F 
 .Ii6i 
 
 l4.tl»vv)», Mi^, \U^^y. IM H 
 
 SpaecV>. 
 
 »pa 
 
Class. 
 Book. 
 
 ikj 
 
NEBRASKA AND KANSAS. 
 
 SPEECH 
 
 OF 
 
 HON. HARRY HIBBARD, OF N. H., 
 
 IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, MAY 8, 1854. 
 
 The House being in Committee of the Whole 
 on the state of the Union — , 
 
 Mr. HIBBARD said: Mr. Chairman, those 
 who have served with me here, sir, will liear wit- 
 ness that I liave seldom trespassed upon the time 
 or patience of the House. While from the|outset I 
 have had no doubt as to the course proper for me ! 
 to pursue uiion this measure, I had proposed to ' 
 leave the discussion to other and abler minds. The i 
 importance of the questions involved, however, I 
 and the peculiar nature of the grounds assumed j 
 by some of the opponents of the bill, seem to re- ! 
 quire that I should say something as to the reasons \ 
 for the vote I shall give. That vote, sir, will be \ 
 in favor of the bill. The form 1 prefer is the sub- i 
 stitute just offered by the gentleman from Illinois, 
 [Mr. Richardson,] which is the Senate bill with- j 
 out the Clayton amendment; though without that ; 
 amendment the bill would receive my support. \ 
 
 It seems to me necessary, for causes manifest 
 and urgent, that organizations of some kind be 
 extended over these Territories. This fact I do 
 not understand to be seriously or extensively 
 denied. Its concession has an important bearing 
 upon the questions in controversy. The distin- | 
 guishing principle which lies at the foundation oft 
 the proposed plan commands the decided appro- 
 bation of my judgment. That, sir, is the great 
 principle of self-government — the doctrine that! 
 to every organized community shall pertain the | 
 right, under the Constitution, to regulate their 
 own domestic affairs in their own way. I shall 
 contend that this provision is not only expedient ' 
 and just in itself, but that it has already received 
 ibe a[iproval of tlie country in the emphatic sanc- 
 tion bestowed upon the compromise measures of 
 1850, of which it constituted the great and leading 
 feature. j 
 
 It is alleged that the abrogation by this bill of 
 the line of the Missouri compromise, so called, of 
 1820, is a recision of "a compact" binding in 
 morals, if not in law — a " violation of plighted ; 
 faith." I shall maintain that this objection is i 
 without foundation. 1 
 
 It is charged that the bill legislates slavery into 
 the Territories. I shall endeavor to show that it 
 has no such effect. 
 
 At the North the measure is denounced as 
 yielding too much to the South. At the South it 
 IB assailed as an undue concession to the North. 
 
 The existence of these conflicting objections is, 
 perhaps, one of the best proofs that both are with- 
 out adequate foundation. 
 
 The portion of the bill involving these, and most 
 of the other grounds of controversy, is the fol- 
 lowing: 
 
 "That the Constitution, and all lawsofllie United States 
 which are not locally inapplioahle, shall have the same 
 force and effect within the said Territory of Nebraska as 
 elsewhere within the (Jnited States. Except the eighth 
 section of the act preparatory to the admission of Missouri 
 into the Union, approved March, 182(J, which, being in- 
 consisl-^nt with the principle of noninterv(?ntion by Con- 
 gress wiih slavery in tlie States and Tfirritories as recog- 
 nized by tlie legislation of I><50, (commonly called the 
 compromise me;isnres,) Is hereby declared inoperative and 
 void ; it being the true intent and meaning of this act not 
 to legislate slavery into any Territory or State, nor to ex- 
 clude it therefrom, but to leave the people thereof |)erfcclly 
 free to form and regulate theirdomestic institutions in their 
 own way, subject only to the Constitution of the United 
 States: ProiUcd, That nothing herein cnntained shall be 
 construed to revive or put in force any law or regulation 
 which may have existed prior to the act of March, 182B, 
 either protecting, establishing, prohibiting, or abolishing 
 slavery." 
 
 The eighth section of the act of 1820, prepara- 
 tory to the admission of Missouri, established the 
 line of 36° 3U' north latitude as the boundary be- 
 tween free and slave territniy. The repeal of that 
 section, as proposed in the clause cited, abrogates 
 that line. Is this a violation of any solemn or 
 binding "compact?" Is it or not a breach of 
 "plighted faith.'" This question can best be de- 
 termined upon an examination of the character 
 and history of the enactment known as the Mis- 
 souri compromise. 
 
 Missouri waspart of the Territory of Louisiana, 
 purchased of France by the treaty of 1803. The 
 third article of that treaty was as follows: 
 
 '•The inhabitants of the ceded territory shall he incorpo- 
 rated in the Union of the United Sta-tes, and adniiued, as 
 soon as possible, according to the principles of the Federal 
 Constitution, to the enjoyment of all the li^ht, ad- 
 vantages, urtd immunities of citizens oj the United States; 
 and, in the mean time, they shall be maintained and pro- 
 tected in the free enjoyment of their Whtrty, property, and 
 the religion which they profess." 
 
 The Constitution of the United States provides 
 that " new States may be admitted by Congress 
 into the Union." This must be construed by 
 every rule of interpretation to mean that the power 
 shall be exercised when the necessary and reason 
 able requisites are complied with. In accordance 
 ! both with constitutional and treaty stipulation 
 
Missouri formed her constitution and applied for j 
 admission. Her request was not, to my knowl- ' 
 edge, resisted for any reason involving her extent, 
 population, or other similar matter. It was not: 
 alleged that her proposed constitution did not 
 embody a republican form of government. Mis- , 
 flouri, as a portion of Louisiuiia, was slavehold- \ 
 ing territory at the time of the purchase. Her 
 proposed constitution tolerated slavery as it hiid 
 before existed. For thiscause heradmission was 
 objected to and refused. This refusal was in vio- ; 
 lation of the express stipulation of the treaty that i 
 the inhabitants of the Territory should be admit- 
 ted into theUnioriand protected in the free enjoy- ; 
 ment of their liberty, religion, and " property," 
 of which property their slaves were a part. It 
 went upon theground that Congress, by imposing 
 conditions of admission, may dictate and control 
 the laws and local policy of the States; and that 
 the institution of slavery was thenceforward to be ' 
 the subject of tUis kind of congressional inhibi- j 
 tion. It was an assumption, in my judgment, ; 
 most unwarrantable and dangerous, under theop- ; 
 eration of which the original Confederacy could ' 
 never have been formed; nor, if formed, could it j 
 have continued to exist. The recognition of such t 
 n doctrine would have excluded from the Union ; 
 every southern State. It is not strange that it ] 
 was strenuously opposed, not only by the great | 
 body of the southern members, but by many con- | 
 siderale men of the North, who saw in it, not \ 
 only the violation of a vital principle, but the es- | 
 tablishment of a precedent which would, in time, } 
 react with disastrous consequences upon their own | 
 section. The contest was protracted and severe. 
 It was the first of those sectional struggles v;hich ! 
 have since so frequently arisen to excite popular ' 
 prejudices, distract the public peace, and menace 
 the existence of our most cherished institutions. | 
 The sound of the conflict was that " fire bell in ! 
 the night" which broke upon the startled ears of | 
 Jefferson, fillinghis patriotic mind with anxious : 
 apprehension for the safety of the Republic, to 
 the establishment and maintenance of which his ; 
 illustrious life had been so long and so gloriously 
 devoted. At length, however, the storm was 
 overpast. The ship of Slate had been tossed upon 
 the waves of agitation — her sails were rent by the 
 winds of angry controversy — but she weathered 
 the breakers, and struck not upon the rocks of dis- 
 memberment and disunion. 
 
