Bnnk '15 L/ 
 
SPEECH 
 
 I- 
 
 OF 
 
 R. "^INGHAM, OF MICHIGAN, 
 
 ON THE 
 
 ADMISSION OF CALIPOENIA. 
 
 n,5jJ--':'^ 
 
 DELIVERED 
 
 fi^ 
 
 IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, JUNE 4, 1850. 
 
 WASHINGTON : 
 
 PRINTED AT THE CONGRESSIONAL'' GLOBE OFFICE. 
 
 1850 
 

THE SLAVEllY UUESTION. 
 
 Mr. BINGHAM said : 
 
 Mr. Chairman, two years ago I took occasion to express in this Hall 
 my opinion of the constitutionality and expediency of applying the pro- 
 visions of the JefFersonian ordinance to the territories recently acquired 
 from Mexico. I stated my belief that slaveiy was a great moral and 
 political evil ; that it was an element of weakness wherever it existed ; 
 that it was a hindrance to the growth and prosperity of a State ; that it 
 was wholly incompatible with that degree of intelligence which makes 
 labor either respectable or profitable, and that it was our duty to pro- 
 tect these new and feeble territories thrown upon our care, from its 
 dangerous and threatened encroachments. I propose "to take no step 
 backward now." I have seen no reason to change my opinion. 
 The vindication of slavery by its able champions on this floor, has given 
 no attractions to its features, or rendered them any less odious to my 
 view. The argument to support the right to carry slaves into the terri- 
 tories and colonize them, under the Constitution, has proved entirely un- 
 satisfactory ; for I regard it as exclusively a State institution, protected 
 solely and only by the laws of the State, and no more susceptible of being 
 transferred to the territories and protected by the United States Govern- 
 ment, than is the common-school s\'stem or the banking" system of the 
 State of Michigan. 
 
 Mr. Chairman, in the earlier and better days of this Republic, slavery 
 was everywhere, North and South, execrated and denounced as an evil 
 and a curse. Its introduction into this country was made the subject of 
 earnest protest, and its emancipation was regarded as an object which 
 would be accomplished at an early day after the close .of the Revolution, 
 and as both desirable and proper. Some weeks since, an honorable gen- 
 tleman from Ohio, [Mr. Campbell,] and more recently, an honorable 
 gentleman from Maine [Mr. Gerry] introduced to the notice of southern 
 gentlemen, for the purpose of refreshing their recollection, the opinions of 
 their ancestors. For the purpose of my argument, I shall repeat a few 
 of those precious extracts. In an able exposition of the rights of British 
 America, and laid before the convention of Virginia, which assembled in 
 August, 1774, lor the purpose of appointing delegates to the proposed 
 Congress, drawn by Thomas JefTerson, is the following extract: 
 
 " Tht abolition of domestic slavery is the greatest object of desire in these colonies; where 
 it was unhappily introduced in their infant state. But, previous to the enfranchisement of the 
 
slaves, it IS necessary to exclude furtlier importations from Africa. Yet our repeated attempts 
 to ertect this by prohibitions, and by imposing duties wliich might amount to prohibition, have 
 been hitherto defeated]byhis iVIiijesty's nesative; thus preferring the immediate advantage of a 
 few African corsairs to the lasting interests of the American States, and the rights of human' 
 nature, deeply wounded by this infamous practice." — ^m. Jlrchives, itk series, vol. 1, jj. 696. 
 
 The Congre.^s of Darien, in the colony of Georgia, passed the fol- 
 lowing preamble to a series of resolutions: 
 
 *' We, the representatives of the extensive district of Darien, in the colony of Georgia, being 
 now assembled in Congress, by the authority and free choice of the inhabitants of said district, 
 now freed from their fetters, do resolve." 
 
 Then follow several resolutions setting forth the grounds of complaint 
 against the oppressions of Great Britain, closing with the emphatic 
 declaration which I will now read : 
 
 " To show to the world tliat we are not influenced by any contracted or interested motives, 
 but by a general philanthropy for all mankind, of whatever climate, language, or complexion, 
 we hereby declare our disapprobation and abhorrence of the unnatural practice of slavery in 
 America, (however the uncukivated state of our country or other specious arguments may plead 
 for it) — a practice founded in injufsiice and cruelty, and highly dangerous to our liberties as well 
 as lives, debasing pait of our fellow-creatures below men, and corrupting the virtue and morals of 
 the rest, and layini: the basis of that liberty we contend for, and which we pray the Almighty to 
 continue to the latest posterity, upon a very wrong foundation. We therefore resolve at all 
 times to use our utmost endeavors for the manumission of our slaves in this colony, upon the most 
 safe and equitable footing for the masters and themselves." — Jim. Jlrchives, Mh series, vol. l,p. 
 1135. 
 
 In front of the State-House, Philadelphia, was proclaimed the fol- 
 lowing sentiments : 
 
 " JVe hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal; that they are endowed 
 with certain inalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." 
 — Declaration in Congress, July 4, 177G. Thomas .Jefferson. 
 
 George Washington, in a letter to Robert Morris, dated Mount Vernon, 
 April 12th, 1786, said: 
 
 "I can only say, there is not a man living who wishes more sincerely than I do to see a plan 
 adopted for the abolition of it, (slavery;) but there is only one proper and effectual mode in 
 which it can be accomplished, and tliat is by legislative authority; and this, so far aa my suf- 
 frage will go, shall never be wanting." — Sparks's IVaskington, 156. 
 
 Again, in a letter to John F. Mercer, dated September 9, 17S6, he 
 said: 
 
 "I never mean, unless snme particular circumstances should compel me to it, to possess 
 another slave by purchase, it being among my first wishes to see some plan adopted by which 
 slavery in this country may be abolished by law." 
 
 In his Notes on Virginia, Mr. Jefterson says : 
 
 " I think a change already perceptible since the origin of our present R.evolution. The spirit 
 of the master is abating — that of the slave is rising from the dust, his condition mollifying, and 
 the way, I hope, preparing, under the auspices of Heaven, for a total emancipation." 
 
 Again, Mr. Jefferson says : 
 
 "Nobody wishes more ardently than I to see an abolition, not only of the trade, but the con- 
 dition of slavery, and certainly nobody will be more willing to encounter any sacrifice for that 
 object." 
 
 In tlie Convention which formed our Constitution, Mr. Madison said : 
 
 " I think it wrong to admit the idea, in the Constitution, that there can be property in man." 
 
 The suggestion of Mr. Madison was adopted, and so zealous were 
 the framers of that instrument to prevent even a color of approbation 
 for the long continuance of the institution, that not even the term slave 
 was allowed to find its way into the Constitution. 
 
 In the Convention of the State of North Carohna, when the question 
 of the adoption of our Federal Constitution was under consideration, Mr. 
 Iredell, of that State, said : 
 
•' When the entire abolition of slavery takes place, it will be an event which must be pleasing 
 to every generous mind and every friend of human nature." 
 
 Mr. Parker, who was a member of the first Congress under the Con- 
 stitution, from Virginia, during a discussion in relation to that pro\'ision 
 of the Constitution inhibiting the slave trade, held the following language : 
 
 " He hoped Congress would do all in their power to restore to human nature its inherent 
 privileges, and, if possible, wipe off the stigma which America labored under." 
 
 Mr. Mason, of Virginia, while the same provision was under consid- 
 eration in the Federal Convention that formed the Constitution, said: 
 
 " The present question concerns not the importing States alone, but the whole Union. The 
 evil of having slaves was experienced duiing the late war. Had slaves been treated as they 
 might have been by the enemy, they would have proved dangerous instruments in their liands." 
 
 Again, on the same occasion, after having said many things which, if 
 repeated now by any gentleman from the free States, w^ould, in the opin- 
 ion of gentlemen from the South, entitle him to the sobriquet of " Abo- 
 litionist," spoke as follows: 
 
 *' He held it essential, in every point of view, that the General Government should have power 
 to prevent the increase of slavery-" 
 
 The institution of slaveiy at the period referred to, was regarded with 
 so much hostihty by the leading men in all parts of the country, that the 
 committee who drafted and reported the Declaration of Independence, 
 felt constrained to, and did assign the fact, that the British King had by 
 his acts fastened it upon the Colonies, as one of the grievances which 
 justified separation. The ordinance of '87, in these words — "there shall 
 be neither slavery nor involuntary servitude therein, except for the pun- 
 ishment of crime of which the party shall have been duly convicted" — 
 received the support of every southern man. Mr. Leigh, in the Conven- 
 tion of Virginia, in 1S32, said: 
 
 "1 thought till very lately, that it was known to everybody, that during the Revolution, and 
 for many years after, the abolition of slavery was a favorite topic witli many of our al)lest states- 
 men, who enteitained with rfcspect all the schemes which wisdom or ingenuity could suggest 
 for its accomplishment." 
 
