory, and no more. 
 New York did not take the lead in these declarations. 
 The first legislative resolutions received here came 
 from the Stale of Vermont, and were presented to 
 this body on the 2Sth January, 1847. The New 
 York resolutions were presented on the 6th Feb- 
 ruary ensuing; those of Pennsylvania on the 8th; 
 of Rhode Island, on the lOlh; of Ohio, on the 16th; 
 of New Hampshire and New Jersey, on the 19th; 
 of Michigan, on the 1st of March; and of Massa- 
 chusetts, on the 3d— the last day of the session. 
 Connecticut pas.sed resolutions on the 24th of June; 
 but Congress had then adjourned, and they were 
 presented at the commencement of the subsequent 
 session. Delaware, aslaveholding Slate, followed, 
 and requested her Senators to vote for the exclu- 
 sion of slavery from territory thereafter to be ac- 
 quired. Here are eleven States which have passed 
 resolutions on this question. It was a spontaneous 
 movement on the part of the non-slaveholding 
 States, neither led on by New York nor set on foot 
 by her, but arising out of indications in Congress 
 of an intention to acquire territory from Mexico, 
 and leave it open to the introduction of slaves; and 
 every one knows tliey will be carried wherever 
 they are permitted. 
 
 On looking at the dates of these several resolu- 
 tions, 1 find New Hampshire, Vermont, Rhode 
 Island, and Pennsylvania, preceded New York, in 
 j the order in which I name them, in acting on this 
 ' sul)jecl in their respective Legislatures. Three of 
 I thc'small New England Slates, which the Senator 
 I from Virginia, who spoke first on this question, 
 I [Mr. Mason-,] would have us believe New York 
 I was seeking to seduce, and in the end to swallow 
 up, were actually the pioneers in this movement. 
 j Pennsylvania was next in the field. New York did 
 
 I * Colonel Itutler liiTU alludnd to wan the hrolhir of Uic 
 ' Henatur to wlioiii Mr. Dix wus replying. 
 
but follow and sustain them in their declarations 
 against the extension of slavery to territory in 
 which it does not exist. 
 
 Such is the history of this movement, com- 
 mencing as far back as July, 1846, almost coeval 
 with the war with Mexico, and originating in a 
 charge of intending to conquer territory for the 
 purpose of planting slavery upon it. And these 
 public declarations may perhaps be properly re- 
 garded in a two-fold light, so far as motive, on 
 the part of the Legislatures, is concerned: first, to 
 exonerate themselves from the imputation; and, 
 second, to array their influence ay:ainst such a 
 design, if it should be entertained in any quar- 
 ter. 
 
 Let me now take a somewhat larger view of 
 this whole subject of northern aggression. It 
 was said, I think, by a southern member of the 
 Federal Convention, though it may have been in 
 Congress after the adoption of the Constitution, 
 that no slaveholding State would thereafter be ad- 
 mitted into the Union; that there were eight States 
 interested in abolishing slavery, and five interested 
 in maintaining it, and that they would act accord- 
 ingly in voting for the admission of new States 
 Tliis prophecy had no found:ition in truth. The 
 members of Congress from the North have voted 
 as freely and readily for the admission of slave- 
 holding as for non-slaveholding States into the 
 Union. If we look around us u|.)on this floor, we 
 shall find all prognostics founded upon the sup- 
 posed prejudices or the unkind feeling of the North 
 utterly falsified. Sir, there are ten Senators here 
 representing slaveholding States formed from ter- 
 ritory acquired since the Constitution was adopted. 
 How many are there representing free States 
 formed from new territory? Not a single one! But 
 fora domestic difficulty in Iowa, it is true, that State 
 would have been represented here, and we should 
 then have had two Senators from free States against 
 ten from slaveholding States formed out of terri- 
 tory purchased by the common treasure and main- 
 tained by the coinmon blood of the whole Union. 
 We have given up the territory constituting these 
 States to the South. We have reserved no por- 
 tion of them to northern emigration, excepting the 
 misshapen strip of Texas north of 36"-* 30', which, 
 so far as extent and productive value are concerned, 
 is, for all purposes of a fair and equitable division, 
 the merest mockery. The area of these five States 
 is equal to two-thirds of the entire area of the thir- 
 teen original States. This the North has done for 
 the maintenance of slavery — sir, I might say for the 
 extension of slavery and the multiplication of slaves; 
 for this vast surface was almost uninhabited when 
 it was acquired, and it is now filled up with a slave- 
 holding population. There are more than half a 
 million of slaves in these five States, not one-tenth 
 part of whom would have been there, if the right to 
 exclude them had been insisted on. But we have 
 stood on the ground of non-interference. Where we 
 have found slavery, we have left it. We have not 
 countenanced any measure of abolition or emanci- 
 pation. On the contrary, we have uniformly op- 
 posed all interference with slavery in the States. 
 With the single exception of the Louisiana terri- 
 tory, we have left it to spread itself over the areas 
 on which it existed only nominally. We have 
 almost gone, at the North, to the extreme of mob- 
 bing abolitionism, when it contemplated inter- 
 
 ference with the question of slavery in the States, 
 and of instituting a scrutiny of the public mails to 
 arrest the circulation of incendiary publications. 
 And now, after idl this active cooperation in the 
 promotion of the objects and interests of the slave- 
 holding States, how are we met? By charges of 
 aggression, of hostility, and of violating the con- 
 stitutional compact. 
 
 Sir, we stand firmly upon the compromises of 
 the Constitution. We have ever done so. We 
 shall continue to do so. We have gone further. 
 We have opposed all interference by Congress 
 with slavery in the District of Columbia, over 
 which Congress is empowered by the Constitution 
 to " exercise exclusive legislation in all cases what- 
 soever." Beyond this we cannot go. I deny that 
 any compromise in framing the Constitution, or 
 any guarantee arising under its provisions, ex- 
 tends, or was designed to extend, to the regula- 
 tion of slavery in the Territories. What were the 
 compromises of the Constitution? They were 
 three: 1. That the small States should be equally 
 represented in the Senate with the large States; 
 2. That the slave population in the States should 
 constitute a part of the basis of representation in 
 Congress; 3. That the importation of slaves into 
 the States then existing should not be prohibited 
 |irior to 1808. Tiiese were the three great com- 
 promises on which the adoption of the Constitu- 
 tion may be considered as having turned. In set- 
 tling them, some reference was naturally had to the 
 distribution and rei!:ulation of the powers vested in 
 the Federal Government and reserved to the States 
 and the people respectively. 
 
 Now, sir, what was the security sought for by 
 the South in the adoption of these compromises ? 
 Was it that Congress should impose no restriction 
 on the extension of slavery to the Territories? No, 
 sir. That power I have no doubt was left, so far as 
 it was contemplated at all, to be exercised by Con- 
 gress, according to its own views of humanity and 
 justice. I humbly think this construction sus- 
 tained by what I said on a former occasion. It is 
 shown also by the deed of the cession by North 
 Carolina of western territory now constituting the 
 State of Tennessee, in which it was provided, 
 " that no regulations made, or to be made, by Con- 
 gress shall tend to emancipate slaves" — a prohi- 
 bition implying a right to regulate, restrict, and 
 exclude them. 
 
 Tlie Senatorfrom Florida [Mr. Westcott] read 
 to the Senate yesterday the fac simile of an origi- 
 nal paper found among the manuscripts of Mr. 
 Monroe, and in his handwriting, by which it ap- 
 pears, that when the Missouri compromise act, 
 as it is called, was passed, he took the opinions 
 of the members of his Cabinet, in writing, in re- 
 spect to the constitutionality of that act. The 
 Senator from South Carolina [Mr. Calhoun] 
 was one of the Cabinet; and as I took, and en- 
 deavored to sustain, on a late occasion, the posi- 
 tinn that Congress possesses the right to prohibit 
 slavery in the Territories of the United States, I 
 am naturally desirous of fortifying it with all tko 
 authority I can command; and I shall be particu- 
 larly gratified, if it shall be found that the distin- 
 guished Senator alluded to, though now denying 
 the right, was then in favor of it. I will read to 
 the Senate all of this paper which relates to the 
 subject: 
 
(From Mr. Monroe's nianuscripts.) — A paper j 
 endorsed ^'Interrogalones,J^lissouri — JMarch 4, 1820. 
 To the Jhaih of Diparlmenls and ^lltorniy General." , 
 U,ueslioii8, (on opposite page;) j 
 