 The controversy was settled, as was supposed, 
 by the passage of an act, the first section of which 
 provided: 
 
 "That the inhabitants of that portion of the Missouri 
 Territory inchidHil within the houridaries hereinafter desig- 
 nated be, and tliey are hereby, authorized to form for them- 
 selves a constitntion and State government, and lo assume 
 such name as they shall deem proper; and tlie said State, 
 when formed, shall be admiUed into the Uniosi upon an 
 equal fooling wiUi the original States in all respects whal- 
 Boever. " 
 
 The sixth section was as follows: 
 
 " That in all that territory ceded by France to the United 
 States under the name of 'Lolli^iiana, which lie.-t north of , 
 36° 30' north latitude, not included within the limits of the j 
 State contemplated by this act, slavery and involuntary 
 servitude, otherwise than in the punishment of crimes, 
 whereof the parties shall have bei.n liuly convicted, shall 
 be, and is hereby, forever prohibited." 
 
 I This constituted what is called the compromise 
 of 1820, and the line designated in the clause last 
 
 cited is commonly known as the Missouri com- 
 
 fROMISE LIXE. 
 
 In assuming forever to prohibit slavery north of 
 that line Congress clearly transcended its constitu- 
 tional power, so far as related to States which 
 might be formed out of territory covered by that 
 restriction. Any State may legalize that institu- 
 tion at pleasure, under the same rule by which it 
 may abolish it. As South Carolina may forbid 
 slavery, so New Hampshire or Massachusetts 
 may establish it to-morrow. This was admitted 
 by the.gentleman from Missouri in his speech of 
 the other day, when he denied, in emphatic terms, 
 the competency of Congress to control the powers 
 of the States touching the matter of slavery. 
 The unconstitutionality of this material part of 
 the prohibilitm has been more than once solemnly 
 declared by theSupremeCourtoftheUnited Slates, 
 upon cases raised involving that very question.* It 
 was in direct derogniion of the great principle of 
 State rights, which lies at the foundation of our 
 political system. A theory in compliance with 
 which alone the functions of this Government can 
 be successfully or healthfully administered. 
 
 The Missouri compromise restriction, then, is 
 disposed of, so far as it aflfects States. Nothing of 
 it remains, except as regards the temporary, and' 
 comparatively unimportant, condition ofthe Terri- 
 tories. In this respect it was of at least doubtful 
 validity. Its constitutionality has always been 
 questioned by many of the soundest and most 
 eminent statesmen of the land both North and 
 South. That such restrictions have been virtually 
 inoperative, is shown by the fact that slavery ex- 
 isted for years' in one or more of the Territories 
 covered by the kindred ordinance of 1787, not- 
 withstanding that enactment in terms forbade it 
 forever. By undertaking to prohibit slavery north 
 of a prescribed line, and by implication to legalize 
 it south of that line, it was made odious to both 
 sections. It applied the Wilmot proviso above 
 360 30'; it established slavery below. Its legality 
 was disputed by southern men, who acquiesced in 
 it, but did not approve. Its pro-slavery feature 
 brought down upon it and its supporters the bit- 
 terest denunciations from the North, and most of 
 all from that class of politicians who now stand 
 forward as its most enthusiastic advocates. As 
 1 in the case of other compromises based upon 
 1 expediency rather than upon principle, the good 
 I it did was temporary — the evil lasting. It soothed, 
 I but did not extirpate, the malady it was applied 
 ] to cure. It erected, not a breakwater of peace and 
 ! safety, but an invidious monument of discord and 
 division, which revived and exasperated the dif- 
 I ferences it was designed to prevent. Mr. JeflTet* 
 j son de[)lored it as a measure fraught with the most 
 disastrous consequences. His prophetic mind 
 I foresaw the mischiefs it would be sure to generate 
 ' in the future. In speaking of it, he said: 
 
 i " ^ geographical line, coinciJins tvifh a marked principlef 
 moral and political, ovce conceived and held up lo the angry 
 
 i passions of men, will never be ohliterated ; and every new 
 irritation will mark it deeper and deeper." 
 
 And again, in his letter to Lafayette: 
 " On the eclipse of Federalism with us, although not its 
 / extinction, its leaders got up the Missouri question, under 
 |[ the false front of lessening the measureof slavery, but with 
 
 '! * Pollard's Lessee vs. Hagan, 3 Howard's Rep., 212. 
 j Permoli vs. First Municipality, 3 Howard's Rep., 588. 
 :! Strader vs. Graham, 10 Howard's Rep., 82. 
 
3 
 
 Ihe real view of producing a geographical division of parties 
 wliich niiglil insure lliein tlie next President. The people 
 of llie Nortli went blindfold into the snare, followed tlieir 
 leaders for awhile with a zeal truly moral and laudalile, 
 until they became sensihle that they were injuriii(i instead 
 of aiding the real interest of the slaves; that lliey had heoii 
 used merely as tools for electioneeriiii; purposes; and that 
 trick of hy[)Ocrisy then fell as quick as it had been !i;ot up." 
 
 The resistance ii offered sufficed only to fret and 
 cliafe to new fury the counier-curreiits of sectional 
 interest and passion, by which it was unceasingly 
 assailed, it scotched the snake of fraternal strife, 
 but did not kill it. The monster soon reared it.-s 
 head a^aiii, with added strength and venom. 
 