 These short extracts, Mr. Chairman, disclose the true sentiments of 
 southern statesmen, and exhibit the feehngs which pervaded the southern 
 States at the time, and soon after the close of the Revolution, which 
 gave us a name and a rank among the nations of the earth. Freedom, 
 liberty, emancipation, was the great idea. But, Mr. Chairman, a change 
 has come over the spirit of the South. One after another the found- 
 ers of the nation have passed away ; a new generation has suc- 
 ceeded them. A hfe of luxurious indolence is entirely inconsistent 
 with emancipation. It is easier to appropriate the proceeds of the labor 
 of others than to earn, by honest industry ; and labor, once honorable, 
 has become degraded, for who would be the yoke-fellow of the slave ? 
 New slave States have been added to the Confederacy, and new terri- 
 tory acquired, political power has thereby been obtained, and ambi- 
 tion ha.s been gratified. The Senator from Massachusetts attributes this 
 sudden change — by which, instead of considering slaveiy "an evil, a 
 bhglit, a blast, a mildew, a scourge, and a curse, it has become a cher- 
 ished institution; no evil, no scourge, but a great religious, social, and 
 moral blessing — to the sudden uprising and rapid growth of the cotton 
 plantations of the South." Whatever the cause may be, it is certain 
 that the change has taken place ; and for the purpose of letting my con- 
 
stituents see whnt the sentiments of members of this House are, I append 
 a few extracts from their speeches, delivered the present session : 
 
 " It haa been said that slavery is a 'doomed institution;' and so 1 believe—' doomed' to exist 
 forever. It is one of the oldest institutions among men. In every ae;e, in every clime,_ 
 it has been practiced and sanctioned by mankind, whether acting upon the light of nature or of 
 revelation. Indeed, among men, Christianity itselfhas notso many evidences in its favor — a small 
 part of mankind have been Christians, while the practice of slavery has been universal. Solon 
 and Lycurgus are known to us by the fame of their legislation: they made no laws against 
 slavery. Greece and Rome, the most distinguished and civilized of ancient nations, were slave- 
 holders. Our Constitution, the work of our fathers, recognizes it. Our Saviour stood upon the 
 world amid slaves, where the master had power over the life of the servant— he did not rebuke 
 it or denounce it as a crime. And I trust that I will be pardoned for resting my conscience 
 upon these high authorities, and for declining to commit it to the keeping of these modern free- 
 soil saints, who have so much trouble in keeping their own. — {Speech of Hon. J. H. Savage, of 
 Tennessee, May 13." 
 
 But, sir, slavery is not only justified, but it is claimed that it was the 
 design of the fraraers of the Constitution to extend and perpetuate it. 
 I will read another extract: 
 
 "To extend the institution indefinitely, it [the Constitution] prohibited the passa£;e of any law 
 to stop the importation of slaves from Africa, and elsewhere, prior to the year 1808. Another 
 clause, with a view to its perpetuation forever, provides for the recapture of fugitives who escape 
 to non-slaveholding Stales. Notwithstanding these plain stipulations between the slaveholding 
 and non-slaveholding States, constituting the essential, vital provisions of the Constitution, with- 
 out which all admit the Confederation could not have been formed, we are cantingly told that 
 ' slavery is a sin, and the North is opposed to its extension.' 'We, the philanthropists of 
 this day, are better than tlie sages and heroes, purified by the trials of the Revolution, and 
 covered with its glories, who assemiiled in the old hall of the Confederation in 1787.' I have no 
 reply to make to these pharisaical pretensions; they are beneath contempt. I am content with 
 tke religion of the Bible, and the Constitution of our fathers, uncorrupted by the comments of 
 the pseudo moralists and statesmen who now shed their coruscations upon us. I shall certainly 
 not condescend to reply to the puling sojdiistry upon this subject, so often heard in this House. 
 Were 1 disposed to argue the question of slavery, without reference to the Constitution, in alt 
 its relations, religious,"moral, social, and poliiir'al, no fear of its successful vindication would 
 restrain me. It wou'd seem to be profanation to call an institution of society irreligious or im- 
 moral, which is expressly and repeatedly'sanctioned by the word of God; which existed in the 
 tents of the patriarchs; and in the households of His own chosen people." — Speech of lion. 
 Mr. Inge, of .Alabama. 
 
 An honorable gentleman from Mississip})i, [Mr. Featherston,] says, 
 
 " That slavery is the natural, the proper condition of the African — one that is advantageous 
 to his master, and a great blessing to him." 
 
 An honorable gentleman from Virginia, [Mr. Bocock,] from the land of 
 Washington and Jefferson, says: 
 
 " It is now asserted that slavery is '« moral evil,' in other words, a sin, and consequently that 
 those who hold slaves, are guilty therefor. Sir, when I look to those enduring piecepts of 
 moral conduct which, mocking all change, and defying all flight of years, shall be made more 
 and more illustrious as eternal ages shall crown them with the fruits of their happy influence, I 
 see slavery there tolerated, 1 had almost said inculcated. * * * Satisfied ourselves that there 
 is no imnioralily in it, we have a very slight opinion of those who are so egregiously wounded in 
 conscience for us. " 
 
 And the honorable gentleman from Mississippi [IMr. Brown] says: 
 
 "You think that slavery is a great evil. Very well, think so; but keep your thoughts to your- 
 selves. For myself, ! regard slavery as a great moral, social, and religious blessing — a blessing 
 to the slave, and a blessing to his master." 
 
 An honorable gentleman from Alabama, [Mr. Alston,] in reply to 
 an honorable member from New York, who had stated that the South 
 acknowledged the si?i and evil of the institution, and yet sought to extend 
 that evil to others, said, "that tlie South entertained no such opinions," 
 and added, "We are told by St. Paul that if there had been no law, 
 there would have been no sin ; — then sin must be a violation of divine 
 law; and I shall proceed to show that slavery is not a violation of that 
 law, and therefere no sin." The remainder of his hour was devoted to 
 
the proof that slavery was a divine institution, estabhshed by the law of 
 God ; that the public wealth and happiness were promoted by it, and 
 that it was our duty to perpetuate and extend it. I leave the question 
 of its origin, Mr. Chairman, to be settled by theologians ; with that I 
 have, at present, nothing to do; my only object in making these quota- 
 tions is to show, that while the statesmen and people of the Noilli have 
 consistently and uniformly regarded slaveiy as an evil, that the sen- 
 timent and action of the South has undergone a change, and that from 
 a unanimous desire which they once entertained to restrict its limits, 
 and to gradually but finally exterminate it from the land, they have 
 put forth their mightiest efforts to strengthen, extend, and perpetuate it. 
 This desire on the part of southern statesmen was first exhibited in the 
 celebrated Missouri controversy. They were unwilling to relinquish a 
 single acre of that immense Louisiana purchase from the grasp of the 
 slave power. Then, as now, the stability of the Union was menaced, 
 and the North was taunted with the threat of a southern confederacy; 
 but in the settlement of the controversy, a southern President, with a 
 southern Cabinet, of which Mr. Calhoun was one, distinctly acknowl- 
 edged the power of Congress over slaveiy in the territories. The same 
 spirit was manifested in the Florida purchase. But it was never so 
 boldly and shamelessly exhibited as in the negotiations for the annexa- 
 tion of Texas. I propose, Mr. Chairman, to make some quotations from 
 the celebrated correspondence which preceded the treaty, under Mr. 
 Tyler's administration, that my constituents may see the motive which 
 prompted southern statesmen to enter into that negotiation, and also to 
 convince them of the propriety, nay absolute necessity, of ingrafting the 
 anti-slaveiy restriction into the two and three milhon bills which after- 
 wards proposed the acquisitioH of Mexican territoiy, and into territorial 
 governments now that the country is acquired. These negotiations were 
 based upon the assumption that the British Government was exerting its 
 influence to obtain from Mexico the recognition of Texan independence, 
 a condition of which was, that slaveiy was to be abolished in Texas, 
 This excited in the minds of the southern slaveholders in the Cabinet 
 the greatest alarm, and the powers of the Government were put forth to 
 prevent it. In a dis})atch to Mr. IMurphy, the Secretary of State, Mr. 
 Upshur says : 
 
 "A movement of this sort cannot be contemplated by us in silence. Such an attempt upon 
 any neighboring country would necessarily he. viewed by this Government with very deep 
 concern, but where it is made upon a nation whose territories join the slaveholdins; Slates of our 
 Union, it awakens a still more solemn interest. It cannot be permitted to succeed without the 
 most strenuous efforts on our part to arrest a calamity so serious to every part of the country." 
 
