m:::i?''^^^^ss^ 017 897 833 HOLLINGER NEBRASKA AND KANSAS SPEECH HON. JAMES KNOX, OF ILLINOIS, IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, MAY 19, 1854. The House beino: in the Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union — Mr. KNOX said: Mr. Chairm.\n: On taking my seat in this Hall, I determined not to trespass on the time of Con- gress and the country unless I believed that some suggestion from me might aid in our deliberations. It is possible, ay, it is probable,* that this rule would now seal my lips. Flowever that may be, sir, nearly six months have elapsed since the open- ing of our session, and now for the first time I find myself upon tlws floor, under circumstances the most extraordinary — under a state of things not dreamed of when, in the canvass, I mingled with those v.'ho sent me here, and most unlocked for when, at yonder desk, I took the solemn oath to support the Constitution of the United States. Representing a district bounded on the west by the Mississippi, and divided by the Illinois, and forming a portion of a State which, though far inland, is nearly surrounded by navigable waters, connecting it with the internal trade of the con- tinent and the foreign commerce of the world, my constituents may have expected that on some suit- able occasion I would raise my feeble voice in be- half of the wise policy of the Government in giving of its means to improve the navigation of those inland seas and noble rivers, which a bountiful Piovidence designed for useful purposes. Resid- ing, too, in a district extending a hundred miles north and south, right across the pathway cf the ever increasing commerce and emigration Irom and through the great cities and populous States of the North to the now ocean bounded West, and having in it several railroads projected and in process of construction, each claimed to be upon the best route between the Atlantic and the Pacific, those whom I am honored in representing may have supposed it possible that by something more than an affirmative vote, I would aid in the exten- sion of these roads, and especially in laying the foundation of a great national highway, commenc- ing at some point on the Missouri, to which these and other roads converge, and stretching its iron track far westward to the magic city of San Fran- cisco. Having seen and experienced something (if the hardships and privations of frontier life, and watched with deep interest the slow and toilsome growth of the early settler, from the houseless, j homeless pioneer, into the substantial farmer in • comfort and happiness, I was favorably impressed I with the idea of throwing open to the less fortunate ' classes a portion of our broad domain, spread out in almost boundless extent by a beneficent Creator for the uses of man. As the humble Representative of a free people, almost equal in number to those who speak so ably through the gentlemen from Delaware and Florida here, and whose interests are so fully guarded by four honorable Senators at the other end of the Capitol, 1 might, perhaps, without overstepping the bounds of modesty, have claimed a passing remark upon any one of the topics to which I have referred, or any one of the minor questions discussed in the last election. Cer- tain it is, I did not expect, my constituents did not expect, that my first remarks upon this floor could, by any possibility, be upon the subject of slavery. Nay, more, sir, if in any one of the speeches which I attempted during the canvass, running through several weeks, and covering eleven large counties, I had intimated that the repeal of the Missouri compromise was to be the great question before this Congress, the statement would have been received with astonishment. If in any one of those speeches, I had had the hardihood and the folly to assert, that if elected, I would advocate the repeal of that time-honored compromise be- tween the South and the North, my eloquent com- petitor, not I, would have been here to tell the tale of that contest. Yes, sir, if avoiding that simple, old fashioned word " repeal," and with those magic words " self-government," " liber- ty," the " Constitution" upon my lips, worda which do, and I trust ever will find a way to the American heart, I had, in connection with this subject, artfully insinuattd those newly Invented legislative terms of this " progressive age," " su- perseded," "inconsistent with," "inoperative and void," that competitor might have told you that I had succeeded beyo^id his expectations in ma- king the " slowest (political) race" on record. I submit to other gentlemen on this floor whether, under similar circumstances, and with a likr avowal of purpose, they would not, like myse^j now be treading the quiet walks of private hfr Mr. Chairman, I ask your indulgence, anf^hat of this committee, in some remarks upon/'.^ bill now under consideration. In the House b-'>"i the Senate bill, and in the substitute offered^ ""7 col- I£433 A n.?. league, [Mr. Richardson,] there are, in my judg- ment, many objectionable features; but there is one which overshadows them all. 1 need hardly say, that is the clause which repeals the Missouri compromise-, and my objection to that clause is strengthened by the conviction that the repeal of that compromise supersedes whatever of cnmpro- mise there was about the legislation of IboO, which politicians and parties and conventions have de- nominated " compromise measures." The " acts" themselves will stand upon our statute-book, as does the Missouri act now, until re]ie«!ed by Con- gress. But, sir, it is my firm belief that the spirit of'kindness, of forbearance, of conciliation, of concession; in a word, the sjiirit of compromise which brought Missouri int:) ilie Uni"n, sisgijested and laid the foundruions for the le.'