 1 conclude, then, upon this part of the argu- 
 ment, that the scheme of adjustment in question 
 was ill-advised in its coiicepiion, unsatisfactory to 
 the country, and mischievous in Us results. I see 
 in it none of the elements of a compact, which 
 implies competent contracting parties, mutual 
 agreements, and equivalent stipulations. It is, 
 like any oiher legislative enactment, repealable 
 by the power that made it. To say that it was a 
 compact, would im|iute the grossest bad faith to 
 the men of the North by wlnnn it was so soon 
 and so emphatically repudiated 
 
 And how, sir, was it repudiated.' The two 
 provisions which constitute and characterize the 
 act of 1S20, appear in the clause already cited. 
 In all that part of the Louisiana purchase not in- 
 cluded within the limits of the Stale (Missouri) 
 cor.ternplated by that act, slavery was to be pro- 
 hibited. The State of Missouri, also being north 
 of that line, was to be admitted into the Union 
 when she should form her constitution, " upon an 
 equal footing with the original States in all respects 
 whatever." Of course, then, she was to deter- 
 mine the question of slavery for Iierself, as all the 
 other States had done. This is shown by the 
 clause expressly excluding the Territory of Mis- 
 souri from the operation of the slavery prohibi- 
 tion. It is manifest from the accompanying dis- 
 cussion, from the testimony of persons cognizant 
 of the facts, from the record, and from tlie whole 
 history of the transaction. Missouri having 
 formed her constitution, applied again for admis- 
 sion. She was again refused by northern votes. 
 T'le Senate assented to her application, but it was 
 rejected in the House, by a strictly sectional vote. 
 JSotvvithstanding her constitution conformed, in 
 all respects, to the requirements of the preparatory 
 act, the members from the northern Slates, on 
 motion by Mr. Mallory, of Vermont, voted, sixty- 
 one to thirty-three, to refuse her admission, unless 
 she would " further provide, in and by her con- 
 stitution, that neither slavery nor involuntary 
 servitude should ever be allowed " within her 
 borders. A cause assigned for the refusal to admit 
 her was, that her proposed constitution contained 
 a clause |irohibiiing the immigration of free negroes 
 into the S.ute — a prohibition she had an undoubted 
 right to put there — the like of wliich now exists, 
 either by constitutional or statuary enactment, in 
 several of the non-slaveholding States. The whole 
 record shows that the real reason was the slavery 
 feature in her constitution. All this occurred in 
 less than twelve months after the alleged compact 
 of 1820. The stipulation in that act which has 
 been regarded as the one beneficial to the South, 
 NEviiR HAS BtiEM COMPLIED WITH. Misaouri never 
 was admitted under it, butshe was admitted under 
 the provisions of a kte and a different act. 
 
 In February, 1821, on motion of Mr. Clay, then 
 a member of the House, a joint committee of the 
 two Hou.ses was raised to inquire and report upon 
 the di.sposition to be made of tlie application of 
 Missouri, and the terms upon which, if at all, she 
 should be admitted into the Union, That com- 
 mittee reported the following: 
 
 Resolution providing for the admission ofMissouri into the 
 I'nioM on u certain condition. 
 Resolved hy Ike Senate and House of Hejyrescntatives oj 
 the United States of ^mciich in Congress assembled, Thai 
 Missouri shall he admitted into the, Uiiion on an equal foot- 
 iiiC with the original States, in all respects whatever, upon 
 the tundamenlal condition that the fourth clause of the 
 twenty sixth section of the third article of the constituiion, 
 f uliinitled on the pan of the said State to Congress, shall 
 never he construed to authorize the passage of any law, and 
 that no law shall be passed in conformity thereto, by which 
 any citizen of either of the Siate-s in this Union shall he ex- 
 cluded from the eujoynient of any of the privileges and im- 
 iiiunities to which such citizen is entitled under the Coiisli- 
 lution of the United States: Provided, That the Legislature 
 of the said State, hy solemn public act, shall declare ttic 
 assent of the said State to the said fundamental condition, 
 and transmit to the I'lesident of the United States, on or 
 before the fourth Monday in November next, an authentic 
 cojiy of the said act ; upon the receipt whereof the Presi- 
 dent, by proclamation, shall announce the fact; where- 
 upon, and without any further proceeding on the part of 
 Congress, the admission of the said State into this Union 
 shall be considered as complete. 
 
 This resolution insisted, as a new condition pre- 
 cedent, upon the virtual abrogation of the clause 
 prohibiting free negro immigration. It was adopted 
 by Congress, accepted by Missouri, and, uilder 
 its provisions, she took her position as a member 
 of the Confederacy. 
 
 This, then, is the compact of admission — the 
 REAL MsisouRi coMPRO.^iisE — and not the act of 
 1820, with which it is often so erroneously con- 
 founded. It was this, and not the act of 1820, 
 that finally settled the difficulty, and gave peace to 
 the country. This, and not the act of 1820, was 
 the measure of which Mr. Clay was the author, 
 and with which his name has since been so closely 
 and honorably identified. This is the compro- 
 mise that was received by the country with such 
 an outburst of approval and rejoicings. This set- 
 tlement the pending bill >.'oes not disturb. In view 
 of these facts, Mr. Chairman, what becomes of 
 the charge so strangely persisted in, that the act of 
 1820 had been sacredly observed by the North, and 
 that its suspension, as proposed by this bill, would 
 be a "a breach of faith " — a "violation of a sol- 
 emn compact?" 
 
 One other fact, in this connection, is worthy of 
 a passing remark. The delegates from Massa- 
 chusetts voted, in both Houses, against the admis- 
 sion of Missouri, until the clause in question waa 
 stricken out. At the same time there was a law in 
 force upon her statute book, providing as follows: 
 
 " That no person, being an African or negro, (other than 
 a subject of the Emperor of Morocco, or a citizen of some 
 one of the United Slates, to be evidenced by a certificate 
 from the secretary of the State of which he shall be a citi- 
 zen,) shall tarry within this Commonwealth for a longer 
 time than two months, and in ease that the said African or 
 negro (after notice) shall not depart, he shall be committed 
 to the house of correction to be keut to hard labor until the 
 next sessions of the peace ; and it^, upon trial, it sliall ap- 
 pear that the said person ha.s thus continued in the Common- 
 wealth, he or she shall be ivtiijified ten stripes, and ordered 
 to depart out of tlie Commonwealth within ten days; and 
 if he or hhe shall not so depart, the same process shall be 
 had, and punishment inflicted, and so lotics quolics" 
 
 Whata commentary this upon pharisaica! philan- 
 il thropy. Massachusetts votes to reject Missouri 
 
from the Union, unless she will amend the provis- 
 ion of her constitution, excluding free negroes 
 from her borders; while, at that very time, she 
 has a hiw in force for whipping every free neijro 
 out of the State who should tarry there for the 
 space of three months ! The laws of every slave- 
 holding State in the Union will be searched in 
 vain for so barbarous an enactment. At the same 
 time, and until 1834, there was in force in the 
 same State a law em[)Owering the civil authorities, 
 in certain localities, to bind out all adult Indians 
 and mulattoes, and take their earnings for life. 
 What a case for the application of the scriptural 
 maxim — " first cast the beam out of thine own 
 eye, and then shall thou see clearly to cast the 
 mote out of thy brother's eye." 
 