 Again lie says: 
 
 " But there is another view of this subject still more important to us, and scarcely less import- 
 ant to Texas herself. The establishment, in the very midst of our slaveholding States, of an 
 independent government, forbidding the existence of slavery, and by a people born, for the most 
 part, among us, reared up in our habits, and speaking our language, could not fail to produce 
 the most unhappy eiTects upon both parties. If Texas were in that condition, her territory 
 would afford a ready refuge for the fugitive slaves of Louisiana and Arkansas, and would hold 
 out to them an encouragement to run away, which no municipal regulations of those Slates could 
 possibly counteract." 
 
 Again, in another dispatch, he says : 
 
 "There is no reason to fear that there will be any difference of opinion among the people of 
 the slaveholding Stales; and there is a large number in the non-slaveholding States, with views 
 sufficknlly liberal to embrace a policy absolutely necessary to the saivalion of the South, although, 
 in some respects, objectionable to themselves." 
 
8 
 
 In another dispatch, m which he is speaking of Texas remaining an 
 independent government, and of its being peopled by emigrants from 
 Europe, he says: 
 
 " But the first measure of the new emigrants, as soon as they shall have sufficient strength, will 
 be to destroy that great domestic institution upon which so much of the prosperity of our southern 
 country depends. 
 
 " 1 will only add, that if Texas should not be attached to the United States, she could not 
 maintain that institution ten years — and probably not half that time." 
 
 Mr. Calhoun succeeded in the Department of State, and in his first 
 letter to Mr. Packenham, the British Minister, taking up the correspond- 
 ence where it was left by the untimely death of Mr. Upshar, after a 
 detailed statement of the histoiy and condition of slavery in the United 
 States, he says : 
 
 "That what is called slavery is, in reality, a political institution, essential to the peace* 
 safety, and prosperity of those States of the Union in which it exists." 
 
 And, after the treaty v;^as concluded, in a dispatch communicating the 
 fact to the Mexican Government, he assigns as a reason for annexation — 
 
 "That the step was forced on the Government of the United States, in self-defence, in con- 
 sequence of the policy ado|Hfd by Great Britain in reference to the abolition of slavery in 
 Texas. It was impossible for the United States to witness with indifference the efforts to abolish 
 slavery there." * * * " And that, if accomplished, it would lead to a state of things danger- 
 ous in the extreme to the adjacent States, and the Union itself." 
 
 These extracts, Mr. Chairman, from a voluminous correspondence 
 carried on in secret — all knowledge of which ^vas entirely excluded from 
 the American people, and v/hich never saw the light of day until the veil of 
 secrecy was removed after the rejection of the treaty — are sufficient, I 
 trast, to establish the fact that the southern slaveholders desired the 
 annexation of Texas, principally for the purpose of strengthening and 
 perpetuating slaveiy. 
 
 These reasons for the annexntion of Texas were exclusively southern 
 reasons ; but to the North, a different language was held ; and the Hon. 
 Mr. Walker, late Secretary of the Treasury, in a public letter, exten- 
 sively circulated at the North, after stating elaborately the public benefits 
 which.would be gained by annexation, thus refers to slavery : 
 
 " The question is asked, ' Is slavery never to disappear from the Union.'' Tliis is a startling 
 and monipntous question; but the answer is easy, and the proif is clear. It ivill ccrlainly dis- 
 appear if Texas is reannextd to the Union — not by abolition — but slowly and gradually, by ' diffu- 
 sion,' as it has thus already nearly receded from several of the more northern of the slaveholdmg 
 States; and as it will continue thus more rapidly to recede by the reannexation of Texas, and, 
 finally, in the distaat future, v/ithout a shock, without abolition, without a convulsion, disappear 
 into and through Texas into Mexico and Central and Southern America." 
 
 This plausible tlieoiy, which was also presented in a speech by Mr. 
 Buchanan, in the United States Senate, was intended " exclusively for 
 the northern eye." The entire negotiation, and the correspondence, were 
 known only to southern men, and conducted exclusively by them. The 
 pubMc never would have seen it, if, long after, a majority of the Senate 
 had not removed the injunction of secrecy. Indeed, sir, I believe that 
 nearly every man who voted for the treaty, strenuously opposed and 
 voted against the pubhcation of the correspondence. Texas was 
 annexed. The people of the North who supported it, were governed, I 
 trust, liy motives far higher, and far more worthy, than any which related 
 to the question of slavery. The joint resolutions which passed both 
 Houses of Congress, contained an alternative, which was dictated by 
 the wisdom of Mr. Benton, and which was intended to avoid any mis- 
 understanding or coUision with Mexico, and to the adoption of which, 
 
9 
 
 the faith of the outgoing and incoming Administrations were solemnly- 
 pledged. That pledge was broken, and we were soon hurried into a 
 war. I do not say that that was an unjustifiable war. I have no desire 
 to condemn it, much less to detract from the well-earned fune of the 
 brave men who fought and won the l>attlcs — conferring imperishable 
 renown upon their country. I think it might have been avoided. 
 But I ask any dispassionate man to look at this matter honestly, 
 and say, if he can, that the acquisition of additional territory, wliifdi 
 was contemplated at the beginning, was not intended to be made 
 ^lave tcrritorij, and to strengthen tlie sla.ve power? Why the pre- 
 cipitate, not to say dishonorable, abandonment of that "clear and 
 unquestionable" title to Oregon, which was asserted in the Baltimore 
 Convention, which was coupled with Texas throughout the campaign; 
 and which was repeated in the inaugural address? Would not the same 
 objections apply to a free border State beyond Texas, which were urged 
 with so much zeal in fivor of annexation? Do we not daily hear them 
 urged now? Why, sir, this very thing was foretold with the precision 
 of prophec}^ An honorable Senator from New Jersey, [Mr. Dayton,] 
 in the debate upon the annexation of Texas, used the following language : 
 
 " Can we believe, for an instant, that the South will be contented with the Rio Grande? No, 
 sir; no, sir. As certainly as when the time shall come when she has filled up this wide area, 
 the South will agam demand extension at our hands. Sir, if this country hold ttH^ether, I put 
 this prophecy on record — I stake my reput;ition with posterity — that our southern States will 
 walk with us step by s'ep, and side by side, to the Pacific ocean." 
 
 Sir, I know not what conclusions others may arrive at, but my own 
 convictions are clear, that the Wilmot proviso was both expedient and 
 proper, and that the northern man who preferred freedom to slaveiy, 
 would have proved recreant to the high trust conferred upon him — recre- 
 ant to the cause of civil liberty — recreant to the rights and interests of 
 the free labor of the North — if he had failed to vote for it and sustain it. 
 vSir, what is this "Wilmot proviso," which has been stigmatized by eveiy 
 opprobrious epithet, which has been denounced as an " abolition scheme," 
 as "a vile abstraction," a "firebrand of discord" — which the Dcmncratic 
 editor of the Pemwjlvama7i characterizes as the invention of some "witty 
 and cunning pohtical juggler" — which the editor of the Union denomi- 
 nates a " pestilent heresy ?" Sir, it is nothing more nor less than the prop- 
 osition of the noble Virginian, apphed in 1787, to the country I hav^e, in 
 part, the honor to represent, and by which it was declared, that " there 
 shall he neither slaverij nor invoJuntanj servitude, otherwise than for the 
 imnishment of crimes" Sir, the five great States northwest of the Ohio, 
 with their milhons of people, with their teeming cities, their thriving 
 villages, with thousands of happy homes — made happy by the industiy 
 of prosperous freemen — with their churches, and colleges, and schools, 
 with all the elements of present wealth and future greatness, owe a debt 
 of gratitude to the memory of Thomas Jefferson, for that honored and 
 celebrated '■'■'proviso," which will stand in the und\' ing records of his fame, 
 second only to that of the Declaration of Independence. 
 
 Mr. Chairman, we are bound by the obligations of justice and good 
 faith, to protect these feeble territories, conquered by our arms, from the 
 encroachments of slaveiy. What was the nature of the proclamation 
 furnished by Mr. Polk, through die War Department, to General Taylor, 
 and published to the people of New Mexico? 
 
10 
 
 " We come to make no war upon the people of Mexico, nor upon any form of free govern- 
 ment they may choose to select for themselves." 
 
 This was the language of General Taylor's proclamation. Did the 
 people there select "a;iy fonn of free government f^^ Sir, in a petition pre- 
 sented to the- United States Senate, from the people of New Mexico, 
 assembled in convention, is this declaration : 
 
 " We do not desire to have domestic slavery within our borders; and until the lime shall arrive for 
 our adnmsion into the Union as a State, we desire to be protected by Congress against its introduction 
 among us." 
 
 And yet, sir, with this cry for protection coming up from th(? people, 
 Congress hesitates and falters about fulfilling the solemn, phghted fldth 
 of the Government ! Similar orders were issued to General Kearny. 
 I quote from the letter of the Secretary of War : 
 
 "You may assure the people of those provinces [California and New Mexico] that it is the 
 wish and design of die United States to provide for them a free government, similar to that which 
 exists in our territories." 
 