^isUuion of 1849-'50. Instead of lieing in any way impaired by the measures of 1S50, the Missouri compro- mise was indorsed and confirmed thereby, if there be any binding efficacy in the acts and language of men, which is not secured under their hands and seals. Let me ask what caused the agitation and ex- citement of 1S4S, 1849, and 1850, and to what do the laws of 1850, which are claimed to bear upon the bill before us, refer? The agitation of that time grew out of the territory acquired by us from Mexico, by the treaty of peace with that country. It is not necessary, to my present purpose, to even allude to the causes of and the history of the war with Mexico. It is enough here to say that at its close an immense territory, stretching far south- ward on the Pacific coast, was added to the Union, over which the South hoped, and the North feared the area of slavery would be extended. When t'ie Thirty-First Congress assembled, California, with a constitution formed by her people, excluding Elaverj', asked admission into the Union. The North were in favor of her admission and of ex- cluding slavery from all other new territory, and of prohibiting the slave trade in the District of Columbia. The South opposed the admission of California, the prohibition of the slave trade in this District, complained that their fugitive slaves were not delivered up in the free States, as required by the Constitution, and threatened secession and dis- union. Texas, admitted into the Union as a slave State, with undefined boundaries, claimed by her as extending over no small portion of the territory c«ded by Mexico, furnished another item in the ingredients which at the opening of Congress, in December, 1849, seemed (liere at least) to threaten the overthrow of the Government. At this critical moment came forward a man in the United States Senate to £xert his influence in quieting the troubled waves of political and sec- tional strife. Thatman was Henry Clay, of Ken- tucky — I had almost said, but will not say, for hisnaEieand famebelongto theUiiion — and Con- gress and the country breathed easier underthecon- victiqn that the same genius, and eloquence, and Iiatriotism, and devotion to the great principles of iberty, which had commanried the admiration of the world, and which had again and again quieted the commotions of parties and of sections would, \, 'ith the increase of age and experience, once again co.'<»,'>rottiise the then existing difficulties of the coui't-'y- Why was it that men of all sections and f %rties yielded to him the high position of mediator at this perilous crisis.' Was it not be- cause it vv'tis believed that he who had been mainly | instrumeni.'t! in quieting the slavery excitement, I growing out of theacquisition of French territory, 1 was the very man to allay a .similar excitement ' growing out of our Mexican acquisitions. As c(5nnected with the difHculties of 1850, it seems to me that a simple reference to the facts, the measures, and the men, will satisfy any rei- sonal'le mind that the legislation of 1850, so far from weakening, strengthened and confirmed the Missouri co-npromise of 1820. ' It has, however, been so strenuously insisted that the .Missouri compromise was no compro- mise, and if so, was superseded by the legisla- tion of 1850, that no excuse need be made for ad- ducmg some evidence to the contrary. I refer fust to a speech made in tne Senate on the 27th May, 1850, by Mr. Maso.v, of Viriinia. (Vol. 22, part l.st, App., p. G50, May 27, 1850.) After .'^peaking of the "Clayton bill" as one mode of adjustment sanctioned by southern votes, he says: " Out tlipre i.-i anotlior, far beircr understood, and wliicli lins the sanction of an acqiiiesctnicc of tliirty yi-ar.*. Fall- inc buck on tlie hasf^ of comprojnise adApiiMl on tlie .i(liiii.«pion of IMissonri, let us talct; tliH parall*^! of ^6° 3U' as the line of partition in tht^ jieiy Territories, thus .-.iitreiM;; to divid'! and enjoy separately a coinmon property, what otir different institutions would s'ein to forhid tiiat we should enjoy in couinion. EUlier form of adjustment, [ have litile doubt, would be found acceptable to theSoutli." Again he says: " Cut let it not be supposed that f nin at all the eulogist of lh§ original MLssouri compromise." Here Mr. Mason admits the existence of the Missouri compromise; gives it the sanction of thirlij years acquiescence. What becomes of the arguments of gentlemen toshow^that there was no such comproiuise, and of other gentlemen to show that it had been repudiated.' Mr. Masom again speaks of the " basis of compromise," and says: " Let us take tlje parallel of 360 30' as the line of partition in the nem Territories, will any man say that, in /tis judgment, theorigiiial .Missouri coinpromise had reference to any territory except that acquired from France in 1803?" Why, sir, the letter from Mr. Pinckney, of South Carolitia, which has been frequently referred to, to show that the Missouri act was a southern triumph, repels the presutuption that it was intended to alTect any territory but that embraced in the bill: Congress HaI.i,, March, 2, 1820, ) 3 o'clock at night. ] Dear Sir : I hasten to inform you that this moment we have carried the question to admit Missouri and all Louisi- ana to the southward of lid" 30' free of the restriction of slavery, and ^ve the Soidh, in n short time, an ndJition of six, and perhaps ei^ht, members to the Scnatf of Hie United States. It is considered here by the slaveholding States as a ({reat triumph. The voK-s were close — ninety lo eighty- si.\, [the vote was so first declared]— produced by the seced- iniE; and absence of a few modenite men from the North. To the north of 36° 30' there is to be, by the present law, restriction, which you will see by the votes I voted against. But it is at present of no moment. It is a vast tract, unin- hnhited only by savages and wild hearts, in which not a f>ot nf the Indian claim to soil is extinguished, aiid in whieh, accordini; to the ideas prevalent, no land office will be open for a s.reat length of time. With respect, your obedient servant, <;il.\RLES PINCKNEV. Mr. Pinckney, instead of looking to the exten- sion of territory to the Pacific, was only looking to the remote period when land offices were to be established in the Territory of Nebraska. Mr. Chairman, the eloquent gentleman from GeorJJia, in his speech of February last, with a great flourish of trumpets, calls up Daniel Web- ster, and places him upon the stand in his place in the Senate, on the 17th day of June, the identi- cal day when, upon Mr. Soule's motion, this anfiendinent was voted into the compromise bill: "Aiid vvlien llie said Teriiiory, or any portion of the saiiH', ;-tiall be admitted as a StaJe, it sliall he received into ttie Union, witli or witliout slavery, as tlieir cunslitulioii may prescribe at the time of admission." With artistic skill he pictures the scene with New England's renowned statesman in tlie foreground. Passing by all that was said by Mr. Webster on that occasion which had any bearing upon the proposition before the Senate, he recites only the concluding remarks of thatgreat man, which, how- ever eloquent they may be, certainly have little connection with Mr. Soule's amendment, and straightway the Senate, the galleries, the whole Capitol, and the city, were in ecstacies, and the elec- tric wires trembled with the gladsome nevv-s which was to make the nation leap v/ith joy. I read them: " Sir, my object is peace, my object is reconciliation. My purpose is not to mal^e up a case for the