 By these remarks upon the statutes of Massa- 
 chusetts I mean to impute no peculiar or present 
 reproach to the legislation of that ancient and intelli- 
 gent Common wealth. The good sense of her people 
 long since discerned the inconsistency of her posi- 
 tion, and demanded the repeal of these obnoxious 
 enactments. They have been repealed, sir. Her 
 Representatives now in this House and in the other 
 end of the Capitol oppose the pending bill, in 
 common with the entire body of the Whig mem- 
 bers from the North. It is to be hoped that after 
 consideration will yet demonstrate to them the im- 
 propriety of withholding from the people of these 
 Territories the same control over their domestic 
 institutions which their own States have always 
 enjoyed. 
 
 Gentlemen talk sometimes as though they had 
 forgotten the fact that Massachusetts, New 
 Hampshire, Connecticut, Rhode Island, New 
 York, Pennsylvania, and New Jersey, in common 
 with the rest of the Old Thirteen, were once, to a 
 greater or less degree, slaveholding States. In no 
 one of those whioii have since become free was the 
 institution eradicated bv Abolition societies, or by 
 the interference of professional philanthropists 
 frorn abroad. They disposed of it for them- 
 selves. It has been abandoned because it did not 
 consist with the ideas, the climate, the soil, the in- 
 dustrial interests, or the social habits of the people 
 concerned. In most of them it has died out from 
 the operation of natural causes, with no legislative 
 prohibition until the institution had virtually dis- 
 appeared. In one or more of the States where 
 this change has transpired it is believed there has 
 to this day been no legislation upon the subject. 
 Large numbers of these slaves were shipped by 
 their owners, in northern vessels, to southern 
 pr)rts, and sold to southern planters. Men prom- 
 inent in the Abolition crusade are now living at the 
 North upon fortunes originally derived in whole or 
 in part from this very traffic. It should be remem- 
 bered, too, that slavery was not instituted by the 
 people of the South, nor by their southern ances- 
 tors. It was entailed upon them by the mother 
 country, against the united remonstrances of the 
 Colonies at the lime. It was increased by acces- 
 sions from their neighbors in the manner already 
 indicated. As it was established without their 
 agency — as it constitutes a great element of their 
 wealth, and is interwoven with all their political and 
 social institutions, we may well believe that it will 
 not be abolished without their assent and coopera- 
 tion. They will notbe conciliated by theaiiathemas 
 of self-constituted censors in other Slates, nor be 
 convinced by the denunciations of new-born eman- 
 
 cipationists beyond the water. In this, sir, they 
 are right. I know of nothing which ought more 
 to excite the indignation of Americans than this 
 eternal intermeddling with our domestic policy on 
 the part of the press, the emissaries, and the asso- 
 ciated propagandists of Great Britain. She, sir, 
 denounces us as grasping and aggres.sive; while 
 her own path to aggrandizement and empire has 
 been marked around the globe by wrongful seiz- 
 ure, unprovoked bloodshed, and wholesale pi- 
 racy. She is horrified, forsooth, at the annexation 
 of Texas to our Confederacy, by the peaceful and 
 j concurringaction of two independent States; while 
 I she celebrates, with Te Deums and bonfires the vic- 
 [ lories whose fruits were the slaughter, in two days, 
 j of twenty thousand Sikhs upon the ensanguined 
 I plains of India — the compleiii;g of her dominion 
 I over one hundred and twenty millions of people, 
 I against whom she had no real cause of quarrel or at- 
 tack. Herfleets were, forcenturies,lheslavetraders 
 ijand slave carriers of the universe. She forced 
 ji upon the unwilling Colonies the institution she 
 I now anathematizes us for possessing. She insisted 
 M almost to the last upon the fulfillment of her cele- 
 I braled Assiento treaty with reluctant Spain, by 
 1 which she enjoyed, for nearly thirty years, the 
 ! enormously profitable monopoly of furnishing 
 ! negro slaves to all the Spanish provinces in the 
 i New World, to theexclusion even ofSpain herself. 
 j Under that treaty she transported to America and 
 [sold about one hundred and twenty thousand 
 ! negroes; and when she relinquished the last few 
 I years of the infamous contract, she extorted an 
 ','. equivalent of one hundred thousand pounds ster- 
 , ling. Yet she now vaunts of her efTorls for the 
 i suppression of the slave trade, and sets herself up 
 ij as the grand censor morum — the slave emancipating 
 i power of Christendom ! She abounds in sympathy 
 I for the wrongs of the African in America — she 
 gives gorgeous fetes in lordly halls to venal defam- 
 ers of the free land which gave them birth — but 
 j she has no ears for the groans of the sufl'ocating 
 ! laborers in her mines and factories, no bread for 
 || the hunger of the famishing millions of down-trod- 
 ; den Ireland, no contributions for the relief of the 
 i' countless poor of her over-thronged towns and 
 cities, compared with whose squalid wretchedness 
 ;| the condition of the slaves upon our southern 
 'j plantations is a physical and moral paradise. The 
 I ship she sends to us laden at once with libels on 
 I our people, and paupers from her poor houses, 
 
 I meets on its path the American bark hastening to 
 
 II her shores with bread dispatched by American 
 [I bounty for the relief of Irish starvation. May we 
 II not properly say to inlermeddlers from such a 
 :i quarter, , 
 
 1 1 " Go, free your fettered slaves at home, 
 
 II Then turn and ask the like of us!" 
 
 !i There, Mr. Chairman, a few hundred noblea 
 
 and a few thousand gentlemen own all the land, 
 
 and reap the fruits of all the unpaid labor of the 
 
 kingdom. They control the whole power of that 
 
 vast empire. They are the Government. What 
 
 care they for the sufferings or the wrongs, real or 
 
 fancied, of oppressed men anywhere? Nothing, 
 
 sir. But they dread the influence upon their own 
 
 1 effete systems of our free political institutions. 
 