 " Hiij Congress a riijlil, uniliT the pnwirs vesloil in it l)y I 
 the Con-iiliilion, tu inuke u reguluiiuii )iroliil)iling slavery ui 
 aTerril.iry.' | 
 
 " Is It).' lialilh section of the ai-t whieh passi-rt both Hou.^es j 
 on tli<' M iiisiaiit, tor tho admission of Missouri into the | 
 Liiion, consistinl wiOi the Coiisliiulioii .'" , 
 
 With the ahove is the oris^inal drnft of the fol- | 
 lowing letter, in President Monroe's Imndwriling, ! 
 on half a sheet of paper, but not endorsed or ad- ; 
 dressed to any one. There arc interlineations, but 
 the text, as left by the writer, is as follows: 
 
 " DtAR ?iR ; The (iiii'slioM whic-li lately aciiated Congress 
 and the public has bi'rii sctlh-d, as you have seen, by the 
 passage of an act I'or the admission of Misssonri as a Stale, 
 unrestrained, and .Xrkansas likewise, when it reaches ma- 
 turity, and the establishment of the 33' 30' north latitude a-s 
 a line, north of which slavery is prohibited, and p(;rniitted 
 to the south. I took tlie opinion, in wriliiic, of the Admin- 
 istration as to the constitutionality of restrainins 'I'erritories, 
 [and the vote of every mem'icr was unanimous and*] which was 
 explicit in favor of it, and a- it wius that the 8th section of 
 the act was applicable to Territories only, and not to States 
 when they should be admiltr-d into the Union. On this lat- 
 t-ir point I had at tirst sinne doubt ; but the opinion of others, 
 whose opinions were entitled to wei{;ht witii me, supported 
 by the sense in which it was viewed by all who voted on 
 the subject in Confrress, as will appear by the Journals, sat- 
 islied ine respectin-; it." 
 
 This letter has been supposed to have been writ- 
 ten to General Jackson, though there is no evidence 
 of the fact. 
 
 Mr. FOOTE. Were these interrogatories sent.' 
 or was it merely a statement for his own private 
 convenience.' 
 
 Mr. DIX. It is impossible to say, except so far 
 as the paper may be considered as indicating the 
 use made of them. I state the facts as they have 
 been related to me. The paper was fmind among 
 Mr. Monroe's manuscripts, and is in his hand- 
 writing. It was rend to the Senate yesterday by 
 the Senator from Florida, [Mr. Westcott,] for 
 another purpose, and the evidence of its authen- 
 ticity I understand to be in his possession. 
 
 Mr. CALHOUN. If the Senator will give way, 
 it will be perhaps better that 1 make a statement at 
 once respecting this subject, as far as my recollec- 
 tion will serve me. During the whole period of 
 Mr. Monroe's administration, I rememlier no oc- 
 casion on which the members of his Administration 
 pave written opinions. I have an impression — 
 though not a very distinct one — that on one occa- 
 sion they were rcrpiired to give written opinions; 
 but for some reason, not now recollected, the request 
 was not carried into eftect. He was decidedly 
 opposed to the imposition of any restriction on 
 the admission of Missouri into the Union, and I 
 am strongly of the inifiression that he was opposed 
 in feeling to what was called the Missouri com- 
 promise. 
 
 Mr. JOHNSON, of Maryland. Is this the ori- 
 ginal letter? 
 
 Mr. DIX. I understand it to be n fuc-simile of 
 the orijinal. Asa long period (nearly thirty years) 
 han einfi.sed since the act to admit Mi.ssouri into 
 the Union was passed, it is quite nntural that the 
 Senator from South (Carolina should have forirotten 
 tlie rirrumstanceH attending the discussion of it in 
 the Cabinet. Having heard , some days ago, of the 
 
 * The word* in italicit arc craned in the orijjinal draft 
 
 existence of such a paper, and being very desirous 
 of ascertaining the facts, I v/rote to Mr. Charles 
 F. Adams, of Boston, a son of the late ex-Presi- 
 dent, inquiring of liim if his father's diary contained 
 anything on the subject. In reply to my inquiry, 
 I received an extract from the diary of the father, 
 certified by the son, which I will now read, and 
 which confirms fully the statement contained in 
 Mr. Monroe's letter: 
 
 Kxtrails from the Diary of J. Q. .Iitnms. 
 '• March 3, 18Q'). — When I came this day to my office, I 
 found tliere a note re(|uestiii!; me to call at one o'clock at 
 the President's Il(>ii>e. It WiiMlien one, and I imiiiediately 
 went over. He expicled iliar the two bills, for the admis- 
 sion of .Maine and to enable Missf)uri to make a constitu- 
 tion, would have been hronsht to him forhi-^ ^i^llatll^l■ ; and 
 he had summoned all the members of the Administration to 
 ask their opiiiinn^ in writiin;, to be deposited in the Depart- 
 ment of Stale, M|>iMi two questions: 1, Whether Congress 
 had a constiliitiniial rijjht to prohibit slavery in a Territory .' 
 and 2, Wlniher th': «lh section of the Missouri bill fwhich 
 interdicts slavery forever in the territory north of 33} lati- 
 tude) was applicable only to the territorial stale, or would 
 extend to it after it should become a Stale.' As to the first 
 question, it was unanimously aureed that Congress have the 
 power to piohiliil slavery in the Territories." 
 
 This is the first extract; and before I proceed to 
 the others, I will state that, in respect to the second 
 question, there was a diver.sity of ojiinioii — Mr. 
 Adams contending thai a State would l)e bound by 
 such a prohiijition after its admission into the 
 Union, and the other members of the Cabinet, 
 that it was only operative during the territorial 
 term. In order to secure unanimity in the answers, 
 the second question was modified, as will appear 
 by the remaining extracts which I proceed to give: 
 
 <' March .").— The President sent mc yesterday ihe two 
 questions in writiiii;, upon which he desired to have answers 
 in writiiid, to be d(-positcd in the Department of Stale. He 
 wrote me that it would be in lime, if he should have the 
 answers to-morrow. The first question is in gt'iieral terms, 
 as it was stated at the incelinjon Friday. 'J'he second was 
 moditiid to an inquiry whether the 8lh section of the Mis- 
 souri bill is consistent with the Constitution. To this I can 
 without hesitation answer by a simple affirmative, and so 
 after some retlcction 1 concluded to answer both. * * 
 
 "MaiuhB. * * * I tiuik to the President's inv an- 
 swers to his two conslitulionul questions, and he desired me 
 to have them deposited in the (leparlineiit, toijeiher with 
 those of the olln r menihers of the Adiiiiiiistration. They 
 dilTered only as tlii'v a-isigned their reason fur tliinkinij the 
 8th section of the .Missouri bill consistent with the Consti- 
 tution, because they considered it as only applyiiiii to the 
 territorial term; and I barely gave my opinion, without ils- 
 signing for it any explanatory reason. The President signed 
 the Missouri hill this morning." 
 
 These extracts are certified to be " a true copy 
 from the original by me, 
 
 " Cii.\RLEs Fn.\Ncis Adams." 
 
 Mr. CALHOUN. Has any search been made 
 in the State Dc;|iartment for ilicse written opinions.' 
 
 Mr. UIX. The State Departmeiii has been ex- 
 amined — how thoroughly I do not know — but they 
 have not been found. 
 
 Mr. WESTCOTT. I made an examination, as 
 I stated yesterday, myself, but could find none. 
 Thi.s letter is in Air. Alonroe's haiulwriiing, and 
 from its tenor is supposed to have been iiiteiidcd 
 to be addressed to General Jackson. I understand 
 that upon examination of General Jackson's pa- 
 pers, a letter was found from Mr. Monroe, contain- 
 ing everything which is contained in this draught, 
 except ih;it part wliicii relates to the action of the 
 Cabinet. 'V\u: letter was also daleil the .same day. 
 I presume, therefore, that upon wiiting the letter 
 to General Jackson, ultimately, unless it was in- 
 
tended for some one else, Mr. Monroe left out thai discussions that ever occurred in Congress. The 
 portion relating to the action of the Cabinet in re- subject was one of repeated conversation between 
 
 iation to the " Missouri compromise.' 
 
 Mr. DIX. I have examined the letter referred 
 to, as addressed to General Jackson, and find that it 
 was written in 1821, while the paper containing 
 the interrogatories was dated the 4th of March, 
 1820; and the former has only two of the last para- 
 graphs of the letter before us; all the rest being 
 different. 
 