 Sir, is slaveiy a necessary element of a free government? They were 
 promised a government similar to that which existed in our territories ; 
 and the only government existing in our territories at that time — that of 
 Wisconsin — was entirely free, and shielded by the provisions of the ordi- 
 nance of 1787. Shall our first act towards these people, who have sub- 
 mitted to our arms, and placed themselves under our protection, be a 
 breach of plighted faith? When this weak and defenceless people lift 
 up their hands and pray to be ''jirotectcd against the introduction of slavery 
 amongst tliem,'" shall we present ourselves to the world in the attitude of 
 disregarding our pledges, and tell them their prayer is insolent ? Shall we 
 
 " Keep the word of promise to the ear 
 And break it to the hoper" 
 
 God forbid! — Again, Mr. Chairinan, we are told that this is "an 
 impracticable and barren proviso,''^ that it is "«?i abstraction," and entirely 
 " unnecessary," and that slavery is " excluded by the law of nature, of physi- 
 cal geography, the law of the formation of the earth:' Sir, if there is. 
 an intelligent man in the district I have the honor to represent, wlio does 
 not know that this is a weak invention of the abettors of slavery propa- 
 gandism' calculated exclusively for the meridian of the North, intended 
 to lull the friends of free labor into a false security, while their rights and 
 their interests are betrayed, — if there is a single man, I repeat, who 
 beheves that this country has "6ecw brought to an alarming crisis" by a 
 protracted struggle of four years for a "mere abstraction,'''' I will tell him 
 what the opinions entertained by southern men are who oppose this 
 slavery restriction. I read from the speech of Mr. Seddon, of Virginia : 
 
 " We of the South, Mr. Speaker, are not struggling against a name, nor are we to be deluded 
 by shadows. We are claiming a substance and a re.ility. We demand fair participation in our 
 common acquisitions, or at least equal opportunity of enjoying them. I know some think the 
 nature of these countries and the necessities of their clime and productions must exclude slavery. 
 So do not I. In all new countries where labor is dear, and domestic servants particularly are 
 not to be obtained, if lav/ allows, the conveniences and desires of men will, in my opinion, 
 demand slaves, [n mining operations they would confessedly be most valuable; and at this very 
 moment, did the South enjoy her rights, her whole slave property would already liave felt the 
 appreciation cf a large demand for emigration to California. 
 
 " All sensible men know that, in relation to California, the agitjition and threat of the Wilmot 
 proviso has been very nearly tantamount to its enforcement for our exclusion. Slaves are in 
 the nature of capital, which is proverbially timid, and could not be carried in while there was 
 the impending threat and danger of compulsory abolition. 
 
 "But the discovery of the wonderful mines and the consequent amazing enhancement of the 
 value of labor in California, increased daily the likelihood that slaves would be needed and 
 
11 
 
 introduced in numbers sufficient to determine tlie choice of the people as to their institutions. 
 Prom realizing this strong probability, we are elFectually precluded by the State constituiion of 
 California. 
 
 " Evasion of the just responsibility of encountering the pernicious free-soil doctrinrs, has 
 involved in its unconstitutional usurpations, i^lungcd it into innumerable embarrassnipnis, and 
 inflicted on the South foul wron^. And are these things to be cloaked under the ,s|ieciou.s plausi- 
 bilities of respect for the people of the territories and iion intervention? Respixt for the rii^hts 
 of the people in thousands of miles of vacant territory, where in fact there are no people, \s to 
 justify the utter disre2:ard of the rights of the people of half the States of this Union, the .sole 
 proprietors and sovereigns of the whole! Non-iniervention with the supporters of this Admin- 
 istiation was not wont to be advocated or defended. But let that pnss. Properly understood, 
 it could only contemplate that the citizens of all the Stales of the Union should lie equally free 
 to enter and settle with their property on the common territories of the Union, — slaveholders 
 and non-slaveholders to be on precisely the same footing of equality and right, and to be equally 
 protected by the law and policy of the Government." 
 
 The following are extracts from the speech and address of the Hon. 
 Mr. BROwisr, of Mississippi : 
 
 •'As I could respect the reckless and bold robber who, unmasked, presents his pistol and 
 demands my money or my life, above the petty, but expert pickpocket, who looks complaisantly 
 in my face while he steals my purse, — so can I respeit the dashing, an:.t dare-devi! impu.lence of 
 the VVilmot proviso, which robs the South, and takes the responsibility, above the little, low, 
 cunning, slight-of-hand scheme, which robs us just as effectually, and leaves us wondering how 
 the trick was performed. 
 
 " My own opinion is this : that we should resist the introduction of California as a State, 
 and resist it succes-falbj; resist it by our votes first, and lastly by other means. JVe can, at least, 
 force an mljournment without her adinissio7i. This being done, we are safe. The southern 
 States, in convention at Nashville, will device means for vindicating their rights. I do not 
 know what these means xvill be, but I know what they may be, and with propriety and safety. 
 They may be to carry slaves into all of southern California, as the property of sovereign States, 
 and there hold them, as we have a right to do; and, if molested, defend them, as is both our 
 right and duty. 
 
 " We ask you to give us our rights by non-intervention; if you refuse, I am for taking them 
 
 by ARMED OCCUPATION." 
 
 The following remarks were made by the Hon. Mr. Clingman, of 
 North Carolina: 
 
 " I may remark further, that but for the anti-sIaBery agilnlion, slaveholders would have carried 
 their rifgrocs into the mines of California in such nninhers, that I have no doubt but that the majorily 
 there would have made it a slaveholdimr Stale. IVe have been deirrived of all chmce of </ih by the 
 northern movements, and bi\ the wtlon of Ihii fli'iise, which hafi, by northern vote's, repeatedly, from 
 time to lime, passed the I'f'ilmot proviso, so as in effect to exclude oar instilulion, loilhout the actual 
 passage of a law for Ihal purpose.'" 
 
 I might go on, Mr. Chairman, with extracts like these to an indefi- 
 nite extent, but I will only add a single one from a speech delivered in. 
 the Senate bv the Hon. Mr. Mason, of Virfrinia: 
 
 " Sir, the point of division between the States where slavery exists, and the States where 
 slavery does not exist, is this: We claim, under the Constitution, a right in law, lor all or any 
 of our citizens to go into any territory belonging to the United States^ with all or any of their 
 property, and to reside there, and to enjoy it as their property, without molestation or hindiance, 
 under the protection of the Constitution, so long as it remains a territory. We hold ihal a terri- 
 tory is, in the terms of the Constitution, ' the property of all the United States;' and so long 
 as the southern States, where slavery exists, are constituents of these United States, they have 
 the right to go into that territory, to reside there with their property, and to enjoy it under the 
 protection of the Constitution. That is the right, clearly, and I hope distinctly, defined upon 
 the part of the South, so far as I understand it. 
 
 " We have heard here from various quarters, and from high quarters, and repeated on all 
 hands — repeated here again to-day by the honorable Senator from Illinois, [Mr. Shields,] that 
 there is a law of nature which excludes the southern people from every portion of the State of 
 California. I know of no such law of nature — none wh.Htever; but I do know the contrary, that 
 if California had been organized with a territorial form of government only, and for which, at 
 the last two sessions of Congress, she has obtained the entire southern vote, the .eople ot the 
 southern States would have gone there freely, and have taken their slaves there in great num- 
 bers. They would have done so because the value of the labor of that class would have been 
 augmented to them many hundred fold. Why, in the debates which took place in the conven- 
 tion in California which formed the constitution, a calculation was gone into with reference to 
 the value of the labor of this class of people, showing that it would be increased to such an ex- 
 
12 
 
 tent in the mines of Ca'ifornia that they could not be kept out. It was agreed that the'ahor of a 
 slave in any one of the States from which they woiiM be taken was not worth more than one hun- 
 dred or one hundred and fifty dolUrs a year, and that in California it would be worth from 
 four to six thousand dollars." 
 
 Mr. Chairman, if this is not a triumphant refutation of the pretence that 
 it is not necessaiy to exchide slavery by positive enactment, because 
 the laws of the climate or the laws of the country exclude it, I know 
 not what proof would be necessary; and yet, sir, we are asked to listen 
 to the syren song of non-intervention! Non-intervention! Let not 
 him who regards the dignity of free labor be ensnared by it, for it 
 is the cry of " peace ! peace ! when there is no peace." Mr. Chairman, 
 if the supporters of the " Wilmot proviso," in the last Congress, among 
 whom I am proud to be numbered, needed any other vindication from 
 the attacks which were made upon them, except the approval of their 
 own consciences, for so strenuously insisting upon it, it is furnished in 
 these extracts which I have read. 
 