 I They are eager to distract the energies and cripple 
 
 j the growth of their most formidable rival for com- 
 
 I oierrial supremacy and the empire of the seas. 
 
 i Hence they have been ofllicious in casting applea 
 
of discord in our midst. They have originated, 
 instigated, and fostered this element of sectional 
 strife as the most effectual means of accomplish- 
 ing our dismemberment and destruction. 
 
 But to return, Mr. Chairman, to the compro- 
 mise of ]8-20. Not only was it disregarded, on the 
 occasion referred to, in respect to the very con- 
 tingency for which it was made to provide, but 
 the principle of it has since, in repeated instances, 
 been repudiated by the North. When controversy 
 afterwards arose in regard to the new territory 
 acquired, or expected to be acquired from Mexico, 
 it was more than once proposed, on behalf of the 
 South, to extend the line of 36° 30' to the west- 
 ern limit of our territorial possessions. The prop- 
 osition was as often rejected by northern votes. 
 That was the fact in 1847, in 1848, and especially 
 during the proceedinss which resulted in the com- 
 promise measures of 1850. Then, sir, the line of 
 36° 30' was again significantly rejected, and in its 
 stead was substituted a provision to the effect that 
 the people of ihe Territories shall determine the 
 question of slavery for themselves. As a mem- 
 ber of that Conijress I voted n^ainst the line of 
 3fP 30', and for the provision thus adopted in its 
 stead. 
 
 The enactment of 1820 never was a favorite 
 ■with the people of the North. It was opposed by 
 Sfime because they deemed unsound the principle 
 on which it was based; by more because they 
 considered its practical effect unfavorable to the 
 supposed interests of their section. It was carried 
 against the votes of the great body of the north- 
 ern Representatives. And where, sir, were the 
 present leaders of Abolition agitation then, who 
 are most shocked at its proposed suspension 
 now .' They scouted it at the time of its adoption 
 with epithets of bitter opprobrium. They de- 
 nounced it as a capitulation rather than a compro- 
 mise — an ignominious surrender to the demands 
 of the South. They stigmatized it with all the 
 terms of ol)loquy their fruitful vocabularies could 
 furnish. They hanged and burned in effigy those 
 northern men by the aid of whose votes it was 
 enacted , as they now hang and burn in effigy those 
 who go for its repeal. Whenever it was practicable 
 they hunted them down as outcasts fronr> public 
 favor through life. Nor did they stop there. They 
 sought to blacken their names and traduce their 
 memories beyond the grave. 
 
 Then, too, ministers of the Gospel perverted 
 their sacred calling to the uses of factious politi- 
 cians. The pulpit was profaned with the language 
 of the hustings. The regret of sincere Christians 
 was excittd, while the moral sense of the country 
 was shocked by railing anathemas impiously ful- 
 minated, as in the name and by the authority of 
 Deity himself! This is not the only occasion 
 upon which the "drum ecclesiastic" has beat to 
 arms in the cause of partisan warfare. It was so 
 during the war of 1812, when a class of clergy- 
 men made it their especial vocation to decry the 
 cause of their own country, and advocate that of 
 the enemy. They preached desertion, sedition, 
 and treason from the sacred desk. They invoked 
 the judgments of the Almighty upon the officers 
 of the Government, and prayed for starvation and 
 death as the meed of soldiers who went forth amid 
 perils and privations and bloodshed, to fight the 
 battles of their country. So was it at the time of 
 the purcliase of Louisiana, the annexation of 
 
 Texas, the war with Me.xico, and the compro- 
 mise measures of 1850. 
 
 More recently, sir, the pendini; bill has been 
 selected as the peculiar and almost exi-lusive object 
 of clerical denunciation. Some three thousand 
 clergymen have come into the Senate Chamber by 
 memorial, protesting, as they allege, " in the name 
 ^of Almighty God', and in His presence," against 
 this measure, as a "breach of faith," a "great 
 moral wrong," and denouncing "the judgments 
 of the Almighty" upon its supporters! Who, sir, 
 has ordained this new union of church and State, 
 with these gentlemen for judges and arbiters of 
 political affairs.' Who gave them their high com- 
 mission? Who intrusted to their hands the judg- 
 ments of the Almighty, to launch at discretion 
 upon the objects of their displeasure.' 
 "To dfial diiinnalioii round the land 
 On each thtiy di;em His toe !" 
 Who sent them into the political arena as a class, 
 to bandy epithets of parti.san warfare in the name 
 of the Most High — to apf)ly surh terms to a 
 measure which the tenor of their manifesto shows 
 they did not understand, and which, perchance, 
 no one of them had ever read? 
 
 They say they have a legal right thus to mingle 
 in political affairs. So they have, th.'.nk.s to the 
 liberality and toleration of the Constitution and 
 laws it IS their daily business to blacken and de- 
 nounce. There is no doubt of their right, Mr. 
 Chairman, and equally clear is the right of others 
 to condemn their conduct, rebuke their presump- 
 i| tion, and laugh at their folly. As the ministerial 
 ! function, in its true acceptation, is to be revered, 
 ,!atid its professors respected within their proper 
 { sphere; so when they abandon their sacred calling 
 to indulge in the passions and mix in the person- 
 alities of political contest, do they lose their claim 
 h upon our confidence and regard. Nay, more, sir, 
 I there is reason to fear that the forfeiture of pulilic 
 ' respect generated by such exhibitions may affect 
 i not only those really culpable, but operate, thoush 
 ■■' all unjustly, to the discredit of that holy religion 
 whose name is perverted to purposes so repug- 
 ' nant to the precepts and practice of its Divine 
 t founder. 
 
 ■ Before leaving this question of " compact" and 
 i " plighted faith," Mr. Chairman, I wish to c dl 
 i| the attention of the House, and more particularly 
 !( of that class of opponents of this bill known as 
 1 1 Abolitionists, to another clause of the eighth sec- 
 tion of the act of 1820 which has not as yet been 
 particularly noticed. It is in the following words: 
 
 " Provided, always, That any person escapini; into the 
 same fron) wlioin labor or service is lawfully claimed in a'hy 
 State or Territory of the United States, siicli lu!,'itive may 
 be lawfully reclaiiiied, and conveyed to the person claiming 
 his or her labor or service, as aforesaid.'' 
 