Norili. or to malie up a case for the South. My object is not to continue use less atul irritating controversies. I am against agitators North and South. I am against local ideas North and South, and against all narrow and local contests. I am an Amer- ican, and I know no locality in ."Vmerica. That is my country. My heart, my sentiments, my judgment, demand of me that I should pursue sucii a course as shall promote the good, and the harmony, and the union of the whole country. This I shall do, God willing, to the end of the chapter." Let me examine the gentleman's witness for a moment. I read from his speech on that occasion. In it he says he voted against the Wilmot proviso; has not seen much practical utility in Mr. Soule's amendment; but if he should vote against it, it might leave him open to the suspicion of wishing to see that accomplished in another way hereafter which he did not choose to see accomplished by the Wil- mot proviso: "I shall vote for it exactly on the same grounds that I voted againt the introduction of the proviso. And let it be remembered that I am now speaking of New Mexico, Utah, and other Territories acquired by Mexico, and of nothing else. I confine myself to these; and as to them, I say that 1 see no occasion to make provision against slavery now, or to reserve to ourselves the right to make such provision here- after. All this rests on the most thorough conviction that, under the law of nature, there never can be slavery in these Territories. That is the foundation of all. And I voted against the proviso, and I vote now in favor of this amend- ment, for the reason that all restrictions are unnecessary, absolutely unnecessary." And he desired not to give offense. Did Mr. Webster vote for this proposition with the expectation that it should be used as a weapon to strike down the Missouri compromise ! Mr. Chairman, it is one of the old expedients of lawyers to array on their.side men of character atid standing as witnesses in a desperate cause. We have an example in point in the recent mur- der ca.se in Kentucky, where the able counsel for the defense, not content with the great men of the vicinage, had the attendance of gentlemen of high standing from this city. Tlie gentleman from Georgia has shown his skill in the use of this ex- pedient. It was adroitly managed, and if any of my friends ever have a desperate case in the courts of Georgia, I shall certainly advise them lo give him a " retainer." ( need not say to yon, Mr. Chairman, that this little amendment of Mr. Soulc, which is found in i the arts organizing the Territories of Utaii and New Mexico, contains the great principles gravely set forth in the fourteenth section of the bill re- , ported to the House by the chairman of the Com- I mittee on Territories [Mr. RicHARDso>f] on the I 31st of January last, in these words: I '• Except the eighth section of the act preparatory to the admission of Missouri into the Union, approved March 6, 1820, which was superseded by the jninciples of the legis- lation of 1850, cotnmoniy called the compromise measures, and is hereby declared inoperative." Is it not remarkable that this little amendment of Mr. Soule, which sent such a thrill of joy through the Capitol, this city, and the country, and caused the telegraphic wires to tremble with ecstacy; this amendment, which contained such wonderful principles, was entirely forgotten at the last Congress, when a bill organizing the Terri- tory of Nebraska, containing no reference to it or the Missouri compromise, passed this Flouse by a vote of more than two to one ? Is it not passing strange tliat the gentleman from Georgia, who, as he tells us, " was there and wit- nessed the scene, "and heard Mr. Webster in the Senate on that memorable 17th June, when Mr. Soule's amendment was adopted, did not rise in his place and offer it as an amendment to that bill.-' Sir, the gentleman did not raise his voice against that bill. He did not even record hisvote against it. Sir, there are two words in the bills before us which explain all the mystery connected with the action of the last Congress upon this subject. Then the clause in the Utah and New Mexico bills was deemed " locally inappUcalde" to Nebraska ! Well, sir, on the 17th day of June, this great principle was adopted in the Senate; and we ought, perhaps, to have expected that nothing more would be heard of the Missouri compromise. But not so; on the ISth day of July, Mr. Davis, then Sen- ator from Mississippi, now Secretary of War, said: "The proposition of the Nashville conven- tion was to divide the Territory by the parallel of 360 3(j';" and he spoke of it as " preferable to a new line, because of the prescriptive claim it has, and the respect it enjoys among the people as a measure sanctified by time, and still more by the blessings it brought on our country at a time of serious, even alarming agitation." And again, on the 2tl of August, Mr. Davis said of the same parallel: " I expect there are none who hear me who will deny that thai line will give an amount of satisfaction which no other line could give." Can it be believed that Mr. Davis considered the act of 1820 " inoperative and void t" On the same day, August 2d, Mr. Badger, of North Carolina, made a speech upon this subject, from which 1 feel warranted jn reading a pretty long extract, on account of his long amendment to the bill: " We just stand right here, and ask for and enforce our reasonable claims. What have we asked of our northern friends, and how have we asked it .' We have used-^-cer- lainly I have used — no language either of defiance or'cven of demand. We have been content earnestly and itHeetion- ately to ask— yes, to entreat, not insolently todictale or re- quire. We have said, do not wantonly what you know will be regarded amongst us as atlVontliil, unkind ; do not ap|ily to these Territories the Wilmot proviso. You can have no motive m apply it, unless it be a paltry pride which leads you to persevere at all hazards in what you have once purposed — the simple willingness to offer an affront because you have the power to ofler it. There is nothing of vitlue to he uicomplislietl /jy*i7 ; 710 result to lie produeeil — none in the vorld. Ours has l)een simple asking on the part of men who can indd out no longer, to be permitted to march o\it of their fortilicalions with their side arms and their flag flying." Again he says: " Now, sir, hiyiind the omission of a useless, and, among southern men, oppressive proviso, we have asked only a gpod and etTectual law for the surrender of fugitive slaves — a mi.'asure which the Constitution makes a clear and im- perative duty." If I mistake not, it was upon