 Mr. CALHOUN. If any written opinion was 
 ever given by me, it has entirely escaped my mem- 
 ory; and I feel satisfied, if ever given, it was very 
 little more than an assent or dissent to the course 
 adopted by the Administration. Mr. Adams had 
 the advantage of keeping a diary, which no doubt 
 may be relied upon, as far as he is individually 
 concerned; but whicli, of course, is liable to mis- 
 takes, as far as it represents the views and acts of 
 others. In this ca.^e there may be some explana- 
 tion, if all the facts were known, which would 
 reconcile his statement with my recollection. But 
 of one thing I feel perfectly sure, that I could 
 never have directed my attention and formed an 
 opinion on so important a subject, as a member of 
 his Cabinet, and'reduced it to writing, for the pur- 
 pose of being preserved, without recollecting it. 
 
 Mr. JOHNSON, of Maryland, was understood 
 to say, that on examining the letter, he did not 
 think it sustained the fact the Senator from New 
 York was endeavoring; to prove. He observed 
 that Mr. Monroe had first stated that the opinion 
 of the Administration was unanimous, and that he 
 had erased the word unanimous, and substituted the 
 word explicit, which had quite a different meaning. 
 Mr. CALHOUN. I feel justified in saying, from 
 all the circumstances of this case, including the 
 facts stated by the Senator from Maryland, and 
 the absence of any written opinion on the file of the 
 State Department, that notwithstanding the cer- 
 tificate from Mr. Adams's diary, no such opinions 
 were given as it slates. There is some mistake 
 about it, but how it originated I am at a loss to 
 conceive. Perhaps it may be explained by the 
 vague impression, as I have stated, on my mind, 
 that the opinions were called for, but never form- 
 ally given in writing, at least not beyond a mere 
 assent or dissent as to the course ultimately adopt- 
 ed. I know well all about the compromise; the 
 cause which led to it, and the reason why, that the 
 Northern men who voted against it were univer- 
 sally sacrificed for so doing It is quite a mistake, 
 as some suppose, that they were sacrificed for voting 
 for the compromise. The very reverse is the case. 
 The cause 1 will proceed to stale: During the 
 session of the compromise, Mr. Lowndes and my- 
 self resided together. He was a member of the 
 House of Representatives, and I was Secretary of 
 War. We both felt the magnitude of the subject. 
 Missouri, at the preceding session, had presented 
 herself for admission as a member of the Uiiion. 
 She had formed a constitution and government, in 
 accordance with an act of Congress. Her admis- 
 sion was refused on the ground that her constitution 
 admitted of slavery; and she was remanded back 
 to have the objectionable provision expunged. She 
 refused to comply with the requisition, and at the 
 next session again knocked at the door of Congress 
 for admission, with her constitution as it originally 
 stood. This gave rise to one of the most agitatmg 
 
 Mr^ Lowndes and myself. The question was, 
 what was to be done, and what would be the con- 
 sequence if she was not admitted? After full re- 
 flection, we both agreed that Missouri was a vState 
 made so by a regular process of law, and never 
 could be remanded back to the territorial condition. 
 Such being the case, we also agreed that the only 
 question was, whether she should be a State in or 
 out of the Union ? and it was for Congress to decide 
 which position she should occupy. My friend 
 made one of his able and lucid speeches on the oc- 
 casion; but whether it has been preserved or not, I 
 am not able to say. It carried conviction to the 
 minds of all, and in fact settled the question. The 
 question was narrowed down to a single point. 
 All saw that if Missouri was not admitted, she 
 would remain an independent State on the west 
 bank of the Mississippi, and would become the 
 nucleus of a new confederation of Slates extending 
 over the whole of Louisiana. None were willing 
 to contribute to such a result; and the only question 
 that remained with the Northern members who 
 had opposed her admission was, to devise some 
 means of escaping from the awkward dilemma in 
 which they found themselves. To back out or 
 compromise, were the only alternatives left; and the 
 latter was eagerly seized to avoid the disgrace of 
 the former — so eagerly, that all who opposed it at 
 the North were considered traitors to that section 
 of the Union, and sacrificed for their voles. 
 
 Mr. FOOTE. The gentleman referred to, and 
 from whose journal an extract had been read, as 
 is well known, has been always regarded as a most 
 violent partisan of the peculiar views he held in 
 relation to this subject. I beg leave most respect- 
 fully to inquire of the honorable Senator from New 
 York, whether this statement or extract read has 
 been sworn to or not? 
 
 Mr. DIX. The statement was, as I have said, 
 taken from the diary of Mr. Adams, certified, but 
 not sworn to, by his son, a gentleman of the highest 
 respectability. 
 
 I do not intend to enter into any discussion con- 
 cerning the Missouri compromise, or the testimony 
 I have^presented. I leave it to speak for itself, and 
 to others to say how far it shall be considered to 
 outweigh the recollections of the Senator from 
 South Carolina. I will only add, that there is the 
 strongest possible coincidence between Mr. Mon- 
 roe's letter and Mr. Adams's diary in all the im- 
 portant facts. Both state the questions to have 
 been "in writinsr;" both show that they were 
 submitted in the" shape in which they were to be 
 answered, on the 4ih of March, 1820. The iden- 
 lity of the questions is another striking coincidence. 
 The only material variation is that suggested by 
 the Senator from Maryland. Mr. Adams states, 
 that the opinion of the members of the Cabinet 
 was "unanimous" in favor of the power of Con- 
 gress to prohibit slavery in the Territories of the 
 United States. Mr. Monroe wrote " unanimous 
 in the first instance, and then substituted " ex- 
 plicit"_an alteration he might very naturally have 
 made.'on reflection, in writing to a friend, in order 
 to avoid giving a clue to the opinions of individual 
 members of his Administration. The answers 
 were very brief, as Mr. Adams shows; but from 
 the manner in which the questions were drawn, 
 
8 
 
 the answers, whether affirmative or negative, must 
 either have asserted or denied the constitutional 
 power of Congress to prohibit slavery in the Ter- 
 ritories. But nil this I am willing to submit to tiie 
 candid judgment of others. 
 
 Let nic now cite a few of tlie remarks made in the 
 Federal Convention on the subject of slavery and 
 slave representation. On the ]2[h of July, Mr. 
 Randolpn, of Virginia, said, "That express se- 
 
 • curity ou»hl to be provided for including slaves 
 'in the ratio of representation. He lamented that 
 ' such a species of property existed; but as it did 
 ' exist, the holders of it would require this security. 
 ' It was perceived that the design was entertained 
 ' by some of excluding slaves altogether; the Legis- 
 
 • lature, therefore, ought not to be left at liberty." 
 
 In the convention of Virginia, by which the 
 Constitution was ratified. Governor Randolph en- 
 tered into an elaborate argument to show that 
 Congress had no right to abolish slavery in the 
 States. It was feared that under the power of pro- 
 liibiting the slave trade, or under the power to 
 regulate commerce, or under some implied power, 
 slavery within the limits of the States might be 
 interfered with by Congress. 
 
 On the 13th of July, Mr. Butler, of South Car- 
 olina, said: "The security the southern States 
 ' want is, that their negroes may not be taken 
 ' from them, which some gentlemen within or 
 ' without doors have a very good mind to do.'' 
 
 This was the tenor of the discussions in the State 
 conventions by which the Constitution was ratified. 
 They looked to security from abolition or emanci- 
 pation by Congress within their own limits. Ex- 
 tension of slavery beyond their limits was hardly 
 thought of; and I have no hesitation in saying, 
 from the tone of the debates, that if it had been 
 fully discussed, it would have been to brand it with 
 general disapprobation. 
 
 On the 22d of August, a very full and interesting 
 debate arose in the Federal Convention on the ques- 
 tion of prohibiting the importation of slaves. The 
 only objects contended for in any quarter were, the 
 right to import them, and an exemption of the States 
 from all interference with slavery within their own 
 limits on the part of the Federal Government. It 
 was generally conceded, except by the extreme 
 South, that slavery would ultimately be abolished. 
 And yet the slave population has gone on steadily 
 increasing, from 600,000 to 3,000,000 of souls; and 
 now we are engaged in a struggle to enlarge the 
 area of slavery, or to prevent its exclusion from 
 territory in which it does not exist. 
 
 Mr. CALHOUN. I must beg the Senator from 
 New York to state me more correctly. We are 
 not contending for the extension of the area of 
 slavery, and if he places us upon that ground, he 
 places us in a very false |)Osition. Wliat we do 
 contend for is, that the southern States, as mem- 
 bers of our Union, are entitled to equal rights and 
 equal dignity, in every rcsfiect, with the northern; 
 nnd that there is nothing in the Constitution to 
 deprive uh of this equality, in consequence of 
 being BJavcholders. 
 