 " If California had been organized wVh a territorial form of government only, and for which, at the 
 last two sessions of Congress she has obtained the entire soulheim vole, the people of the southern 
 States looiUd have gone, there freely, and have taken their slaves there, in great numbers." 
 
 This is the emphatic a.nd authoritative language of the distinguished 
 Senator from Virginia. Sir, the meji who made determined and effectual 
 resistance to the "Clayton compromise," the "Walker compromise," 
 and all the other compromises, by which it was intended to open a great 
 slave market on the shores of the Pacific, need no higher encomium; 
 and the m^/i who wish to place a barrier against its onward march 
 through New Mexico to the southern extremity of North America, need 
 no higher incentive for opposition to the ^'scheme of fiaafication" the 
 ^^plati of adjustment,''^ which has recently been so im]:)osingly ushered by 
 the fomous comtnittee of thirteen. Mr. Chairman, I have hitherto spoken 
 of the change which has taken place in the South in relation to slavery. 
 I have shown that while the statesmen who have passed off the stage 
 deplored its existence, and contemplated its speedy extinction, the pub- 
 lic men of the present day regard it as a proper relation between labor 
 and capital, "a bles.sing to the master, and a blessing to the slave;" and 
 I have also shown that the diplomatic and legislative powers of this 
 Government have been wielded for the purpose of strengthening and 
 perpetuating it. In addition to all this, a new element has been brought 
 to its aid. This question has been caught up by southern politicians, 
 and held out as a' bait to tempt the ambition of northern men. The 
 great Democratic party of the country, the party which professes to be 
 the advocate of the largest liberty, the friend of perfect equality, the 
 opponent of all exclusive and separate privileges — the hberal party, the 
 party of progress and reform — the party which can sympathize for the 
 wrongs of suffering Ireland, which can denounce the cruelties of Austrian 
 oppression, which congratulates revolutionary Europe in every effort to 
 throw off the yoke of bondage — the party which has aimed to give the 
 ftillest extent of freedom to man — has been made, or sought to be made, 
 the instrument for converting the free territory we have acquired, and 
 which should be consecrated to free labor, into the abode of slavery. 
 Whether the secret negotiations to which I have referred, and to which 
 publicity had not been given, had any influence upon the Baltimore 
 Convention of 1844, 1 am unable to say; but when the new Administra- 
 
13 
 
 lioix asked from Congress an appropriation of two millions for tlie pur- 
 pose of acquiring territoiy, and the condition was proposed that it should 
 not be changed from a land of freedom to a land of slaves, it was coldly 
 received, and the Union newspaper, the organ here, was made to say, 
 "it is no recommendation, as a friend of the Administration, to be the 
 friend of the Wilmot proviso." This significant hint was soon under- 
 stood by the swai^ms of men who live by official patronage, and by a 
 press which was largety dependent upon Government favor for support. 
 Mr. Chairman, it is veiy well known, that to all the leading measures 
 of the last Administration, I gave a cordial and hearty support. Its 
 liberal system of finance, which removed, in a great degree, the restric- 
 tions upon commerce — its admirable system for the collection and safe 
 keeping of the pubhc revenues — its warehouse system, and the able man- 
 ner in which the war with Mexico was conducted — were measures which 
 received the approval of my judgment, as they were sanctioned by a 
 large majority of the country ; but I think I do it no injustice when I 
 say, that its whole power and patronage were employed to prevent the 
 application of the ordinance of Jefferson to the Oregon and JNIexican 
 territories, and that its official influence was exerted to crush some of 
 the purest and best Democrats in the land, simply because they were 
 the advocates of the cause of freedom. As the National Convention for 
 ]S48 approached, a new test was sought to be intei^polated into the 
 Democratic creed. On the 10th of December. 1847, the Legislature 
 of Alabama, being about to elect a United States Senator, addressed a 
 number of interogatories to Mr. King and Mr. Dixon H. Lewis, who 
 were candidates for the place, among which w^as one asking them if 
 they would support the nominee of the Baltimore Convention for the 
 office of President. To this interrogatory Mr. King replied: 
 
 " I will pledge myself to sustain the Democratic nominees of a National Convention for Presi- 
 dent a^'.d Vice President, provided they are opposed lo the Wilmot proviso, or any interferfnce by 
 th : General Government with the question of slavery as it exists in the southern States." 
 
 Mr. Lewis replied: 
 
 " Without especial preference for any individual, if I were to indicate a choice for President, 
 it would be in favor of the soundest Democrat from the free States, taking the highest, boldest, and 
 inost decided ground against the Wilmot proviso." 
 
 On the 22d of December of the same year, the State Convention 
 of Georgia selected her delegates to the National Convention, and passed 
 the following resolutions : 
 
 " R'solved, That the Democratic party of Georgia will support no man for the office of Presi- 
 dent or Vice Presi Je.U, who shall not have clearly and unequivocally declared their opposition 
 to ihe principles of the Wilmot proviso. 
 
 " Resiived, That it is the constitutional ri»ht of every citizen to remove and settle with his 
 property into any of the territories of the United States." 
 
 Similar resolutions were soon after passed by the States of Virginia, 
 Alabama, and Florida, — one of which declared, ^^that vnder no ■political 
 necessity xvhatever''' would they support any man opposed to the.extension 
 of slavery. Mr. Buchanan, in his celebrated Berks county letter, had 
 already yielded to the demands of the South. Genend Cass was known 
 to have favored the two miUion bill, which passed the House with the 
 Wilmot proviso, and to have expressed his regret at its defeat by a 
 protracted debate in the Senate. At the next session he contented him- 
 self with voting against the proviso, on the ground of its being inappro- 
 priately appUed to a w^ar bill; but he wrote a private letter to one ol liis 
 
14 
 
 constituents which, afterwards found its way into the pubhc prints, in 
 which he declared that its passage would be "-death to the war, and death 
 to the Democratic party.'" On the 31st of December, 1S47, there ap- 
 peared in the Union newspaper in this city, the celebrated "Nicholson 
 letter," in which he took ground against both the constitutionality and 
 expediency of applying the provisions of the ordinance to the 4Dills for 
 the government of the Territories. I mention this remarkable coinci- 
 dence of dates, without the least intention of calling in question the 
 sincerity of the distinguished Senator from Michigan, but for the purpose 
 of corroborating his own statement, " That a great change had' been 
 going on in the pubhc mind, his own as well as others." The Baltimore 
 Convention met. The delegates from the free States submitted, without 
 a murmur, to the degrading conditions imposed upon them by the South, 
 and General Cass was nominated. The people of Michigan were dumb- 
 founded with horror at the reception of the " Nicholson letter." General 
 Cass had been sixteen years Governor of the Territory of Michigan. 
 Yetnotwithstanding the prosperity of the State was greaxly indebted to 
 the ineffaceable marks of the wisdom and foresight of his administration, 
 notwithstnnding his great and well-deserved personal popularity, and 
 the efforts of his friends, he was left by the people at the election in a 
 minority of 3,642 of the popular vote ; and with the single exception of the 
 State of New Hampshire, he failed to obtain a majority of the votes ol 
 either of the free States; and at a time when every measure of the Dem- 
 ocratic party was in full and successful operation, with an overflowing 
 Treasury, and our country in a state of unexampled prosperity, we were 
 beaten. Mr. Chairman, others may speculate as to the causes of thai 
 defeat; I liave no hesitation in ascribing to that fatal "Nicholson letter," 
 the doctrines of which were received by the people with such perfect 
 loathing, the loss of the North, while the slaveholders of the South pre- 
 ferred to vote for the owner of a sugar plantation, with three hund red 
 negroes. This was a mortifying defeat ; but it may well be borne, if it 
 inculcates this useful lesson, that in this noon of the nineteenth century, 
 when the down-trodden nations of Europe are bursting the fetters of 
 tyranny, which have bound them to the earth for ages — when every 
 breeze from across the Atlantic wafts with it the cry of liberty and the 
 inalienable rights of man from the uprising masses, — the northern states- 
 man, to be successful, must prove true to the interests of the free labor 
 which he represents, instead of becoming an accessory to the cupidity 
 of the southern slaveholder, who would doom his fellow man to perpetual 
 bondage. 
 