liie sus:H;estion of. this distinguisiied Senator that the word inconsist- ent took the place of "superseded." Now, sir, I can readily imasjine, as connected with the repeal of the Missouri comprutnise, how the word in- consistent was brought to his mind. It passes my comprehension how he came to give it the ap})li- cation which he did. As a document full of meaning, I will refer to the declaration and pledge of forty-four members of theTliirty-First Congress, in which they agreed not to support for office any person not opposed to disturbing the settlement of 1850, and " to the renewal, in any form, of agitation upon the sub- ject of slavery. Permit me to call the attention of the committee to some extracts from a speech made by Mr. Douglas in the Senate, December 23, 1851. In that he says, in substance, that he, as chairman of the Committee on Territories, drew and re- ported bills for the admission of California, for territorial governments for Utah and New Mexico, and for the settlement of the Texas boundary question, which were printed. These bills Mr. Clay wafered together and reported in his omni- bus bill, which he supporttd as u joint measure, and supported each measure separately. He adds: " Mr. President, I cl.Tiiii no credit lor liavine; orisjinated and proposed the measures coiilained in the onmihus. Tlicrc was no peculiar or remarkahle feature in tliein. They werS mere/;/ ordinary measures of legislation, well adapted to the cirtiniistanres, and their sole merit consisted in the fact tliat separately they could pass both Flou-'^es. Being responsible for these bills, I wish to call the ailenlion of the Senate and the country to tlie fact that they con- tained no prohibiiion of slavery, no provision upon tlie sub ject." Again, Mr. Douglas says: '•In faking leave of this subject, I wish to state tliat I have determined nei-er to make another sjieerh upon the slavery question ; ami I will now add the hope that the necessity for it will never exist." I apprehend, Mr. Chairman, if the honorable Senator had adhered to that wise determination, he would have saved liimself, inany here, and many elsewhere, the necessity of making speeches upon the slavery question. 1 I now pass to a later period ; to a day when the great American heart wms filled with sadness by the death of Henry Clay, and this Hall was i shrouded in gloom, and eloiiuent men were here adjustment of 18.")0, the same pages will record the genius, the eloquence, and the patriotism of Hemy Clay I" " Nor was it in Mr. Clay's nature to lag behind until measures of a(lju>tment were matured, and then eome fnr- wani to swell a majority. On the contrary, like a bold and real statesman, he was ever amons the first to meet the peril and hazard his fame upon the remedy." 1 wish I could stop here, but justice to the char- acter of that distinguished patriot, and my duty as regards the measure now under consideration, require something more at my hands. Mr. Chairman, when the proposition was in- troduced, at the other end of tlie Capitol, to repeal the Missouri compromise, 1 believed, and I fondly thought with good reason, that the sons of Ken- tucky on this floor, driving from " their bosoms by the expulsive power of noble feelings" all party and sectional jealousies, would stand as one man in support of that compromise with which the name of their own great statesman was so honorably connected. So far from doing this, Representatives from that State have labored hard to show that Mr. Clay had little to do with that great measure, and that of no very creditable char- acter. On the 25th of March last, the gentleman from whose oibituary address I have read, made a speech in favor of the measure before the com- mittee, and from that I beg leave to read a few extracts: " r liave heard gentleman here glorify Mr. Clay as the anilinr of the act of 18-30, prohibiting slavery north of 36' .'id', and invoke liis memory to resist its violation. They must invoke some other ' spirit' than Mr. Clay's, forlic was not its author." After quoting from, and commenting on that act, he atJds: " This was the agreement on the one hand for the benefit of Missouri, and, if you choose, of the South. On the other hand, slavery was to be prohibited north of 31;° 30', and this was for the benefit of the North. The terms and conditions on each side were clearly e.\pressed ; but with it Mr. Clay had nothing to do.'" The gentleman then refers to the Missouri act of 1821, and, in his comments upon it, says: " It is due to the memory of the illustrious aullior of this ' fundanienial comlition' to say thai no one could be more sensible than himself of the intense humbuggery of the whole proceeding." So Mr. Clay had nothing to do with the act of 1820! Tlie act of 1821 was "intense humbug- gery!" Sir, I do not propose to comment upon these extracts. I will not comment upon the course of to speak of the life, the character, and the public services of the illusA-ious dead. At an early day in this session I had the pleasure ;! ''^"■''e here or elsewhere who seek to repeal the to reperuse the touching and truthful tributes of i -Missouri compromise. I will not comment on respect paid to his memory on that mournful ; '•'^^ '^o"'^'"'^' ^'^ ''i"se who claim the bill before us as a measure of peace, the legitimate offspring of the measures of 1850. I submit whether there is occasion; but with none of the addiesses then delivered was I more forcibly impressed than with that by the eloquent gentleman from Kentucky, [Mr. Breckinridge,] already referred to by my friend from Tennessee, [Mr. Cullom] From tliis I propose to read more fully than he. I read from that speech as reported in the Congressional Globe, vol. 24, p. 1638. " Sir, it will be a proud pleasure to every iriic .\inerican heart to remember the great occasions where Mr. Clay di.s- ' played a sublime patriotism. When the ill temper engen- (lered by the times, and the miserable jealousies of the dav, seemed lo have been driven from his bosom by the e.\pul- i aive power of nobler feelings; when every throb ol his heart was given to his country. Who does Hot remember the three periods when the American system of govern- j ment was e.