 Mr. DIX. The Senator contends for the right 
 of carrying slaves into the Territories. I under- 
 stand this to be an extension of slavery, and, 
 with all deference to him, I can call it by no other 
 nanie. 
 
 In connection with lliis subject, we were asked 
 
 by the Senator from Virginia, whether any one 
 believes that State would ever have come into the 
 Union, if the right to exclude slaves from the Ter- 
 ritories had been insisted on? I answer, yes; and 
 on the strength of the known opinions of her dele- 
 gates in the Convention. 
 
 Mr. Madison would not consent " to admit in 
 the Constitution the idea that there could be prop- 
 erty in men." He was unwilling to postpone the 
 prohibition of the slave trade twenty years. " So 
 long a term," he added, " will be more dishonor- 
 able to the American character than to say nothing 
 about it in the Constitution." His language and 
 his action then, and on all occasions, were in favor 
 of the restriction of slavery, and not in favor of its 
 extension. The opinion of General Washington, 
 the President of the Convention, on the suliject of 
 slavery, is well known. I have already referred 
 to the opinion of Mr. Randolph. Colonel Mason 
 was still more decided and explicit. His language 
 may be quoted now with the more effect, when those 
 who have come after him differ with him so widely 
 in opinion: 
 
 " This infernal traffic originated in the avarice of British 
 merchants. The Britii-h Government constantly checki-d the 
 attempts of Virsinia to put a stop to it. The present ques- 
 tion concerns not the im|)ortin2 States alone, hut the whole 
 Union. The evil of havins slaves was experienced during 
 tilt; late war. Had slaves been treated as they michl have 
 been by the enemy, thoy would have proved dangerous in- 
 struments in their hands ; but their folly dealt by the slaves 
 as it did by the Tories. ***** Maryland and Virginia 
 (he said) had already prohibited the importation of slaves 
 expressly; North Carolina had done th(! same in snirelance. 
 AM tliis would be in vain, if South Carolina and Georsjia he 
 at liberty to import. The western people arc already calling 
 out for slaves for their new lands, and will fill that country 
 with slaves, if they can be got throuirh South Carolina and 
 (;eor;;ia. Slavery discouriges .arts and manufaciures. The 
 poor despi>e labor, when jierformed by slaves: they prevent 
 the emigration of whites who really enrich and strensthen a 
 country. ***** As to the States hein;.' in possession of 
 the right to import, this was the cas(; with many other rights 
 now to he properly given up. He held it essential, in ev(rry 
 point of view, that the General Government should have 
 power to prevent the increase of slavery." 
 
 To this declaration in the Federal Convention, 
 I might add, that in the convention of Virginia, 
 he alleged, as one of the objections to the Consti- 
 tution, that it continued the slave trade for twenty- 
 two years. 
 
 The Senator from Virginia wears, with equal 
 dignity and grace, the name of theillustrioiis states- 
 men I have quoted. It is quite probable that there 
 is a closer bond of connection between them.* But 
 how different is their language, and the causes 
 they have espoused, at the distance of more than 
 half a century from each other! The patriot of 
 the Revolution denounced the Briti.sh Government 
 for forcing slaves upon Virginia against lier remon- 
 strances. The Senator from that State is contend- 
 ing here, in her name, for the right to carry slaves 
 into Oregon, against the wishes and prohibitions 
 of the inliabitants. 
 
 But to return from this digression. The fourdis- 
 tinguishcd individuals I have named constituted 
 a majority of the delegation from Virginia, and I 
 believe 1 amauthorized.from theiravowedopinions, 
 to say, that if there had been a positive provision 
 in the Constitiiiioii aiiihnii/.iiig Congre.ss to pro- 
 hibit the introduction of .slaves into Territories 
 thereafter to be acquired, it would not only not 
 
 * Mr. Dix suluiei|ucntlv asocrtauied that the Senator was 
 a graiidsuu of Culuuul Ma«ua. 
 
9 
 
 have been deemed an impediment to the accession 
 of Virginia to the Union, but that it would have 
 met their decided approbation. But in this case, 
 as in many others, the framers of the Constitution 
 fell far short of the reality, when they looked for- 
 ward to the future progress of the country. The 
 period in which they lived was enveloped in un- 
 certainty and doubt; and it was only reserved to 
 a few of the more sanguine to obtain some partial 
 glimpses of the prosperity and fame to which their 
 country was destined. It was the very limited 
 foreknowledge of her growth and extension, which 
 left so many of the exigencies we have met un- 
 provided for by direct and positive regulation. 
 
 Mr. President, it was chiefly in the school of 
 Virginia that the little knowledge I possess of the 
 theory of our institutions, and of the principles of 
 political liberty and justice, was acquired. I have 
 been accustomed to regard Mr. Jefferson as a stand- 
 ard, to which we might safely refer for the settle- 
 ment of most questions of political power and duty: 
 and it is with something more than ordinary pain 
 and regret that I have seen his principles assailed, 
 and his acts repudiated and condemned. 
 
 I was not a little surprised, too; to hear the Sen- 
 ator from Virginia rest the legal justification of 
 slavery upon the right of conquest, and its intro- 
 duction into that State during her colonial depend- 
 ence on the common law of England. I had sup- 
 posed that Blackstone had furnished sufficient 
 evidence of the mistaken pretensions which had 
 been set up on both these foundations to support 
 the fabric of slavery in the American colonies and 
 their successors, the States. I hold in my hand 
 a volume of the English commentator, edited by 
 St. George Tucker, who was a professor of law in 
 the University of William and Mary, and one of 
 the judges of the General Court of Virginia. To 
 this volume is appended an article or tract written 
 by him, "On the state of Slavery in Virginia." 
 Sir, it is in this edition of the writings of the great 
 English commentator that many of us of the North 
 have studied the principles of English law, and 
 from the tracts, which are appended to the several 
 volumes, that we have learned to consider Virginia 
 as the great enemy of slavery extension. I pro- 
 pose to read a few extracts from this volume, to 
 show how widely different are the grounds now 
 assumed and those on which the young men of 
 Virginia, and of the country generally, were in- 
 structed, half a century ago, in the principles of 
 political liberty and justice. 
 
 And, first, as to the origin of slavery. Judge 
 Tucker quotes largely from Blackstone, denying 
 that slavery rests either upon the law of nations, 
 by which, according to Justinian, " one man is 
 made subject to another contrary to nature," or 
 upon captivity or conquest, or upon the civil law, 
 by which a man may suffer himself to be sold 
 " for the sake of sharing the price given for him." 
 He then proceeds: 
 
 " Thus, by the most clear, manly, and convincing reason- 
 ing, does this excellent author refute every claim upoti which 
 the practice of slavery is founded, or by which it lias been 
 supposed to be ju-tified, at least in modern times. But were 
 we even to admit, that a captive taken in a jtist war might 
 by his conqueror be reduced to a state of slavery, this could 
 not justify the claim of Europeans to reduce the natives of 
 Africa to that state. It is a melancholy, though well- 
 known fact, that iu order to furnish supplies of those un- 
 happy people for the purposes of the slave trade, the Euro- 
 peans have constantly, by the most insidious (I bad almost 
 
 said inft^nal) arts, fomcnlr'<l a kind of perpetnul warfare 
 among the ignorant and miscMahlc people of Africa; and in- 
 stances have not been vviinling where, by the most shameful 
 breach of faith, they have trepanned and made slaves of the 
 sellers as well as the sold. That such horrid practicfifl have 
 been sanctioned by civilized nations; that a nation ardent 
 in the cause of liberty, and enjoyini,' its blessings In the 
 fullest extent, can continue to vinilicatc a right cstabli.-htd 
 upon such a foundation ; that a piiople who have declared, 
 ' That all men are by nature equally free anil independent,'" 
 and have m.ide this declaration the lir.-t article in the form- 
 ation of their Government, should, in defiance of so s.acred 
 a truth, recognized by themselves in so solemn a manner, 
 and on so important an occasion, tolerate a practice incom- 
 patible therewith,— is such an evidence of the weakness and 
 inconsistency of human nature, as every man who halli a 
 spark of patriotic fire in his bosom, must wish to see removed 
 from his own country, if ever there was a cause, if ever 
 an occasion, in which all heart-s should be united, every 
 nerve strained, and every power exerted, surely the restora- 
 tion of human nature to its inalienable right, is such. 
 Whatever obstacles, therefore, may hitherto have retarded 
 the attempt, he that can appreciate the honor and happiness 
 of his country, will think it time that we should attempt to 
 surmount them." 
 