 At the same election in Michigan, three members of Congress were 
 chosen, pledged to oppose the extension of slaveiy, and also a large 
 mnjority of tlie members of the Legislature, who, upon assembling in 
 January, ceaffirmed the oft-expressed opinion of the people, that Con- 
 gress had the constitutional power, and that it was their duty to execute 
 it in the exclusion of slavery from the territories. Indeed, sir, I do not 
 know of a public meeting, or of a convention, or a newspaper in the 
 State, which has sustained the doctrines of that "letter." But, Mr. 
 Chairman, it has been heralded by the Unioti newspaper, that the last 
 Michigan Legislature has " repudiated the Wilmot proviso." Sir, they 
 have done no such thing. They have, indeed, by a vote of 24 members 
 
15 
 
 out of 66 — 20 being accidentalhj absent — passed a series of resolutions: 
 but did they rescind the oft-expressed deliberate judgment of the people 
 of Michigan, that the Constitution conferred the power upon Congress to 
 prohibit slavery in the territories ? No, sir. On the contraiy, the popular 
 branch had the impudence to reassert the doctrine. Did they rescind 
 the resolution that it was the solemn duty of Congress so to prohibit by 
 express enactment? No, sir. Did they rescind the resolution th;it it 
 was the duty of Congress to break up the infamous traffic in human 
 beings in the city of Washington, and in sight of the flag that floats over 
 the Capitol? No, sir, they did no such thing. They dared to do no 
 such thing. But they did pass a set of resolutions of the following 
 import : " Whereas, the people of Michigan are opposed to the extension 
 of slavery." Yes, sir, these are their very words, "opposed to the 
 extension of slavery," therefore Resolved, That if our Senators are very 
 anxious to relieve their NashviUe Convention friends from the ridiculous 
 dilemma in which they find themselves placed, or if they really believe 
 'that the Union will be broken into fragments' unless slavery is allowed 
 to cross the Rio Grande, they are permitted, "by voice and vote," to do 
 as they please. They may vote for the omnibus bill ; they may vote 
 for a clause allowing the people themselves to settle the question of 
 slavery, or they may vote for a clause prohibiting their action; they may 
 vote for the Missouri compromise line, or vote against it, as shall best 
 subserve the wishes of the South, and thereby save the Union. The 
 State of Michigan, in consideration of the extraordinary concession made 
 by the distinguished Senator from Mississippi, in consenting to post- 
 pone the day for the dissolution of the Union, humbly presents this as 
 her "peace offering." This, Mr. Chairman, is the substance of the 
 resolutions which the Union, in pubhsliing, prefaced with the remark 
 that " the language was as felicitous as the sentiments were praise- 
 worthv." In the county of Lenawee, one of the most populous counties 
 in the"^ district represented by my honorable friend, [Sir. Buell,] a 
 Democratic Convention was held on the 13th of September, 1S49, pre- 
 ceding the annual election, and on the 18th of April, 1850, another was 
 held preceding the election of delegates to a Constitutional Convention. 
 The resolutions passed at the two conventions of the same party were 
 somewhat dissimilar, and I will read them : 
 
 Resohaioiis of the Lenawee counhj Democratic ResohUions of the Lenawee countii Democratic 
 
 Convention, Septemhei- I3th, 1849 
 Resolced, That in common with all the free 
 States of the Union, we are opposed to the in- 
 stitution of slavery, beUeving it to be adverse to 
 
 Convention Jlpril I8th, 1850. 
 Resolved, That the efforts of our distinguished 
 Setiator, General Lewis Cass, at the present ses- 
 sion of Congress, to preserve the integiity and 
 
 the great principles of human freedom, while harmony of our glorious Union, guidtd by a 
 •■■ • • ^- - " wisdom and judgment, and enforced by an elo- 
 
 quence rarely equalled, deserve the warmest 
 thanks and acknowledgments of every Democrat 
 and friend to his country, and are peculiarly 
 gratifying to the Democracy of this county, who 
 were ihelfirst to present his name as a candidate 
 for the Presidency in 1843, in this State. 
 
 Resolved, Tliat those Democrats in our Legis- 
 lature who voted to tender their thanks to our 
 Senators and Representatives in Congress for 
 their efforts in behalf of the Union, and to re- 
 lieve Gen. Cass from the necessity of resigning 
 
 we are willing to yield to the southern States a 
 their constitutional rights, and are opposed to 
 any interference by Congress with the institu- 
 tions of slavery in the southern States, where it 
 now exists. 
 
 Resolved, That we approve of the principles of 
 the Jeffersonian ordinance, proposed in 1784, 
 and adopted in 1787, and believe that the unex- 
 ampled prosperity of the Northwest is mainly 
 owing to the beneficial influences of its princi- 
 ples. 
 
 Resolved, That the act passed by Congress to 
 organize the Territory of Oregon, in which is a 
 clause to prohibit slavery or involuntary servi- 
 
 at present, when his continued exertioi.s might 
 be most required to promote the nation's be^t 
 
16 
 
 tude except for crime in that territory, acknowl-jinterests, deserve our warmest aonrobation, and 
 edged the power of Congress over the subject of shall receive our continued support. 
 slavery in the territories of the Utiited States. 
 
 Resolved, That we are in fnvorcf the exercise 
 by the General Government of all their consti- 
 tutional powers to prohibit the introduction of 
 slavery into the territories of the United States, 
 and to prevent its extension into those territories. 
 
 The comment which I wish to append to the introduction of these 
 resolutions is the significant fact, that at the election after the passage of 
 the first, the county gave its usual Democratic majority, and that the 
 ticket which was nominated ])y the Convention which passed the last, 
 w^as beaten by an average majority of 480 votes. 
 
 Mr. Chairman, this same Legislature of Michigan also unanimously 
 passed resolutions in favor of the immediate and unconditional admission 
 of the free State of California into the Union. For six months she has 
 been knocking at the doors of Congress. The bill for admissioli has 
 been retarded, and loaded down, and embarrassed, b}'- the votes of north- 
 ern men. The California representatives would long ago have had their 
 seats on this floor, and this new sister from the Pacific coast would have 
 been welcomed among the constellation of States, if its pretended^orthern. 
 friends had not been uniformly aiding by "their voices and^t^es," and 
 cooperating with the avowed opponents of the measure. Sir, if a vote 
 could have been obtained, no one doubts that California would long ago 
 have been admitted, and no one, I think, need doubt the judgment of a 
 discriminating people, in fixing the responsibihty for staving off and 
 preventing that vote in the proper quarter. 
 
 Mr. Chairman, aside from the denial of the constitutional power of 
 Cono-ress to govern the territories contained in the Nicholson letter, and 
 which seems to have found but few supporters, either North or South, a 
 power which the distinguished Senator has recently claimed for Con- 
 gress, outside of the Constitution, and in relation to which he said, "cer- 
 tainly, it is the moral dtitij of any country holding distant possessions, to 
 institute governments for the preservation of social order, and here, and 
 here alone, is the foundation of government, as exercised by Congress," — 
 there was one other position taken, from which I am bound to dissent. 
 It is in these words : " The question that presents itself iS not a question 
 of the increase, but of the diffusion of slaver}'- — whether its sphere be 
 stationary or progressive, its amount will be the same. The rejection of 
 this restriction will not add one to the class of servitude, nor will its 
 adoption give freedom to a single being wdio is now placed therein ; the 
 same numbers will be spread over greater territor}^, and so far as com- 
 pression with greater abundance of the necessaries of hfe is an evil, so 
 far will that evil be mitigated by transporting slaves to a new countiy 
 and giving them a larger space to occupy." Now, sir, if I understand 
 this proposition, it is an argument in favor of extending slavery into 
 these new territories. If that be its intent and meaning, I can only say- 
 that it contrasts strongly with the views and opinions of Jefferson, who 
 labored so ardently to reclaim the Northwest Territory from its encroach- 
 ments, with a view to its final extinction. But will the ^diffusion'' of 
 slavery not increase it? There has been added in States to this Confed- 
 eracy since its formation, exclusive of the territories, a milKon of square 
 miles. The population of whites has increased from three to twenty 
 
17 
 
 millions, and of slaves from half a million to three millions. Now, sir, docs 
 any man believe that this unexampled increase in population, whether of 
 slave or free, if they had been confined to the original States, would 
 have taken place ? No, sir, this continual assertion of the right to carry 
 their property into the new territories, is to gain new markets for the 
 sale of slaves. The honorable gentleman from Virginia, [Mr. Meade,] 
 in a recently published speech, says, "Virginia has a slave population 
 of near half a million, whose value is chiefly dependent on southern 
 demand." The recent rise in cotton is said to have increased greatly the 
 price and demand for negroes; and the North Carohman, published at 
 Fayette ville, says that the number passing through Wilmington for the 
 Charleston market averages twenty-five a day! This inhuman and 
 barbarous traffic, the contemplation of which elicited from Jefferson the 
 .exclamation that "he trembled for his country when he reflected that 
 God was just, and that his justice would not sleep forever," and which 
 Lord Brougham, in the British Parhament, characterized as "one of the 
 most execrable crimes (for he would not designate it by the honorable 
 name of traffic) that could disgrace a people, the being engaged in the 
 sale of our feU.ow creatures" — is increased by the '■'■diffusion'''' of slavery. 
 And the same gentleman from Virginia, in view of the restriction, says: 
 "If we intend to submit to the policy of confining the slaves to the pres- 
 ent limits, we should commence forthtvith the work of gradual emanci- 
 pation — it is an easier task for us than our children." The gendeman 
 from Alabama [Mr. Hilliard] expressed the same opinion: "We 
 must make up our minds either to resist the interdiction of the progress 
 of slaveiy, or to submit to an organic change in our institutions." In 
 these two short extracts the case is fairly stated : the "perpetuation of 
 slaveiy by ''diffusion,'' or its "gradual emancipation" by confining it to 
 its present limits. 
 