\posed to its severest trials ; and who does not know that when history shall relate the struggles which preceded, and the dangers which were averted by the Mis': 80uri compromise, the larilT coini)romise of 1832, and the I not a fitting commentary upon all these in the gentleman's own eloquent and just remarks which I now read froin his obituary address :" " He never paltered in a double sense. The country never was in doubt as to his opinions or his purposes. Sir, standing by the grave of this great man, and considering ' these things, how contemplihle does appear the mere leger- demain of jh)lilics ! IV'hal a reproach is his life on that fatsfi policy mhich would trifle with a great and upright peo- ple ! If I were to write his epitaph, I would inscribe as the highest i-ulogy on the stone which shall mark his rest- ing place, ' Here lies a man who w,is in the public service for fifty years, and never attempted to deceive his coun- irynien.' " Mr. Chairman, much has been said about the injustice of keeping Missouri out of the Union. My own impression, before lookingatdates, was, that she was kept out for a long time. But how 5 is this. The act of 1820 was preparatory to ad- mission, and under this act she came to Congress, with her constitution, at its next session, and in less than three months after her apphcation, the act of 1821 was passed, under which Missouri is now one of the sovereign States of this great Confederacy. Sir, the present Congress has been in session nearly six months, and I aslc what law of great benefit to the American people had been enacted ? The improvement of rivers and harbors in which Missouri herself and Illinois, and all the States bordering on the great rivers and lakes of the interior, and, I may add, the whole Union are so vitally concerned, is an unwritten page in the record of our doings. For aught that we know, that subject is not to have a decent burial in the " tomb of the Capulets." It would be some con- solation to its friends to know that it has not found its last resting place in a less imposing vault in the basement of the Capitol. But I return to the subject, and desire to call the attention of the committee to resolutions passed at the national conventions, at Baltimore, in 1852. j I read first from the Democratic platform: [ "IV. Resolved, That the f'orpgoing proposition covers, and was intended to embrace, tlie whole subject of slavery agi- i tation in Congress ; and thererore the Democratic party of the Union, standing on this national platform, will abide by and adhere to a faithful execution of the acts known as the compromise measures settled hy the last Congress, 'the act for reclaiming fugitives from service or labor' included; which act, being designed to carry out an ex- press provision of the Constitution, cannot with fidelity tliefeto be repealed or so changed as to destroy or impair its eflioiency. " V. Resolved, That the Democratic party will resist all attempts atrenewins, in Congress or out of it, the agitation of the slavery question, under whatever shape or color the attempt may be made." The Whig platform has this: j "VIII. The series of acts of the Thirty-First Congress, cominonly known as the compromise or adjustment, (the act for the recovery of fugitives from labor included,) are received and acquiesced in by the Whigs of the United States as a final settlement, in principle and substance, of the subjects to which they relate," &c. j These resolutions have frequently been referred to, and it has pertinently and significantly been asked whether the measure now before us accords with their letter and their spirit, /wish to in- quire how came these planks into their respective platforms.' The history of thoseconventionsshows that they were placed there by southern men, not to indorse a great principle which was to destroy the Missouri compromise and create agitation. That was not thought of; biit to indorse the fugi- tive slave law, and prevent agitation. Look at the resolutions. "The act for the recovery of fugitives," or "reclaiming fugitives," is specifi- cally mentioned, and no other. Then the word compromise was not so odious in certain quarters as now. The other acts of 1850 were coupled ; with the fugitive slave law, the inan tie of compro- mise was thrown over all, and these resolutions ' were commended to and received by the American ; people as a final quietus to slavery agitation. It is for the high priests of party to reconcile this measure of agitation, by thein brought upon the country, with their solemn resolves at Baltimore. I I pass to later events, to which I have already i alluded. Here in this Hall, and at yonder end of the Capitol, in these high places where the acts of 1850 became laws, v/here the object and effect of those laws were best understood, no man had the . hardihood to declare, during the last session of 11 Congress, that those acts repealed, or in anywise |j impaired, the Missouri compromise. On the 2d February, 1853, a bill was reported to this House ; by the chairman of the Committee on Territories, ' [Mr. Richardson,] for the organizfUion of Ne- braska. It contained no repeal of the Missouri compromise. It was here discussed, but no one on this floor pretended that the Missouri act was in any wise impaired in "principle or in subslance." It is true that a laugh wrs got up at the expense of the gentleman from Ohio, [Mr. Giddikos,] for not offering the ordinance of 1787; but that "laugh- ter" served to show how ridiculous it would have been for him to propose to apply that oidinance to territory where it was alreat^y in full force. The only serious objection made to the bill was that it violated Indian treaties and Indian rights. On the 10th of February the bill passed by a vote of 98 to 43, northern and southern members voting for, and northern and southern members voting against its passage; and all the members froiTi Mis- souri advocating or voting for the bill. It went t to the Senate, was referred to the Committee on Territories, and on the 17th of February, Mr. ; Dq^GLAs, chairman of that committee, re[)orted it back without arnfendment. On the 2a March, 1853, Mr. Douglas moved to take it up. Mr. Rusk ob- jected, "That bill will lead to debate." Mr. Douglas replied "Not at all; there is only one isolated point which will lead to debate." That point, as is evident from discussion, had on that day and the 3d day of Maixh, was that the bill interfered with Indian rights. That objection was then, as recently, urged by Messrs. Bell and Houston, and other Senators. On the 3d day of March, Mr. Dwuglas again moved to take up the Nebraska bill. It was again discussed, but not a v/hisper was uttered about the validity of the Missouri compromise. On the contrary, Mr. Atchison, of Missouri, said — " I have always been of opinion that the first great error committed in the political history of this country was the ordinance of 1787, rendering the Northwest Territory free territory. The ne.xt great error was tlie Missouri compro- mise, ijut they are bo^i irremediable. Thert is no remedy for them. We must submit to tlii-ni. I am prepared to do it. It is evident that the Missouri