 Such, according to Judire Tucker, is the found- 
 ation on which slavery in Virginia and in the other 
 States rests — not on conquest, not on any right 
 derived from legitimate warfare, but on violence 
 and treachery. I do not cite this authority to 
 create prejudice of any sort. My only purpose 
 is to meet arguments on the other side. 
 
 The common law of England utterly repudiated 
 slavery. To use the language of one of her great 
 commentators, " the law of England abhors, and 
 will not endure the existence of, slavery within this 
 nation." In the colonies it was introduced by 
 virtue of the prerogative of the Crown, as the 
 fountain of chartered rights, and as the arbiter of 
 commerce. Nothing, I believe, is better settled in 
 English law than this. Slavery was at one time, 
 it is true, regulated by act of Parliament, rather 
 by recognizing the laws of the colonies than by 
 original legislation; but the common law always 
 rejected it as unnatural and unjust. 
 
 Virginia uniformly acted in accordance with the 
 elevated sentiments expressed by Judge Tucker. 
 She imposed duties on slaves brought within her 
 limits as early as 1699 — one hundred and fifty 
 years ago. In 1759, she imposed a duty of 20 per 
 cent, on all slaves imported from Maryland, North 
 Carolina, or other places in America. In 1772, 
 she petitioned the King of England to allow her to 
 prohibit the importation of slaves from Africa. I 
 quote from the petition: 
 
 " The importation of slaves into the colonies from the 
 coast of Africa, hath long been considered as a trade of 
 great inhumanity, and under its present encouragement, we 
 have too much reason to fear vHll endanger t/ie very existence 
 of your IMajesty's American dominions. 
 
 " We are sensible that some of your Majesty's subjects of 
 Great Britain may reap emoluments from this sort of tratfic ; 
 but when we consider that it greatly retards the settlement 
 of the colonies with more useful inhabitants, and may, in 
 time, have the most destructive intluence, we presume to 
 hope, that the i)i<eics( of a few will be disregarded, when 
 placed in competition with the security and happiness of 
 such numbers of your Majesty's dutiful and loyal subjects. 
 
 " Deeply impressed with these sentiments, we most hum- 
 bly beseech your Majesty to remove all tlwie reitrairits on 
 your Majesty's Governors of this colony, which inUihit their 
 assenting to such laws as might check so very pernicious a 
 commerce." 
 
 Judge Tucker says; 
 
 " This petition produced noefTcct, as appears from the first 
 clause of our CoNSTrruTioN, where, among acts of misrule, 
 ' the inhuman use of the royal negative,' in refusing us per- 
 
 * Virginia Bill of Rights, art. 1. 
 
10 
 
 mission to exclude slaves frum us by law, is enumerated 
 among Ilie reasons for uparaling/rom Great Britain." 
 
 The clause in the constitution of Virginia is in 
 lliese words:: 
 
 " Wlierrns, Oeorse the Third, King of (;rpnl Britain and 
 Ireland, and Elector of Hanover, liercioforf intiustrd with ; 
 the exercise of the kingly office in this lioverniuent, hath 
 endeavored to pervert the same into a detestable and insup- 
 portable tyranny, putting his negative on lavva the most ' 
 wholesome and necessary for the public good ;"' [Here fol- ■ 
 lows an enumeration of other acts ;] by prompting our ne- 
 groes to rise in arms against us — those very negroes whom, ! 
 by an Inhuman use of his negative, he hath rulused us per- 
 oas^sion to exclude by law." 
 
 Juilge Tucker adds: 
 
 '•The wishes of the people of this colony were not suffi- 
 cient to counterbalance tlie interest of the English mer- 
 chants trading to Africa, and it is probable, that however 
 disposed to put a stop to bo infamous a traffic by law, we 
 should never have been able to elTect it, so long as" we might 
 have continued flependent on the British Government; an 
 object sufficient of itself to justify revolution." 
 
 And now, sir, I ask, Will Virginia insist on ex- 
 tending to other communities an evil which she 
 deplored, and thus be guilty of an act which she 
 considered, when done by the British King, as a 
 sufficient justification of re volution.' — an act enumer- 
 ated in the first clause of her constitution among 
 the reasons for separating from Great Britain ? Mr. 
 Jefferson, as we all know, introduced into the 
 original draught of the Declaration of Independ- 
 ence a clause reprobating the conduct of the British 
 King in forcing slaves upon the American colonies; 
 but it was struck out, to use his own language, " in 
 ' complaisance to South Carolina and Georgia, who 
 ' had never attempted to restrain the importation 
 ' of slaves, and who, on the contrary, still wished 
 ' to continue it. " Sir, are we willing to do towards 
 other communities dependent on us what we con- 
 demned in the British King.' — what we relied on 
 as one of the grounds of our justification in ap- 
 pealing to the sword for a vindication of our rights 
 and the assertion of our independence? What 
 matters it to the inhabitants of Oregon, or New 
 Mexico, or California, whether slaves are intro- 
 duced from Africa or from the Suxtes of the Union 
 in which they are bred.' Sir, let us abstain from 
 this injustice and wrong. If we insist on carrying 
 slaves to tlio.se Territories; if the arm of the pub- 
 lic authority is employed, directly or indirectly, 
 for the purpose of placin^^ them there, and in 
 uprooting, in two of the Territories, the funda- 
 mental law of Mexico, which declares slavery to 
 be forever prohibited, — it would not be surprising 
 if, in the firogress of events, when those distant 
 communities shall have grown to manhood, that 
 they, like us, should declare themselves "free and 
 independent;" and amons; the causes of the sepa- 
 ration, charge us, as we charged the British King, 
 with forcing slavery upon tlieni,a<,'uinstiheir wishes 
 and their rein'instrances. If this was a just cause 
 of separation for us, why would it not be so for 
 them ? God forijid fliat history should record such 
 u pas.sagfc as this, to confound and sluiine our de- 
 HccndaiiLsI 
 
 It has been said, that this territory should be 
 divided, so that a portion of it may be left ojien to 
 the introduction of slaves; that it has been actiuircd 
 ijy the common treasure and the common blood 
 of the whole Union, and that it would i)e unjusi to 
 exclude a [portion of the citizens of the Union from 
 it. 
 
 In the firut place, I do not admit that there 
 
 would be any exclusion if slavery were prohibited. 
 It would be open to every freeman in the commu- 
 nity. But even on the score of an equitable division 
 — if the propriety of such a division could be admit- 
 ted, when trie question is, whether laws abolishing 
 slavery shall be abrogated — I hold that the territory 
 should be, as it now is, free. When Florida was 
 acquired, we did not ask that any portion of it 
 should be set apart for immigration from the free 
 States. We claimed no division. We gave it all 
 up to the South. And yet it was purchased by the 
 common blood and the common treasure of the 
 whole Union. The soil of Florida has been crim- 
 soned by the blood, and whitened by the bones 
 of northern men sacrificed in the wars waged to 
 secure it. Including the price paid for it, it has 
 drawn forty millions of dollars from the public 
 treasury, to be reimbursed, for the most part, by 
 the toil and contributions of the North. What 
 have we received in return on this principle of an 
 equitable division.' Nothing; nothing. 
 
 It is the same with Texas. It is true, the Mis- 
 souri compromise line was drawn across the States, 
 leaving to the north of ita strip, narrow, misshapen, 
 barren, and broken, for northern immigration. For 
 all purposes of an equitable division, it would have 
 been a deception, if it had been pretended. Why, 
 sir, this very war, which has just terminated, grew 
 out of the annexation of Texas. It is part and 
 parcel of the acquisition. What will it cost? At 
 least eighty millions of dollars, when arrears are 
 liquidated, bounty lands set apart, and pensions 
 fully paid. For this acquisition the North has con- 
 tributed its full share in blood, and from its greater 
 ability for consumption, will pay the largest portion 
 of the treasure by which it has been purchased. 
 Taking Texas into the account, with its three hun- 
 dred thousand square miles, and its capacity for 
 production, I hold that an equitable division — if 
 the propriety of it were to be conceded — should 
 leave California and New Mexico free. 
 