 This, sir, is part and parcel of the same section 
 which establishes the Missouri compromise line. 
 If the enactment in question be a compact, this 
 proviso is a portion of the bargain. Its observ- 
 ance is tnade, in terms and forever, an essential 
 condition of the validity of the agreement. Gen- 
 tlemen cannot play fast and loose in this matter. 
 They cannot take the benefit of a part of the stip- 
 ulations, and reject the residue. It is good for the 
 whole or nothing. Now, sir, when these gentle- 
 men eulogize the compromise of 1820 as a " land- 
 mark of freedom," sacred and inviolable, do they 
 mean to cover this clause of it by their indorse- 
 
6 
 
 ment? Will they abide by and execute this pro- i 
 viso in good faith ? Would they, if living within 
 these Territories, aid in the execution of a law 
 made to carry into effect its provisions? Let the 
 
 {)ast answer. Their denunciations of a similar 
 aw, enacted to carry out a plain and peiemptory 
 provision of the Federal Constitution, are yet 
 sounding in our ears. They have eulogized the ( 
 military despotisms of Russia and Austria as freer ; 
 and better governments than our own, because of, 
 the imputed cruelties and abominations of this law. 
 Others, not members of this body, thank God! have ; 
 promulgated a law of civil conduct, repugnant to j 
 the Constitution, and higher than it, under which ' 
 they have called upon excited masses to violate ' 
 the Constitution, to resist the laws, and shed the 
 blood of citizens of sister States, in the pursuit of ; 
 rights guaranteed to theiji by the statutes, and | 
 affirmed by the highest judicial tribunals. From 
 scenes of tumult and bloodshed, excited by their ' 
 inflammatory appeals, and for the guilt of which 
 they are morally, if not legally, responsible, they ' 
 come here to arraign the friends of this bill as 
 breakers of solemn compacts, violators of public 
 faith ! Are these men to be recognized as censors ' 
 of the public morals } Are their fulminations to be \ 
 respected as judgments upon questions of political ! 
 ethics.' No, sir; not by me. Theirpraiseiscen- ' 
 sure, and their censure praise. Let them clean 
 their hands of the stains yet fresh upon them ere 
 tiiey come before the tribunal of the American 
 people to prefer such accusations! Let them be 
 thankful if tiiey are not made to occupy the place 
 of the criminal, instead of that of the prosecutor; 
 and think themselves fortunate if the public con- j 
 tempt shields tliem from the retributions of public 
 justice. i 
 
 I have already adverted to the fact, Mr. Chair- ' 
 man, that during the proceedings resulting in the 
 compromise measures of 1850, Congress refused ; 
 to extend the line of 36'^ 30' across the Territories i 
 then ori^anized. Instead of that, sir, they inserted ' 
 in the bills for Utah and New Mexico the follow- j 
 ing proviso: 
 
 "'I'liat, whnn admitted as a State, tliesaitl Territories, or ; 
 any porlion of {\\p same, sliall be rccfived into the Union, ' 
 wall or widioutslavorv, as tlieir coustituliou may prescribe ' 
 al the lime of its ariopuoii." " i 
 
 This leaves the question of slavery in the States j 
 and Territories, where, in my judgment, it should | 
 be left — WITH THE PEOPLE. Instead of an arhi- | 
 trary geographical line, it establishes a sound and | 
 just general principle. It adopts, not a temporary j 
 expedient, provocative of continual strife, leaving i 
 open the door for fresh agitation upon every new { 
 occasion of territorial acquisition or organization, I 
 but a permanent rule of action, always applicable \ 
 to the social and political relations of men, aflord- 
 ing the basis for a ready adjustment of every like 
 question in all time to come. As such, the coun- | 
 try understood and accepted it. Itjsir.isthe great 
 and di.-tinguishing feature of the pending bill, it 
 is embodied there in the following words: 
 
 " ft beins llic true intent and mfaning of tliis act not to 
 legislate slavery into any Territory or State, nor to exclude 
 it therefrom, but to leave the people thereof free to form 
 and regulate their domestic institutions in their own way, 
 suliject only to the Constitution of the United States." 
 
 This, sir, is plain and explicit. It enunciates 
 the broad doctrine of non-interference on the part 
 of the Federal Government with the institution of 
 slavery, and the control and regulation thereof by 
 
 the States and Territories concerned. It is a prin- 
 ciple which, to be understood, needs but to be 
 slated, and to be af>proved needs but to be under- 
 stood. It addresses itself to all our notions of 
 expediency and right. It apfieals to our strongest 
 sympathies, is strengthened by our traditions, 
 and sanctioned by all our experience as individ- 
 uals and as a people. It is peculiarly congenial 
 to the American mind, and dear to the American 
 heart. Attachment to it the most unyielding has, 
 in all ages, been a distinguishing characteristic of 
 the race from which we sprung. Upon it the 
 frame-work and the details of our system of gov- 
 ernment. Slate and national, are based. For it 
 the iiuttles of the Revolution were fought. It was 
 not for the money sought to be extorted by the 
 stamp act, and the duties on tea and sugar, that 
 our forefathers embarked in that perilous struitgle. 
 It was, sir, because a vital principle was involved 
 — their right of self-government was at stake — 
 there was to be taxation without representation — 
 they were to be made subjects of an uncontrolled 
 central power. For this they took up arms. 
 With God's blessing they triumphed. The prin- 
 ciple they established has been sacredly cherished, 
 and will be faithfully maintained. It is iheground 
 on which all our local and municipul institutions 
 rest. It insists first upon national ijulependence 
 and separate sovereignty. It would leave to the 
 central Government no power the Sta'e can prop- 
 erly exercise — to the Sta'e no function which may 
 as well be performed by the county — to the county 
 nothing that can as well be done l>y the town. It 
 would delegate to no human hands any power or 
 prerogative which the individual citizen may, with 
 safety to others, retain to himself. Its grand re- 
 sults are popuLAr. supremacy. State rights, and 
 iN'Di\iDOAL FREEDOM. Wherever understood and 
 applied, it has been, in all lands and ages, thesur- 
 estsafeguard of civil liberty — the strongest barrier 
 aerainst the encroachments of arbitrary power. 
 That principle, sir, lies at the foundation of this 
 bill. As a supporter of the compromises of 1850, 
 I voted for it then. I stand upon it now. The 
 ground I then assumed I shall inaintain. 1 know, 
 sir, that upon me, as upon every other northern 
 man who occupies this position, the floodgates of 
 abolition vituperation will be opened. It has been 
 so heretofore. As it has not moved me in the 
 past, it will not disturb me now. Deraination and 
 rnenace will pass me as the idle wind. The posi- 
 tion rests upon the rock of immutable truth. The 
 waves of error, fanaticism, and falsehood will beat 
 against it in vain. Whoever plants himself upon 
 it will stand. He who seeks its overthrow will 
 fail in the hopeless attempt. 
 