compromise cannot be repealed. So far as that question is concerned, we might as well agree to the admission of this Territory now as next year, or live or ten years hence." — Con<;ressional Globe, second session, 3^d Cong., vol. 26,yagf, 111.3. — and urged the passage of the bill. In the last mo- ments of the session of that day, in the very hour, perhaps, which divided the xldministratioii of Mil- lard Fillmore from the Administration of Franklin Pierce, Mr. Douglas again urged the passage of the bill in these words: " My anxiety for the passage of the hill induces ino to yield the advantage of explaining its provisions, with the iiope that we might get an immediate vote upon llie subject. It is an act that is very near my heart," 4't. Mr. Chairman, " On what aslender thread hang everlasting things I" Had there on that night been a quorum in the Sen- ate, had the Senate then passed that bill, the coun- try would have been saved an excitement upon the subject of slavery, the end of which is beyond human foresight. Congress would liow be legis- lating upon questions aflecting the best interests of the Union, and the entire Union. You, (Mr." Olds in the chair,) and I, sir, might have been deliberating how best to improve the navigation of our own noble rivers; how to connect, by rail- road, the valley of the Mississippi with the coast of the Pacific and the commerce of the Indies. I come down to the present Congress. At an 6 early day in this session, an lionoraltle Representa- tive of Missouri, [Mr. Miller,] who, but a day or two since, willi new-born zeal, so aliiy advocated the bill before us, introduced into this House a bill organizing theTerritory of Nebraska, contain- ing not one word repealing tlie Missouri compro- mise. At the other end of the Capitol a bill was, on the 4th of January, introduced by Mr. Doug- las, not tor two Tcsritories, but one, Nebraska, accompanied by a report, from which I read an extract: "Your cnniinittre do not feel tliemsplves called upon to enter i;ito the discussion of these conlrovwrted queslion?. Tlwy involve tlie sjinie grave issues wliicli prociuced llie aaitalion, lUe sectional strife, and the fearful struggle of 1650, " Consress deemed it wise and prudent to refrain from dscidins the niHlters in controversy then, either hy affirming or repealing the Mexican laws, or by an act deeiaratory of tlie true intent of ilie Constitution and the extent of the protection afTorderi by it to slave property in the Territories; so your comniittee are not prepared now to reconnnend a depariurf from the course pursued on that memorable occa- sion, tillier by atiirniiuf; or repealing the eighth section of the .Mi'^souii act, or by any ait declaratory of the meaning of the Constitution in respect to the legal points in dispute." Up to the 4th day of January, then, the Missouri compromise was safe. It was not necessary to disturb it either by " afHrming or repealing." Sir, a change came over the spirit of men's dreams. Suddenly, and without preparation, a revelation, more marvelous, more astounding, than any ever delivered by the Mormon prophet to his credulous followers, was proclaimed at the other etid of this Capitol. "Wonderful to relate," the Missouri compromise w;is dead ! V/iihout a groan, with- out a gasp, without the notice of its friends, with- out the knoJ^ledge of its enemies, it had expired amid the tumultuous scenes of 1850; and to con- vince the world of its death at that particular time, evidence was produced to prove that it was mur- dered in 1821, butciiered in 1836, and " kilt in- tirely"on several subsequent occasions! More wonderful still, out of the ashes of that com- promise had sprung a young phoenix, which had sung and. would sing the " lullaby" to slavery ex- citement until the end of time. The amendm.ent of Mr. Soule to the territorial bills of Utah and New Mexico, adopted in the Senate June 17, 1850, which Mr. Webster de- clared was to applj' to " New Mexico and Utah and other territory acquired from Mexico, and ncthing else," and which as to them, in his judg- ment, meant nothing, v/hich no Senator, Repre- sentative, lawyer, or politician had ever claimed as having any bearing upon the Missouri compro- mise, was all at once discovered to contain a prin- ciple which had superseded that compromise, to wit: the right of self-government. 1 have yet to learn that any one on this floor denies tl.e cor- rectness of a jirinciple which lies at the foundation of our free institutions. I take it that the repre- sentatives of the people of the thirty-one States of this Union are here this day in the exercise of this very princijde. I take it, sir, that if, in our judgment, the interests and prosjjerity of the country require that slavery, with its evils, shall be excluded from territories which are the com- mon property of all, wo may so exclude it, in the full and legitimate exerci.se of this very prin- ciple, just as we might proliiliit the charter of banks, or of lotteries, or of gambling tables, or whatever else may be deemed injurious to the prosperity of those territories.* * June 3, 1850. Mr. Dodolas said in the Senate: " But, sir, I do not hold the doctrine that to exclude It is not the correctness of the principle which is in dispute. The question is, rather, what has it to do with the measure now before us? What are its bearings upon past legislation upon the subject of slavery, and what are to be its efftcts upon the future? These are points upon wliich the advocates of the repeal of the Missouri com- promise dilTer as widely among themselves as they do with those who oppose it. Why, sir, even the author of the bill, the hon- orable Senator who claims the credit of discover- ing this sovereign panacea for allaying slavery excitement, cannot agree with himself upon the effects of his all-healing principle. In his speech of the 30th January, Mr. Doug- las says: '■ I sustained the Missouri compromise .so lone as it was in force, and advocated its extensinn to the Pacific. Now, when that has lieen abandoned, when it has been super- seded, when a great principle of self griveriimenl has been substituted for it, I choose to cling to that principle, and abide in good faith, not only by the letter, but by liiu spirit of the last eotnproniise." By the 2d of March, when he made his second speech, he had discovered that this great princi- ple, which, after lying dormant for more than three years, on tlie 30th of^ January possessed such im- 1 mense eflrcacy, had, after all, in no wise lepealed i the Missouri compromise. By some means the ! terms " incon.sistent with," and " inoperative and 'void," had superseded the word "superseded," j and it was