 Let us look at the money account, and see how 
 that stands. Florida has cost us forty millions of 
 dollars, and Texas eighty millions. For New 
 Mexico and California we are to pay, including 
 claims of our own citizens, twenty millions. De- 
 duct this from the other, and we have a balance 
 of one hundred millions, which we have paid 
 for new territory given up wholly to the South. 
 The blood, the treasure, the surface — everything 
 taken into the account — there is an overwhelming 
 balance in favor of the North; and on every prin- 
 ciple we are entitled to New Mexico and Califor- 
 nia. But, sir, I will not put it on this narrow 
 ground. I hold that if we acquire territory which 
 is free, it should remain so, and this on high prin- 
 ciple — that the United Stales shall not be instru- 
 mental to the extension of slavery, and stand be- 
 fore the world, in tliis age of intellectual light and 
 of moral elevation, in the attitude of ministering 
 to the propagation of an evil, for the presence of 
 which among us we can only justify ourselves by 
 necessity. 
 
 There is one argument on the other side against 
 restriction — if it may not rather be termed a com- 
 plaint, or an accusation — which I cannot pass by 
 III silence. Gentlemen have re|ire.»cntcd us, who 
 op[iose the extension of slavery, as intending to 
 hem their slaves. in, to "pen them up," to sur- 
 round them with "walls of circumvallation," to 
 
11 
 
 crowd them together and leave them to perish; and 
 we have been assailed with such outbursts of elo- 
 quent indignation as it has never before been my 
 pleasure to hear on this floor. Pens and walls of 
 circumvallationl These are expressive forms of 
 speech, Mr. President. They are not ungrateful 
 to the imagination. They combine the familiar 
 associations of rural economy with those which 
 belong to the nobler occupation of arms. They 
 are redolent of the classics — the "gratum opus 
 agricolis" and the "7iunc horrenlia Martis arma.^' 
 Why, sir, an innocent by-stander might have sup- 
 posed, from the expressions of horror and disgust 
 with which we have been visited, that we had de- 
 vised, in good earnest, some unnatural scheme of 
 penning up or walling in this unfortunate African 
 race. Now, if gentlemen will consider the facts, 
 I think they will find not the slightest occasion for 
 any. exuberance of feeling, either in its higher 
 phases of indignant passion or in its lower tones 
 of commiseration and sympathy. What is the 
 area of the slaveholding States.' What is the size 
 of the enclosure in which the negro race is to be 
 shut up by those who oppose the extension of 
 slavery.? More than nine hundred thousand square 
 miles — more than the entire surface of France, 
 Spain, Portugal, Germany proper, Pru.ssia, Swit- 
 zerland, and Italy, combined — nearly equal to two- 
 thirds of the entire surface of Europe, Russia ex- 
 cluded — a greater area than that which, in the east- 
 ern hemisphere, sustains a population of one hun- 
 dred and fifty millions of souls!! Let us turn to 
 the non-slaveholding States, and see how their sur- 
 face compares with that of the slaveholding. What 
 is their area, Mr. President.' But little more than 
 four hundred thousand square miles — not half the 
 geographical extent of the slaveholding. Thus, with 
 an area not half as great as that of the slaveholding 
 States, the free States are charged with aggression 
 and injustice, because they will not consent to the 
 extension of slavery beyond its present limits into 
 districts of country in which it does not exist. 
 And, what is more extraordinary, we are accused 
 of inhumanity because we propose, to use the 
 language of our accusers, " to pen up" the African 
 race on an area nearly a milhon of square miles 
 in extent!! Really, this suljject is hardly suscep- 
 tible of being treated with becoming gravity, and 
 I dismiss it. 
 
 Let me now look a moment at the provisions of 
 this bill, so far as they profess to offer us a com- 
 promise of the question of slavery in the Territo- 
 ries. And here I desire to say, that 1 intend no 
 reflection upon the conduct or motives of the com- 
 mittee, collectively or individually. I deal only 
 with the measure; but of that I must speak freely 
 and frankly. 
 
 There are but two direct references to slavery in 
 the bill: they are contained in the twenty-sixth and 
 thirty-third sections, and both are to the same pur- 
 port. Tliey prohibit the territorial governments of 
 California and New Mexico from legislating on 
 the subject. 
 
 There is one indirect reference to slavery. It is 
 contained in the twelfth section of the bill, which 
 declares the laws now in force in Oregon to be 
 valid and operative for three months after the 
 Legislative Assembly meets; and, as we all know, 
 one of these laws prohibits slavery. 
 
 These, then, are the great provisions of this bill. 
 
 They leave the whole of New Mexico and Cali- 
 fornia open to the introduction of slaves, and pro- 
 hibit the territorial governments from legislating 
 on the subject, even if disposed to legislate for 
 their exclusion. And, in consideration of this 
 abandonment of all the territory we have acq\nred 
 from Mexico to slavery, we have received from 
 the hands of the committee the boon of freedom 
 for three months in Oregon. This is the great 
 concession to the non-slaveholding Stales; and 
 this is presented to us as a compromise — a compro- 
 mise which surrenders everything on one side, and 
 concedes nothing on the other. Let me pursue this 
 subject, by examining some of the propositions 
 with which this bill was ushered into the Senate 
 Chamber by the Senator from Delaware, [Mr. 
 Clayton,] as chairman of the committee of eight. 
 They are so extraordinary, that I cannot fori)car to 
 pay them a passing notice. I hold them to be a true 
 exposition of the meaning and the object of the bill 
 by the one who, of all others, is best qualified to in- 
 terpret it — the one by whom it was drawn. I give 
 the more credence to his intrepretation of it, be- 
 cause, on a careful examination, I can put no other 
 construction on it myself. 
 
 The first proposition is this: (I read from his 
 remarks:) 
 
 " While it was admitted on all sides that hy far the great- 
 est portion of the Territories was properly adapted to free 
 labor, and would necessarily be free soil forever; yet it was 
 also, with equal unanimity, conceded that there was a portion 
 of it where /rec labor could never be introduced, owing to 
 the climate and the peculiar productions of that portion." 
 
 I consider this proposition unsound in all its 
 parts. In the first place, our own experience teaches 
 us that slaves will be carried wherever they are 
 permitted to go; that no soil will be free where they 
 are not excluded by law. They were taken into the 
 territory northwest of the Ohio river. There are 
 now five slaveholding States north of 36° 30': 
 Missouri, Maryland, Delaware, Virginia, and Ken- 
 tucky. On a former occasion, I said that slaves 
 would be valuable in any part of the country, in 
 the early stages of settlement, where the demand 
 for labor is urgent. And I have no hesitation in say- 
 ing, that if this bill passes both Houses, and be- 
 comes a law, they will be carried into every part 
 of New Mexico and California which is habitable. 
 This will be its practical effect. Even if the north- 
 ern portion shall in future years abolish slavery, 
 it will be left with a black population — a burden 
 and an incumbrance to the white race, and an im- 
 pediment to its moral and physical develojiment. 
 
 But the latter part of the proposition is far more 
 objectionable than the first; and I regret exceed- 
 ingly to hear that it was conceded with unanimity. 
 I deny that there is any portion of these Territo- 
 ries where free labor can never be introduced. I 
 deny that there is any portion of the globe which 
 nature designed for slavery. It would be an im- 
 peachment of the character ^d the purposes of 
 the great Author of the Universe to concede that 
 there is any portion of the earth in which we 
 cannot "stand fast in the liberty" wherewith 
 God has made us free. I deny that there is 
 any portion of Oregon, or New Mexico-, or Cali- 
 fornia, to the cultivation of which slave labor is 
 indispensable. The suggestion is as unsound in 
 fact as it is in philosophy. I do not admit that 
 there is any portion of those territories to which 
 African, much less slave labor, is indispensable. 
 
12 
 
 There is no portion of it less suited to white labor 
 limn the southern portion of Spain — none whicli 
 has a more fiery sun tiian Andalusia — where sla- 
 very does; not exist. Besides, there is a free In- 
 dian population, natives of the climate, willina: to 
 work, sin>;ulnrly docile, and adequate to all the 
 demands for labor for years to come. 
 
 I rpsret exceedingly to have lieard the admission 
 that slave Inlior is necessary in these Territories. 
 But I have ceased to be surprised at anything from 
 any quarter. I have heard one of the principles of 
 the Declaration of Independence impus;ned, and its 
 author eharj^ed with error in advocating the ex- 
 clusion of slavery from the Territories of the United 
 States. I have heard negro slavery defended as 
 founded in right, as justified by the laws of God, 
 and lauded as ** the mildest species of bondage 
 which labor ever bore to capital on the fi\ce of the 
 globe." 1 confess I have been astonished at these 
 declarations, so dillereni from all I have heard and 
 read of the sentiments of the great men of the Re- 
 public from its foundation to the present day. I 
 nave been taught, and taught by the South, to re- 
 gard slavery as an evil to be got rid of, and not as 
 a good to be communicated to other communities. 
 