 "As some tall elift'that lifts its awful form, 
 
 Swells from the vale, and mjdway leaves the storm, 
 Thougli round its breast the rolling clouds are spread, 
 Ktenial sunshine settles on its head !" 
 
 But, why is it necessary to repeal the restriction 
 of 1820, in order to rnake our present action con- 
 sist with the compromise legislation of 1850 .' The 
 answer is obvious, the reason plain. The ob- 
 ject in both cases is to leave the people of the 
 Territories, free, in respect to slavery, from the 
 interference of the General Government. Non- 
 intervention is the end to be attained. A con- 
 gressional prohibition covers Nebraska and Kan- 
 sas that did not exist in the territory acquired 
 from Mexico to which the compromise of 1850 
 
applied. To have non-intervention it is necessary 
 in the |iresent instance to do what was not required 
 in the former — remove the restriction heretofore 
 imposed hy the action of Congress. 
 
 It has been feared by some that the suspen- 
 sion of the Missouri restriction will revive the 
 slave laws of Louisiana wliicti existed prior to 
 the act of 182(1, and were abrofrated by it, upon j^ 
 the ground that, at common law, the repeal of j 
 a repealing s'aiute in some cases revives the ori- ii 
 ginal law. These Territories in 1820 were occu- i| 
 pied wholly, as they are now mainly, by wild In- ! 
 dian tribes, and it may well be doulned whether 
 the laws in question were ever applicable or in \: 
 force there at all. The opinion that they had no 
 application there was intimated by the gentleman ;! 
 from Alabama, [Mr. Phillips,] and the reasons j: 
 given the other day. If this opinion be well 
 founded, and it comes from a source entitling it 
 to no ordinary consideration, it is certain thatiliis |, 
 act does not revive what never had life. But I i 
 will not dwell on this point, because I suppose it !; 
 perfectly clear that if these laws did exist there ^ 
 the bill does not reenact them. They were abro- I 
 gated l>y the act of 1820, and have remained so 
 for more than thirty years. They could not be j 
 renewed but by the operation of some newlegisla- j 
 live act. Does the repeal of the restriction of 1820, | 
 by which they were removed, have any such oper- ' 
 ation .' The rule of common law is that by the re- 
 pea! of a repealing statute, (the new law containing \ 
 nothing that manifests the intention of the Legis- ; 
 lature that the former act shall continue repealed,) ; 
 the original statute is revived; but not otherwise.* 
 The intention that these laws shall not be renewed, j 
 but shall continue repealed, could not well be more ': 
 explicitly declared than is done in the pendingbill, 
 by the following proviso, already cited for another ' 
 purpose: 1 
 
 " It being the irue intent and meaning of this act not to ! 
 legislate slavery into any Territory or Stale, nor to exclude 
 it therefrom, but to leave the people therpof perfectly free j 
 to form and n-ciiiate their domestic institutions in their 
 own way, subject only to the Constitution of the United 
 Slates." 
 
 But for doubts expressed in some quarters, it ! 
 never would have occurred to me that there could j 
 be any two opinions as to the effect of this clause, i 
 To remove all question, however, and place be- 1 
 yond controversy what was before certain, the 
 proviso moved in the Senate by Mr. Badger, of 
 of North Carolina, comes in, and declares: 
 
 " That nothing confinncd in this act shall be construed 
 to revive or put in forcn any law or regulation which 
 may have e.\isied prior to 6ih iMarch, 1820, either protect- 
 ing, establishing, prohibiting, or abolishing slavery." 
 
 Thus was assurance made doubly sure. This 
 was simply a declaratory clause To adopt the 
 words of the gentleman from Alabama, it was 
 tautological, " and could have been intended only 
 to quiet the apprehensions of gentlemen whose 
 knowledge of the law was not equal to their cau- 
 tion." It seems to me, therefore, that Mr. Bad- 
 ger's proviso, while it tends to remove objections 
 entertained by some at the North, can have no 
 effect that should render it less acceptable in any 
 quarter. 
 
 Slavery is a local institution . It exists by virtue 
 of local or municipal laws. It is permitted by the 
 
 * Dwarris on Statutes, p. 531 ; Tattle v. Grimwood, 3 
 Bing. Rep., 496. 
 
 Federal Constitution — is not iiiconsi.stent with it, 
 but is not established liy it. Tlie Constitution 
 recognizes the right of the States to determine the 
 matter for theinselves. This bill projioses the. 
 same thing for the Territories. It does for Nebraska 
 and Kansas, what the compronii.se legislation of 
 1850 did for Uiah and New Mexico — nothing 
 iTiore, nothing less. It does nolestablisli slavery, 
 nor prohibit it; but leaves to the peoj)le concerned 
 to say whether they will Irave it or not. The 
 question has arisen, whether slaves carried into 
 these Territories, after the pa.ssag^ofthis bill, could 
 be held as such before any territorial legislation 
 upon the subject. Southern gentlemen have ex- 
 pressed the o|>inion that they could be so holden. 
 A contrary view is taken at the North. I, as a 
 northern man, concur in the opinion that slaves 
 could not be holden, in the absence of authority 
 from local laws. But this is not a ground for 
 difference in regard to the pending niea.sure. The 
 Supreme Court is the proper tribunal to settle 
 the controversy, should it ever practically arise. 
 There, sir, 1 am willitig to leave it. There this 
 bill leaves it. Congress cannot prejudge the con- 
 stitutional question. The bill does not undertake 
 to do it. It involves, therefore, no surrender nor 
 concession, in this paiticular, l>y either party. It 
 leaves every citizen to stand where all should be 
 content to stand, upon his rights under the Con- 
 stitution. 
 
 Slavery, then, is not established in the Territo- 
 ries by this bill. In my judgment, sir, it could 
 not be carried there by any legislatitjii. It will 
 never go there. It has been practically excluded by 
 a higher power than ours. That, sir, is the power 
 which fashioned the territory, mixed iis soil, de- 
 termined its products, and tempered its skies. 
 The condition of this region in this respect, though 
 in some particulars for different natural causes, is 
 that of California and New Mexico. It does 
 not require, nor is it to any extent compatible, 
 with slave labor. The people by whom it will be 
 inhabited, whether from the North or the South, 
 will generally be such that their interests, if not 
 their inclinations, will be adverse to slavery. This 
 opinion has been substantially expressed by some 
 of the most piominent statesmen of the North 
 who oppose the bill, and by alinost, if not quite, 
 every southern speaker who has alluded to the 
 matter. And, sir, it gives me pleasure to say of 
 the mass of the southern men here who favor this 
 measure, that they ask it not because it will give 
 any new advantage to their section, but because 
 it recognizes their constitutional rights, and con- 
 cedes their constitutional equality. 
 