found that, instead of the principle j (though grown to be a " great fundamental prin- jjlel") having repealed the Missouri compromise, I it was necessary to repeal that compromise in order to give effect to the principle. I read from the speech of March 2: I " In order to carry this principle into practical operation, j it becomes necessary to remove whatever legal obstacles I might be found in the way of its free exercise. It is only [ for the purpose of carrying nut this fundamental principle 1 of self aoveinment that the bill renders the eighth section of the Missouri act inoperative and void." I Oh, yes; it was merely "necessary" to remove i that legal obstacle, of which the honorable Sena- ' tor had said at Springfield in October, 1849, aa ( already quoted by my eloquent colleague [Mr. Yates:] " That it had its origin in the hearts of all patriotic men who desired to preserve and perpetuate tlie blessings of our glorious Union — an origin akin to that of tlie (Constitution of the United States, conceivid in the same spirit of frater- nal afleclion, -and calculated to remove forever the only dang<'r which seemed to threaten, at some distant day, to sever the social bond of union- All the evidences of public opinion at that day seemed to indicate that this com- promise had become canonized in the hearts of the .'Vnieri- can people as a sacred thing, which no ruthless hand would ever be reckless enough to disturb." The objects are various; but what is the pre- tense tor the measure proposed? It is made most lirominent in every speech in its favor on this floor, and is repeated and reiterated in every news- paper which advocates it through the land. Its professed object is to carry out a great principle of any species of property by law from any Territory is a vio- lation of any right to property. Do you not exelmte bank.s IVom most of the Territories? Do you not exclude whisky from being introduced into large portions ol tin- territory iif the United States.' Do you not exclude gainl)liiig tableg which are properly recognized as such in the Stales where they are tolerated? And has any one contended that the exclusion of gambling tables and of ardent spirits was the violation of any constitutional privilege or rigii! ? And yet it is the ease in a large portion of the Territory of the United Stales ; but then — no outcry against that, because it is tlie prohibition of a specitickind of property, and not a prohibition against any tiection of tlie Union." liberty, and to give peace to the country upon the subject of slavery. Sir, the Roman conspirators who struck dovt'n and batlied their arms up to the elbows in the blood of Cresar, went forth to the market place with the cry of " Peace ! Freedom ! and Liberty!" Did they bring peace upon their country? No, sir. War, cruel and unnatural vi^ar, in which Roman blood, shed by Roman hands, flowed like water. Did they achieve freedom? No, sir; the humiliating domination of petty tyrants, and they the conspirators, found early and bloody graves. Brutus " the noblest Roman of them all," with the name of his murdered friend upon his li[)s, threv/ himself upon his own sword at Piiilippi. It is vain for gentlemen to cry Peace ! Peace! while advocating and forcing upon us a measure more than any other calculated to arouse the storms of discord. It is worse than vain for them to in- voke the genius of liberty, while by their own act, they throw open to slavery a land long since con- secrated to freedom ! It is an insult to the intelli- gence of the American people to say that you establish the principle of popular sovereignty in these Territories, when by the bill before us you give to one man the power to appoint Governors and judges, and other officers, to execute and ex- pound, and administer their laws — a power in the hands of the President almost as arbitrary as that exercised by the King of Great Britain over his Colonies. But, sir, much has been said about honor and plighted faith, as connected with the Missouri compromise. It has been repeatedly shown, that a few northern men, who, so far from represent- ing the views of the free States, acted in open violation of the wishes of their own constituents, united with the South and passed the act of 1820; and the same may be said of the act of 1821. Suppose, sir, that, in some fearful emergency, the gentleman from N* w York, who sits next me, [iVIr. Havek,] saves my life at the hazard of his own; another emergency arises in which his life is in peril, and it is in my power to save, would I be exl^used from doing it, even if abused and insulted by every other citizen of Buffalo? Sir, if I have any just conception of the high and en- nobling sentiments of gratitude and of lionor, they would impel me, in defense of the life of my former preserver, to throw myself upon the horns and before the feel of the most terrific herd of buffaloes that ever rushed in mad career over the plains of Nebraska. Nay, more, sir; if the oc- casion did not offer in my lifetime to pay that debt, I would enjoin it as a sacred trust upon my legal representatives to discharge the same, with interest, whenever and wherever presented by him, his heirs, or executors. if those few men of the North who united with the men of the South in making the Missouri compromise could be called from the spirit world and heard on this floor, I apprehend they would raise a voice of remonstrance against this measure which would reach the southern heart. Might they not properly say: " Men of the South, i«e are they who made this compromise with your illus- trious sires; at a fearful crisis in the aflairs of the Republic, they and we made a sacrifice of our sectional interests and sectional feelings upon the altar of our common country. We made between the North and the South what we believed a just and equitable partition of the common territory of the nation, and upon it, in the spirit of amity and concord, we crossed bur right hands. It is true, we were censured, villified, persecuted by our constituents for the act, but ve never wa- vered. We ever kept our ' plighted faith.' Your sires ever maintained theirs. Men of the South, the sacred agreement which we made with your fathers is about to be trodden in the dust. You can avert this calamity. Do it, and show your- selves their worthy successors; do it, and preserve tlieir honor and your own honor untarnished." Mr. Chairman, the North has ever dealt justly, generously by the South. Of the Territories added to the Union after its formation, the South has more than her proportion. It was a north- ern man who named George Washington Com- mander-in-Chief of the Army of the Revolution, and from