 The Senator from Delaware, after proposing to 
 organize governments forCaliforiiia and New Mexi- 
 co, by the appointment of a governor, secretary , and 
 judges, to compose a temporary legislature, with- 
 out the power to legislate on the subject of slavery, 
 proceeds: " It was thought, that by this means 
 ' Congress would avoid the decision of this dis- 
 ' tracting question, leaving it to be settled by the 
 ' silent operation of the Constitution itself; and 
 ' that, in case Congress should refuse to touch the 
 ' subject, the country would be slaveholding only 
 ' where, by the laws of nature, slave labor was 
 ' edeciive, and free labor could not maintain it- 
 'self!" 
 
 This proposition is subject to the great and 
 fundamental objection I have taken to the other. 
 It contams a direct admission, that by the laws of 
 nature a portion of the country or territory will be 
 slaveholding. I deny that nature has any such 
 law. It is the law of man, doing violence to all 
 the dictates of nature, that makes a country slave- 
 holding, either by its own voluntary act, or by the 
 act of others forcing slavery upon it. 
 
 But the chief and radical objection is, that it 
 contains a further admission that the Territories 
 are to be left open to the introduction of slaves — 
 that they will be slaveholding wherever slaves can 
 be carried. It is an admission that the " silent 
 operation of the Con.stitution" will be to make the 
 country slaveholding, where slave laiior will be 
 eflective. 1 consider it an entire abandonment of 
 northern ground. What is the ground taken by 
 the North? It is, that slavery shull be prohibited 
 in the Territories. The act contains no such pro- 
 hibition. It is a cnm|)lete surrender to the theories 
 and <lHimsofour friends of theSouth. All they con- 
 tend for is, that the territories shall be open, and 
 they le*"t to the unrestricted enjoyment of the right 
 they a.sKcrt to carry their slaves into any Territory 
 belon^in:^ to the United States. It is the very ex- 
 tent of their demand. It leaves nothing for them 
 to osk or de.sire. The distini,'uishcd Senator from 
 South Carolma [.Mr. Cai.ikiij.v] commenced his 
 Bpecch with the assertion that all the South de- 
 sired woB— no legislation. Tliis has been con- 
 
 ceded — fully conceded. Indeed, something more 
 has been given up It was not enough to yield 
 all that was asked. The Territorial Government 
 is prohibited from legislating on the subject of 
 slavery. This I should not object to, constituted 
 as that government is likely to be, but for a single 
 consideration — as a precedent, it may be of im- 
 portance, it will constitute an argument in favor 
 of extending the same prohibition to the legis- 
 lative assemblies, when they shall be hereafter 
 created. But I will not look beyond the present. 
 1 take it as it is. The Territorial Government is 
 prohibited from legislating; Congress does not le- 
 gislate; and slavery will extend itself over the whole 
 of New Mexico and California. It will enter the 
 great basin; it will take possession of the mari- 
 time valley of California — the American Italy; and 
 when planted there, neither you, sir, nor I, nor 
 our children, will live to see it eradicated. 
 
 And, with this assurance, which no man can 
 reasonably doul)t, we are invited to leave this mat- 
 ter "to the silent operation of the Constitution;" 
 when we all know that the Constitution does no 
 more than vest in Congress the power to legislate 
 for the Territories. It is an invitation to us to 
 leave this power unexercised, and to let slavery 
 extend itself wherever self-interest can carry it. It 
 is the same argument that was used in the Federal 
 Convention against the abolition of the slave trade. 
 Our fathers were invited to leave the wholesubject 
 to the laws of nature. It is the argument which 
 has been employed on all occasions to resist every 
 attempt to prevent the extension of slavery. It 
 was urged against restrictions upon Louisiana, 
 against restrictions upon the territory northwest 
 of the Ohio river, against restrictions upon the ter- 
 ritory west and nortliwest of the Mississippi, when 
 Missouri was admitted into the Union. Did those 
 who have gone before us yield to those pei'suasions 
 of self-interest? No, sir, they refused to accede to 
 them. They prohibited the introduction of slaves 
 into the Territories. They considered it as a po- 
 litical question, proper only to be decided by them- 
 selves, and not to be shuffled olfupoti the .Judiciary. 
 They met the responsibility like men, and decided 
 itaccording to the dictates of duty and right. This 
 scheme of the committee, so far as it professes to be 
 a compiomise, secures nothing to the North. To the 
 South it yields up all. It concedes all that is asked, 
 all that IS desired. It imposes no restriction; it 
 sets up no barrier; it leaves the whole field open to 
 be entered and taken possession of, umesisted and 
 unopposed. It is an unconditional surrender; it 
 has not even the grace of a capitulation upon 
 terms. 
 
 If sentlemen suppose this proposition will calm 
 the prcvading excitement, they are greatly mis- 
 taken. What does it contain calculated to allay 
 agilalion in the .North? Does it concede anything 
 to the non-slaveholding States? No, sir. It ex- 
 cludes slavery nowhere — not even in Oregon. It 
 only continues her [>rohibiiion in force for three 
 months after the first meeting of her Legislative 
 Assenil)ly. The prohibition is then to cease. 
 From that moment slaves may be introduced, un- 
 less the prohibition is reenacted. They will not 
 be excluded then, if Congress shall disajiprove the 
 reenactment. Oregon comes here with an organic 
 law prohibiting slavery forever; and we throw it 
 back upon her with a mere temporary vitality. 
 
13 
 
 We virtually invite her to reconsider it, as if it had 
 been passed without due reflection, or as if, on 
 further deliberation, she may think it advisable to 
 receive slaves into her bosom. Indeed, it is not 
 necessary for her to do any act. She has only to 
 be passive. We virtually repeal the prohibition. 
 And this the committee give us to calm excitement! 
 Sir, I consider this whole scheme of legislation 
 unworthy of the high character of the country, 
 unworthy of our fathers, unworthy of ourselves. 
 It is commended to us, that Congress may avoid 
 the decision of the question. It is an evasion of 
 responsibility, which will defeat its own purpose. 
 It is sowing the seeds of a future agitation, vastly 
 more profound and exciting than this. It is a tem- 
 porary colonization of this controversy, to be sent 
 out to the Pacific to stir up dissension among the 
 first settlers, and then to be brought back here, after 
 a time, to renew agitation among ourselves. It 
 will turn out, like every other device of timidity, 
 which shrinks from one embarrassment only to 
 plunge deeper into another. 
 
 But, sir, we have reason to be thankful that our 
 case is not utterly void of hope. We are flattered 
 by the chairman of the committee with the assu- 
 rance, that Congress will be at liberty hereafter to 
 give us the IVIissouri compromise, and run out the 
 line of 36° 30' to the Pacific. He considers the 
 arrangement temporary. 
 
 It is not so with the Senator from South Caro- 
 lina, [Mr. Calhoun.] He has pronounced it 
 permanent. And, what is eminently worthy of 
 attention, the bill was to speak for itself. It was 
 so announced. Well, sir, it has spoken for several 
 members of the committee; and it is so artfully or 
 so inartificially contrived, that it speaks a totally 
 different language in each case. 
 