 The issue presented by this bill, Mr. Chairman, 
 will go before the country. No man need fear to 
 trust that tribunal with the decision of such a 
 question. It is one of those matters upon which 
 the people will be found in advance of rulers and 
 politicians. They, sir, are for progress when that 
 progress is in the direction of right and their own 
 well-being. Whoever |)laces hitnself in its way 
 will be overwhelmed by the advancing mass. I 
 had anticipated, sir, that this measure, embodying 
 principles so salutary and defensible, coming to 
 us with such an emphatic sanction from the other 
 House, would have met with the speedy appro- 
 bation of a large majority of this body. It haa 
 'been procrastinated. The votes of to-day have 
 I shown that it cannot be defeated. That certainty 
 
8 
 
 has already been proclaimed on lightning wings 
 to the country. But, sir, even if it should be 
 defeated for the present by the elements of op- 
 position combined against it, that result, though 
 matter of regret, would abate nothing of my con- j 
 viction of its justice and expediency — nothing j 
 of my confidence in its ultimate success. Such j 
 was the fate of the movement against the United 
 States Bank, the Independent Treasury, the rev- 
 enue tariff, the compromise acts of 1850, and other i 
 great measures of Democratic policy. They, 
 too, were misunderstood and misrepresented, op- 
 posed and obstructed. Some of them failed for a 
 time. They were thrown back upon the country for 
 examination. The people canvassed them, sanc- 
 tioned them, rallied to their rescue, and bore them 
 irresistibly forward to a glorious triumph. They 
 have become canons of the republican church — 
 touchstones of political orthodoxy. Their bitterest 
 revilers are fain to deny their former opposition, 
 and claim the credit of having been their friends. 
 It will be so now. Through the clouds and thick 
 darkness that have enveloped the present con- 
 troversy, I see even now the dawn of a brighter 
 day. It will become clear and pervading as the 
 light of the noon-day sun. The great principle of 
 self-government will be vindicated, and the sla- 
 very agitation will be banished forever from the 
 Halls of Congress. It is time that this agitation 
 should cease. Futile for good, it has been potent 
 only for evil, and that continually. It has been 
 fruitful of strife, heart-burnings, and peril, but it 
 has liberated no slave. It has made his yoke 
 heavier and his chain tighter. It has set brother 
 against brother. State against State, and section 
 against section. At the North it has excited ani- 
 mosity towards the South; at the South it has 
 stirred up enmities against the North. It has 
 estranged those whom God and nature designed 
 for friends — whose interests are promoted as their 
 intercourse is increased — their relations more inti- 
 mate, their interchange of products and friendly 
 offices more frequent. By interfering where it has 
 no right, and attempting to dragoon and to coerce, 
 when, if it interposes at all, it should seek to con- 
 ciliate and persuade, it has exasperated the master, 
 while it has discontented, without benefiting the 
 slave. It has induced the necessity for more rigor- 
 ous laws and stricter discipline. It has wedded the 
 Bouthern mind to a system it might otherwise have 
 been disposed, when it was practicable, to aban- 
 don, and rolled back the car of emancipation for 
 half a century. It has continued the existence of 
 slavery in several of the States, which, but for its 
 interference, would, in my belief, have to-day been 
 free. It is the canker worm of our peace, the 
 serpent in the garden of our prosperity, the sole 
 formidable obstacle in the way of our national 
 advancement and perpetuity. Shall we continue 
 longer to foster and to encourage it.' Let it be 
 driven by the passage of this bill, like an Achan 
 from our camp; and henceforth let the brand of 
 public reprobation, like the mark of Cain, be set 
 
 upon the brow of him who would stir up anew 
 the fires of sectional strife, or raise the hoarse cry 
 of discord and disunion. The memories of the 
 past, the realities of the present, the kindling augu- 
 ries of the future, all beckon us onward to a course 
 of power, of empire, and of grandeur as a nation, 
 unparalleled in the annals of time. Shall we falter, 
 and pause, and turn back from this magnificent 
 career, to weep over the imaginary wrongs of the 
 red man, or the black; to criminate and quarrel 
 about the balance of power between the North and 
 the South } 
 
 Let us eschew such miserable themes of strife. 
 In the noble words of him who guides the helm 
 of State, let us know " no North, no South, no 
 East, no West, but fidelity to the common bond, 
 and true devotion to the common brotherhood." 
 The spirit of comprehensive patriotism there ut- 
 tered has guided him through life. We may be 
 sure that it will animate him to the end. With a 
 mind alive to the stirring calls of our future, watch- 
 ful ever of the country's interests and honor, he 
 will be found to possess, under all circumstances, 
 and upon all occasions, the dauntless will to ex- 
 ecute whai iiis judgment shall ordain. He knows 
 that the people will scorn the degrading scramble 
 for place, and form their opinions of his acts upon 
 considerations beyond those of appointments to 
 office, or the disappointments of faction. Strong 
 in his convictions of right, conscious of the rec- 
 titude of his purposes, with a heart that never 
 throbbed but with pulsations for his country's 
 good, he will pursue right onward the steadfast 
 tenor of his way. He will rely upon God ard his 
 countrymen for support, and he will not rely in 
 vain. 
 
 The sceptre of the world's supremacy is within 
 our grasp. While the terrible storm of universal 
 war, that has so long blackened and muttered over 
 the affrighted nations of the Old World, is burst- 
 ing in fire and slaughter upon their devoted heads, 
 we are left undisturbed to fulfill the purposes of 
 our destiny — to spread the blessings of civilization 
 over the western wilderness, to expand our do- 
 minions to the remotest limits of the continent, 
 stopping not short of the islands of the sea. In 
 this comparison, how paltry do these sectional 
 feuds and bickerings appear! How insane, for 
 reasons such as have been suggested, to arrest the 
 work of organizing these vast and fertile territo- 
 ries, these great middle grounds, connecting the 
 civilizations of the East and the West, where the 
 mighty tide of population now overspreading the 
 valley of the Mississippi, and climbing the ranges 
 of the Rocky Mountains, will meet and mingle 
 ■jvith the counter current that pours eastward from 
 j the t;olden shores of the Pacific! Our position 
 would be that of the sordid wretch, seen in the 
 vision of the Pilgrim, who was busy with hia 
 muck-rake, gathering up chips and dirt and garb- 
 age, unmindful of the glittering crown of eternal 
 life and glory held suspended by an angel over 
 his head. 
 
 Triuted at the Congressional Globe Office. 
 
I • ^^