that day to this the North has conceded [ to the South a inore than equal portion of the places of honor, and profit, and responsibility, within the gift of the people and the Government. This was clearly and forcibly shown by my col- league, [Mr. BissELL,] in a speech made on this floor in February, 18.50 — a speech, I may add, by which that distinguished gentleman gained a char- acter for bold and manly eloquence " not less re- nowned " than that for valor before achieved on the battle-fields of Mexico. Mr. Chairman, I regret that he is not now among us to aid in our deliber- ations. I regret more the illness which keeps him from his seat, and in this feeling this House and the country will most cordially unite with me. Slavery is an evil; it is adrnittei! to be so. The few who deny this cannot affect the sentiment of the many who declare slavery to be the dark st^in upon the bright escutcheon of our country. Sit down with 'some patriotic Englishman, and dis- cuss with him the merits of his Government and your own. On many things which constitute the fame, the wealth, and the greatness of both coun- tries, each will be well satisfied with his own po- sition; but you will be apt to remind him that in two memorable eras of your common history Young America triumphed over Old England on the ocean and the land. Regarding this as rather oflfensive, he will be pretty sure to retort, " With all your boasted freedom, you have slavery in its worst form." " Slaves cannot breathe in England. If their lungs Rnceive our air, that moment they are free ; They touch our country, and their shackles fall." And what is your reply to this? It is found as the climax of the wrongs inflicted upon the Colonies by the King of Great Britain, which Jefferson placed in the draft of the Declaration of our Inde- pendence: " He has waged cruel war against human nature itself, violating its most sacred rights of life and liberty in the persons of a distant people who never oflended him, capturing and carrying them into slavery in another hemis- phere, or to incur miserable death in their transportation thither. This piratical warfare, the opprobrium of intidel power, is the warfare of the Christain KingofGrent Britain. Determined to keep open a market where men should be bought and sold, he has prostituted his negative for suppress- ing every legislative attempt to prohibit or to restrain this execrable commerce." If this bill should pass — if slate States should be formed out of these Territories — may it not happen that citizens of those States, seeing and feeling the inconsistency and evils of slavery, will throw upon this Congress the blame for its existence there? Others must and will act as they please upon this subject. As for me, when my brief career shall be run, when my name shall be forgotten, no citi- zen or Representative from any of those States 8 shall find among the musty records of this day's doings my name in the list of those sanctioning this measure. Mr. Chairman, I stand where Mr. Clay stood, when in his place in the Senate, in February, 1850, he said: " I never can, ai)d never will, and no earthly power will make me, vote to spread slavery over territory where it does not exist." What matters it, if standing with some friend upon the fearful brink of the cataract of Niagara, he, by some false step, loses iiis balance and seizes my hand to save him from destruction; what mat- ters it, I ask, wliether, at that perilous moment, I wrench from him the hand which is able save, or while he stands in safety by my side, gazing upon the sublimity of the scene, with that same hand I thrust him down the fatal abyss.' Sir, in the forum of conscience, in the eye of man and of God, I am as guilty of the blood of my fellow-man in the one case as the other. Gentlemen on thia floor say — the bill itself says— you are not legis- ■'librpRV of congress laiing slavery into these Ten by th' mei( quiet and . 1 r no ea direcl\ doe- 1 seat i 0011 897 833 ft Oh, no; e, you are vevy may f Kansas vili, and (ly or in- f vhere it -jlds her ..I — never, while my heart sends the vital fluid through my veins — never! The above shows at a glance the comparative extent of the free and slave territory of the United States; the part in v/hite representing the free, and that in black the slave States. In the shaded portions are presented the immense regions of Nebraska and Kansas. In so small a map ij is impossible to present exact boundaries. It is proper to add, that by the acts of 1R50 there was left in Te.xas, north of 36° 30', a strip of territory one and a half degrees of latitude in width, and three degrees of longi- tude in leiigih; nearly three times as large as Mas- sachusetts. Two tuiids of this in, 'ly thei%.t:;ent. bill, thrown into Kansas. This is not seen in the map. The following extracts from the acts of Con- gress are given to show that the " compromise measures" of 1850 recognized the Missouri com- promise: MISSOURI COMPROMISE. "'The eifhtli section of an act, entitled ' An act to au- thorize the people ol' Missouri Territory to form a consti- tution and Slate goveftiment, and for the admission of^aid Slate into the Udion on equal footing with the orisinal Stale!), and to prohibit slavery in certain Territories,' ap- proved March 5th, 1820, contains the following enactment : 'Provided, 'I'hat in all that Territory ceded by France to the United Slates, under the name of Louisiana, which lies north of 36" HO' north latitude, notincluded within the limits of the Stale contemplated by this act, slavery and involun- tary servuude, otherwise than in the punishment of crimes, whereof the parties shall be duly convicted, be and is hereby, I forever prohibited : Provided alwnyn, That any person es- caping into the same trom whom labor or service is law- ] fully claimed in any State or Territory of the United States, I such fugitive nia\ i)e lawfully claimed and conveyed to the person claimii g his or her laborer service, as aforesaid.' " ANNEXATION OF TEXAS. " The third artirte otihe. second section of the 'joint res- olutions for annexing Texas to the United States,' approved March 1, 1845, among other things, provides, that' New Slates, of convenient size, not exceeding four in nun)ber, in addition to the State of Texas, and having sufficient pop- ulation, may hereafter, by the consent of said State, be fornicd out ot' the territory thereof, which shall be entiled to admission under the provisions of the Feiieral Uonstilu- tioN, .'\nd such States as m:iy be formed out of that portion of said tcrru.iry lying soui^h of 30^ ;)0 notlii laiituti' , com- monly known as the Missouri compromise line, shall be admitted into the Uni