 Mr. Chairman, the Canada thistle is anoxious and troublesome plant to 
 the agriculturists of the North; its introduction upon the farm of the careful 
 husbandman is considered a great evil; every portion of the {)remises is 
 watched with the utmost care against its insidious approach, and the 
 first plant that is discovered is immediately uprooted. If you were to 
 ask the proprietor of the soil which he would prefer, a few scattering 
 plants on one corner of the farm, or a general « diffusion' over the whole 
 estate, I think there would be httle doubt as to the character of the 
 answer. 
 
 It has also been said, Mr. Chairman, that because Congress had not 
 the power to establish slaveiy by law, therefore. Congress had no 
 power to legislate in relation to slavery. Sir, slavery was never estab- 
 Ushed either by the law of nature, or any other law. ^ It is the creature 
 of force and wrong ; it was never laufidly introduced into any country — 
 it found its way into every State of this Union by violence. I am cor- 
 roborated in this statement by the honorable member from Tennessee, 
 [INIr. Harkis,] an extract from whose speech contains these words: 
 
 « A law creating slavery, is not to be found upon the statute books of a solitary State in this 
 Union." 
 
 It is a matter of great indifference to the slaveholder whether he car- 
 ries his slaves into the territories by law or not, the only thing he dreads 
 is a law of Congress to prevent it. Congress can neither estabhsh mail 
 
18 
 
 robbery or piracy by law, but it can pass laws to prevent, and punish 
 
 those offences. 
 
 Mr. Chairman, a leading Democratic paper in Michigan, the "Detroit 
 
 Free Press," in a recent editorial article commenting upon the action of 
 
 Congress upon the territorial measures, utters the following sentiment: 
 
 "The true plan, which ought to be adopted, would be the old Democratic one, for which we 
 have always contended — that Congress should provide governments for the territories, saying 
 nothing in them about slavery, but leaving to the people interested the regulation of that matter 
 for themselves." 
 
 Sir, it may be that this was intended for irony ; but if it was not, I do 
 
 not think I use too strong language, when I characterize it as a gross 
 
 attempt to practice upon the credulity of its readers; and that they may 
 
 be enabled to form a proper estimate of the truth of the statement, I will 
 
 show them what the ^^ true plan — the old Democratic plan for which we 
 
 have always contended" — is. The first Congress that assembled after 
 
 the adoption of the Constitution, on the 7th of August, 1789, passed an 
 
 act confirming the ordinance of 1787, and orivinfr to it full force and 
 
 validity. The purposes of this act clearly appear from the preamble, 
 
 which is in these words: 
 
 "Whereas, in order that the Ordinance of the United States, in Congress assembled, for the 
 government of the territory northwest of the Ohio, may continae to have full force and effect, it is 
 required that certain provisions should be made to adapt the same to the present Constitution 
 of the United States— Be it enacted," &c. 
 
 This act received the constitutional approval of Washington. Many 
 of those who participated in its enactment had been members of the 
 Convention that framed the Constitution, and, therefore, may be sup- 
 posed to have understood its true intent and meaning. 
 
 On the 7th of May, 1800, an act was passed for the organization of a 
 territorial government for Indiana, and slavery expressly prohibited therein. 
 This act was approved by John Adams. 
 
 January 11th, 1805, the northern part of Indiana was erected into the 
 Territory of Michigan, and slavery prohibited. February 3d, 1809, the 
 Territory of Illinois was established, with the like jirohibition as to slavery. 
 These two latter acts received the approval and signature of Thomas 
 Jefferson. 
 
 On the 20th of April, 1836, Wisconsin was organized as a territory, 
 and slavery prohibited within its hmits. This act was approved by Gen- 
 eral Jackson. 
 
 The Territory of Iowa Avas established by act of Congress of the 12th 
 of June, 1838, under the administration of Mr. Van Buren; and here, 
 also, was slavery prohibited. 
 
 On the 14th of August^ 1848, the Territory of Oregon was organized, 
 which contained the same provision in the memorable and time-honored 
 words, "there shall be ne\A\eY slavery nor involuntary servitude therein, ex- 
 cept for the punishment ofcrime.''^ 
 
 Here are a series of enactments, commencing with the ordinance of 
 1787, which was confirmed by Congress in 1789, under the adminis- 
 tration of Washington, down through the administrations of Adams, 
 Jefferson, Jackson, Van Buren, and Polk, to the year 1848, when the 
 last territorial government was organized, covering a period of more 
 than half a century, in which this policy of restricting the spread of 
 slavery was steadily pursued and enforced. The constitutionahty of 
 
19 
 
 these enactments was not controverted at the time, nor has it ever since 
 been called in question, until the southern test was made, that ^^ under no 
 'political necessity whatever,''^ would the}^ support a man in favor of the 
 ordinance. 
 
 Not content with providing that slaveiy should never exist in any 
 territory which was free from it at the time of its organization, Congress 
 has from time to time regulated and restricted it in those territories 
 where it had an actual existence. 
 
 By the 7th section of the act organizing a territorial government for 
 Mississippi, passed in 1798, the importation of slaves into said territoiy 
 from any place without the United States was prohibited, under severe 
 penalties. This was ten years before Congress had the power, under 
 the Constitution, to prohibit the importation of slaves into the States. 
 
 By act of the 26th of March, 1804, that part of Louisiana south of the 
 Territory of Mississippi was organized into a territorial government, by 
 the name of Orleans. By this act, the importation into said territoiy of 
 slaves from abroad was prohibited, and also the importation of any slave 
 from within the United States who should have been brought into the 
 countiy since the 1st of May, 1798, or who should thereafter be brought 
 into the United States. It further provided that no slave should be 
 brought into said territoiy, except by a citizen of the United States, \yho 
 should remove there for actual setdement, and who should at the time 
 be the bona fide owner of such slave ; thus directly interdicting the 
 domestic as well as the foreign slave trade in this Territoiy of Orleans. 
 This act was approved by Jefferson. 
 
 On the 6th of March, 1820, an act was passed "to authorize the people 
 pie of INIissouri to form a constitution and State government, and for the 
 admission of such State into the Union on an equal footing with the 
 original States, and to lyrohihit slavery in certain territories^ 
 
 By the Sth section of that act it was provided, " that in all that tern- 
 tory ceded by France to the United States, under the name of Louisiana, 
 which lies north of thirty-six degrees and thirty minutes north latitude, 
 not included within the limits of the State contemplated by this act, 
 slavery and involuntary servitude, othenvise than in the punishment of 
 crimes whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall be, and 
 the same is hereby, forever prohibited." 
 
 This act, as also the ordinance of 1787, actually abolished slaveiy — 
 a tiling we do not now propose to do. Slaveiy existed in parts of the 
 northwest territoiT, and in Louisiana the law of slaveiy at the time of the 
 cession from France covered the entire territoiy , from the Gulf of Mexico 
 to the parallel of the fortv-ninth degree of north latitude, and west to 
 the Rocky Mountains, the Missouri compromise was in harmony w^th 
 the settled poHcy of our Government. It restricted and narrowed the 
 limits of slavery. 
 
 Thus, sir, commencing with the celebrated ordinance of '87, down to 
 the year 1848, this Government has exercised full and exclusive juris- 
 diction over the question of slavery in the territories. And yet the people 
 of Michigan are to be told, that "the old Democratic plan" is, "to 
 say nothing? about slaveiy in the teri-itories." Sir, this specious pretext 
 of leaving to the people of the territories the regulation of that question, 
 was never adopted. Sovereignty only appertains to organized States. 
 