 But let us pause and survey this bow of promise 
 which the chairman of the committee has hung out 
 in the distance forourencouragementand hope — the 
 Missouri compromise. When it presents itself, I 
 shall be opposed to it — utterly, irreconcilably, be- 
 cause it will extend slavery where it does not exist; 
 because it would subvert the laws of JNiexico which 
 have abolished slavery, and introduce it where it 
 is prohibited. It bears no analogy to the com- 
 promise of 1820. That settlement of the question, 
 which was confined to Louisiana, contracted the 
 area of slavery. This would extend it. The 
 whole of Louisiana was open to the introduction 
 of slaves. Slavery nominally existed there. But 
 beyond the limits of the State of Missouri, north 
 of 36° 30', the territory was nearly uninhabited. 
 The compromise invaded no right. It was no act 
 of abolition or emancipation; but it prohibited the 
 extension of slavery to areas over which, without 
 such a prohibition, it would have been extended. 
 How widely different is this proposition.'' It is to 
 extend slavery where, without the sanction of the 
 public authority, direct or indirect, it cannot go or 
 exist. It is a proposition to establish slavery by 
 law in a district of country more than two liun- 
 dred thousand square miles in extent, equal to the 
 entire area of France or the Spanish peninsula. 
 On every principle of justice and right I shall be 
 opposed to it; justice to ourselves, to our national 
 character, and to the future millions who are to 
 occupy the great Pacific, or maritine valley of 
 California — literally the Italy of America, in all 
 but the monuments and classical recollections of 
 
 the other. Let us look at this question practically. 
 The proposed compromise would carry out the 
 line of 36° 30' to the Pacific, and prohib'it slavery 
 north of it. Let us see the geographical divi.sionfj 
 it would make. It would divide New Mexico just 
 above Santa Fe, leaving that city and two-thirds 
 of the entire Stale or Territory to the South. 
 How is the distinction between free and slave 
 territory to be maintained? Are we to have 
 two Territories with separate political organiza- 
 tions, or only one with an astronomical line sep- 
 arating the bond from the free? Passing New 
 Mexico, the compromise line would cross the Sierra 
 Mad re, or Piocky Mountain chain, and enteradia- 
 trict but little explored, but, so far as known, bar- 
 ren and almost worthless — leaving a strip of three 
 parallels of latitude to the South. It would next 
 graze the great basin of California — one of the most 
 remarkable features in the geographical conform- 
 ation of this continent — represented by Fremont 
 as Asiatic rather than American in its character. 
 It is five hundred miles in extent in all direc- 
 tions, enclosed by mountains — the Sierra Madre 
 on one side and the Sierra Nevada on the other — 
 and has its own systems of lakes and rivers. It ia 
 for the most part sterile, but with numerous and 
 in some cases extensive tracts capable of cultiva- 
 tion. Passing the great basin without touching it, 
 the compromise line would cross the Sierra Ne- 
 vada, and enter the maritime valley of California, 
 five hundred miles in length and one hundred and 
 fifty in width from the summit of the mountain 
 chain,which forms its eastern boundary, to the coast 
 range on the Pacific. This valley — the finest in the 
 western hemisphere — is represented by Fremont 
 as bearing a close resemblance to Italy in extent, 
 in climate, and in its capacity for production. It 
 is the natural region of the vine and the olive, 
 and of the infinite variety of grains and fruits 
 which the earth brings forth in tropical climates. 
 Though much further north, it has all the mild- 
 ness of the tropical regions on the eastern face of 
 this continent. The compromise line would sever 
 this noble valley latitudinally, leaving four hun- 
 dred miles to the North and one hundred to the 
 South. It yields nothing, to the production of 
 which slave labor is necessary. Slavery would go 
 there as a bane and a hinderance, rather tha^ as an 
 aid, even to production. Why, then, seek to intro- 
 duce it, when no good purpose is to be answered — 
 when it can only prove an element of unmixed 
 evil? Why sever a region which nature designed 
 for unity in its geographical conformation, its cli- 
 mate, soil, and capacity for production ? How ia 
 the social distinction which the compromise line 
 would introduce to be preserved inviolate? Will 
 you have two governments, or one with an ima- 
 ginary line to define the boundary between slavery 
 and freedom? Sir, this whole scheme of division 
 is wrong in all its elements — geographically, po- 
 litically, morally wrong — and I will have no part 
 in it. 
 
 Such, Mr. President, would be the Missouri 
 compromise line, applied to New Mexico and 
 California. Bad as it would be, the bill reported 
 by the committee is still worse. It leaves all open: 
 it surrenders all. It will dedicate the whole of this 
 noble valley to slavery, and exclude from it the 
 freemen of the North, who will not go where their 
 labor is to be degraded by mingling it with the 
 
14 
 
 labor of blacks. Sir, there were gallant bands 
 from the North and West, who " coined their 
 hearts and dropped their blood for drachmas" on 
 the ensan;^uined plains of Mexico, to make this 
 acquisition. They are gone beyond the reach of 
 sympathy on the one iuind, or injustice on the 
 other, but against their fiithets and their chil- 
 dren, you will by this act put forth an edict of 
 perpetual exclusion from an inheritance purchased 
 by filial and paternal blood. 
 
 There is another consideration which ought not 
 to be overlooked. We have been accused, for the 
 last two years, of making war on Mexico to ob- 
 tain territory for the extension of slavery. We 
 have denied ihe truth of these imputations. We 
 have resented them as doing injustice to our in- 
 tentions. And yet, sir, the treaty is hardly rati- 
 fied before we are engaged in a struggle in the 
 American Senate to extend slavery to the territory 
 ■we have acquired. How can we stand up, in the 
 face of the civilized world, and deny these impu- 
 tations, if the proposition of leaving these territo- 
 ries open to the introduction of slaves is consum- 
 mated ? 
 
 I do entreat our southern friends earnestly, sol- 
 emnly, not to press this measure upon us: I mean 
 that of insi.sling on the right to carry slaves into 
 New Mexico and California. I say to you in sin- 
 cerity and with the deepest conviction of the truth 
 of what I say, that the northern feeling can go 
 no further in this direction. I appeal to you, 
 through the memory of the past, to do us the 
 justice we have rendered to you. You asked for 
 Florida. You said it shut you out from the Gulf 
 of Mexico. It was an inlet for political intrigue 
 and social disorganization. It was necessary for 
 your safety. We united with you to obtain it. 
 Our blood, our treasure was freely shared with you 
 
 in making the acquisition. We gave it up to you 
 without reserve. You asked for Texas. It was 
 said to be in danger of falling under the control of 
 your commercial rivals. It was necessary to your 
 safety. You said it would become a theatre for 
 the intrigues of abolitionism. Your slave popu- 
 lation might be endangered without it. We united 
 with you again, and gave you back, by legislation 
 and arms, what you had lost aquarter of a century 
 before by diplomacy. We have now acquired 
 free territory. VVe ask only that it may remain 
 free. Do not ask us to unite with you in extend- 
 ing slavery to it. We abstain from all interference 
 with slavery where it exists. We cannot sanction 
 its extension, directly or indirectly, where it does 
 not exist. And if the authority of the United States 
 is e.xerted for this purpose — if slavery is carried into 
 and established, as it will be by this biH, in the ter- 
 ritory we have acquired — I am constrained to sny — 
 I say it in sorrow — the bond of confidence which 
 unites the two sections of the Union will be rent 
 asunder, and years of alienation and unkindness 
 may intervene before it can be restored, if ever, in 
 its wonted tenacity and strength. Not that I have 
 any present fears for the integrity of the Union. I 
 have not. It is capable of sustaining far ruder 
 shocks than any possible settlement of this ques- 
 tion can give. But what I fear is, that the current 
 of reciprocal kindness and confidence, which runs 
 through every portion of the community, perva- 
 ding, refreshing, invigorating all, may be turned out 
 of its course, and forced into channels to which the 
 common feeling is alien, and in which it may be 
 converted into a fountain of bitterness and strife. 
 I conjure you, then, to avoid all this. Ask us not 
 to do what every princi[)le we have been taught, 
 and taught by your fathers, to venerate, condemns 
 as unnatural and unjust. 
 
 W46 
 

 
 '^-»«(>.» 
 
 0^ .- 
 
 /S ^ V • . . . 
 
 
 ir' •'•• 
 
 • -.^^ '^^i, -♦.Vo' ^0- '^^ 
 
 
 -^0^ 
 
 
 
 ^% 
 
 ,v' o0"»4 <^ O^ .'■'•4 ^O -3> c"""* ^ 
 
 *i> 
 
 .<^^ 
 
 ^ Jfc • • • 
 
 
 
 -^< 
 
 * A 
 
 ^-' 
 
 a V 
 
 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 "yv 
 
 
 
 
 yV 
 
 f V « . 
 
 
 'p 
 
 
 '^^^ A^ 
 
 ^^ 
 
 
 •^- 
 
 
 -^..^^ 
 
 
*°-n*-^ 
 
 .0' 
 
 
 ^^C 
 
 ^'"^ "- y^-^iX ^°^:^^^°- ^^^^-^i'X 
 
 
 ;* <y 
 
 o_ * 
 
 
 
 ^aq^ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 •^*. - • « o 
 
 V .i^nL'* <^. 
 
 
 
 VV 
 
 
 <> *' . 
 
 
 i^-'*-. V 
 
 o_ * 
 
 
 
 0^ •I'f' V" 
 
 
 
 
 
 ■o V 
 
 vv