20 
 
 It is that power which prescribes laws, and to which it is required to 
 yield obedience. This power no more resides in a territory, than it 
 does in a county or a township in the State of Michigan ; the people in 
 the smallest township might as well claim to make laws, as the people 
 in a territory. They are high prerogatives, which, in the case of a town- 
 ship, belong to the State ; in the case of a territory, they belong to the 
 only sovereign, the United States. Nor, Mr. Chairman, was the remark 
 of the distinguished Senator from Michigan, in his speech, in which he 
 says, "all the territories have been governed upon this general principle 
 of congressional jurisdiction, leaving to the 'people to be affected by them, 
 the passage of laws suited to their condition" perfectly accurate. For 
 eighteen years the people of the Territory of Michigan had neither a voice 
 in the passage of laws, nor in the selection of the persons to administer 
 them. For eight years out of the sixteen, of which the Senator himself 
 was governor, he, in conjunction with three judges, (all of them holding 
 their places without the constitutional authority, as he now admits,) 
 arbitrarily imposed upon that people a code of laws, which extended 
 down to the "private relations of husband and wife, parent and child," 
 and in which the people had not a word to say. Fortunately for them, 
 it was a mild and beneficient code, suited to their wants and condition. 
 Fortunate was it also for them, that this neiv light, of the power of Con- 
 gress only to legislate in relation to land in the territories had not broken 
 upon them. Mr. Chairman, having shown satisfactorily, I trust, that in 
 proposing to exclude slavery from these ne\v possessions acquired on 
 our southwest border, we are only walking in the footsteps of the patriots 
 and statesman who have preceded us, wdiy should we hesitate to act? 
 Every southern man voted to exclude slavery from the Northwest Ter- 
 ritor}^ Why should we linger against guarding the Southwest from 
 its intrusion? Is it because we are alarmed at the threats for the disso- 
 lution of the Union ? Was it to propagate human slavery that this Union 
 was formed? If southern men should undertake to carry out their trea- 
 sonable designs, what would be the record of their wrongs upon which 
 they would ask the judgment of the world? "The people of the North 
 refuse to acknowledge that 'slavery is a great blessing — a blessing to the 
 master and a blessing to the slave' — and refuse to aid us in its extension ; 
 therefore we declare this Union to be dissolved." This would be the 
 summary of their wrongs — for this they would dissolve the Union. Sir, 
 does it become northern statesmen to stand here trembling in their shoes 
 at these croakings and bullying threats of desperate bravadoes? Are 
 we, the representatives of the great free North so weak, or so timid as to 
 be frightened from our principles and our purposes, because treason is 
 rife in- the land? Shall we submit to slavery dictation? Shall we 
 encourage them in their insolence, by publishing to the world our fears? 
 No, sir, let the same spirit animate us which was so nobly expressed 
 by General Cass two years ago, when our countrjr was involved in a 
 foreign war, and the patriotism of our people was invoked to raise the 
 men and the money to bring it to an honorable conclusion. Then he 
 thus spoke: 
 
 "Mr. President, it gives me great pain to hear any allusions to the dissolution of this Confeder- 
 acy, and of all the places in this Republic, this high place should he the last, in which they should 
 be expressed. The Constitulion is m no danger. It has survived many a shock, and it will sur- 
 vive many more. It is yet fresh in its strength. No infirmity has come to tell us, that ita 
 
21 
 
 dissolution is near. It is no longer an experiment, but experience— no longer a promise, but 
 ■performance. It has fulfilled all, and more than all its most sanguine advocates dared predict. 
 It is at this moment stronger in the afTections of the American people, than at any other period 
 of its existence. Like the clifl' uf eternal granite which overlooks the ocean, and drives back 
 the ceaseless waves that assail its base, so will the Constitution resist the assault that may bg 
 made upon it — come how or when or whence they may." 
 
 These were the eloquent, courageous words of a statesman, which 
 found a ready response in the hearts of the people. Thc}^ were uttered 
 at a time when a strong party organization was opposed to the prosecution 
 of the war. Now that tlie war is over, when nothing agitates the country 
 but the simple question of organizing governments for the acquired country, 
 cannot the Constitution stand as rude a shock? And was not the same 
 distinguished Senator frightened from his propriet}'", and does he not 
 tamely surrender to the dictation of an insolent minority, when he writes 
 for pubhcation, sentiments like the following? 
 
 *' Whatever impressions may prevail elsewhere, I suppose there is no intelligent observer at 
 the seat of Government who is not seriously disturbed at the present state of things. Whether 
 the danger is greater or less, nearer or more remote, are questions abfiut which men may differ; 
 but I know no lover of his country who does not view the crms as an alarming one, and does not 
 see, in the signs of the times, the approach of one of those political convulsions which, if not 
 averted by wise and timely measures, may be fatal to us, and to the cause of freedom throughout 
 the world. 
 
 " The Union is in danger ! The first step towards safety is, to believe that the danger exists; 
 and when the watchman asks, ' What of tlie night?' he who does not sound the alarm, is neither 
 true to his own duty, nor to the interests of those who have committed a part of the fortress of 
 their liberty to his keeping." — February 13, 1850. 
 
 Sir, in the days of Andrew Jackson this Union was ?-caUif in danger. 
 Then a sovereign State threatened to nullify the laws, and prepared to 
 carry that threat into execution. But the brave old soldier, who had 
 met the enemies of his countiy, and saved the beauty and booty of New 
 Orleans, nothing daunted, issued his mandate: ^^ The Union — it must, 
 and it shall he iwescrved!''^ Those memorable words produced a talis- 
 manic effect; and the disturbers of the peace — the agitators, the nulli- 
 fiers, quailed before the flash of his undaunted eye, and his imperious 
 will. These same agitators — these same nullifiers — threaten the peace 
 of the Union now. Shall we tamely surrender? Shall a slaveholding 
 minority always control the destinies of this Repubhc ? Shall that cursed 
 institution be permitted to march on, hke a resistless current, across the 
 continent ? Do they not already possess much the larger and better por- 
 tion of the soil of these States? The treasures oi freemen were fi'eely 
 given to acquire this new territory — why should it not remain the abode 
 of freemen ? The blood of freemen was freely poured out to enrich its 
 soil — why should it be polluted with the sweat of the slave? 
 
 Mr. Chairman, the Union is in no danger. The will of the majority 
 must be obeyed ; the free soil of the country must be preserved as the 
 inheritance of the free laborer and his children. If their Representa- 
 tives are faithless to the trusts confided to them, the people must rally 
 in their might, and assert their rights and their true dignity. Cahfornia — 
 the free State of Cahfornia — mast be admitted; and if all other leaders 
 desert us, the intrepid Benton is here — the same who grappled with, 
 and triumphed over, the monster United States Bank ; the same who so 
 perseveringly guarded the fame of Andrew Jackson, and carried the 
 "expunging" resolutions; the same who labored so zealously to give the 
 people a sound specie currency, by the passage of the gold bill; the 
 
22 
 
 same who has always fearlessly denounced nullification, whenever it has 
 shown its demon-head, as he does now, in the following extract: 
 
 " The time has gone by for holiday professions in favor of the Union — the time has come for 
 works. The condition of the country requires new tests for the Democratic [larty. Repudia- 
 tion of the Nashville Convention — repudiation of nullification and disunion, as remedies for 
 political evils — submission to the laws of the land until repealed by the people or invalidated by 
 the Judiciary. These are the tests which the times require, and no communion with any one 
 who will not adopt them and work up to them." 
 
 ' Mr. Chairman, a brighter day will soon dawn upon us. This deep- 
 seated hostility, this desperate opposition to the admission of the free 
 State of California, is one of the dying throes of the slave power. It 
 has controlled the destiny of this country. It has dispensed its patron- 
 age. It has grasped the executive, judicial, and diplomatic functions of 
 this Government. Our northern politicians have bowed down before its 
 shrine and worshipped ; and it has moulded them hke clay in the hands 
 of the potter. But its dream of a great slave mart on the shores of the 
 Pacific will never be realized — henceforth it is shorn of its power. The 
 fiat of the people has gone forth. " No new slave territory, no new slave 
 States," is the popular cry; and he lingers far behind the progressive 
 spirit of the age who doubts its hteral fulfillment. Henceforth, as in Cah- 
 fornia, new countries are to be seized and controlled by free labor, and 
 its dignity will be asserted. Let us hope that slavery, the only stigma 
 upon our great Republic, the living libel upon the Declaration of Inde- 
 pendence, will gradually disappear, and that the day will soon come 
 when the buying and selling of human beings will be known only like 
 religious intolerance, or the burning of witches, or the African slave 
 trade — among the things which an enlightened age condemns. 
 
 Mr. Chairman, I have spoken frankly and earnestly the promptings of 
 my judgment and my heart. If, upon this momentous question, it is my 
 fortune to differ with others, I have no disposition to question the purity 
 of their motives or the sincerity of their patriotism. Coming, as I do, 
 from the laboring classes, I should have failed to discharge my whole 
 duty if I had not spoken and acted, when I thought their interests in 
 jeopardy. As the representative of free white laboring men, I 
 mean to defend their rights. I have no desire for political preferment. 
 I have no ambition Tor fame. I shall be content if I leave no stain upon 
 my memory ; and if hereafter my descendants should, perchance, refer 
 to the records of these proceedings, I trust it will inspire them with an 
 honest pride, to be able to say "iie opiiosed the extension of slavery .'''' 
 
 LbS20