i3si SPEECH OF HON. WM. CULLOM, OF TENNESSEE. ON THE NEBMSKA AND KANSAS BILL, IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, APRIL 11, 1854. ^j^ WASHINGTON: ' PRINTED AT THE CONGRESSIONAL GLOBE OFFICE. 1854. NEBRASKA AND KANSAS. The Housebeing in the CommiUee of the Whole on the state of the Union — Mr.CULLOM said: Mr. Chairman: I am not entirely without legislative experience, but I think the House will attest ray indisposition to occupy their time in the discussion of any question, unless I am impelled by a high sense of public duty to do so; and in the brief hour which I shall consume on this oc- casion, let me assure you 1 am not prompted by personal vanity, for I am one of those v/ho be- lieve that the public interest is generally best pro- moted by a silent vote, and a punctilious attend- ance on the business of the House. I regret that a sense of public duty impels me upon this occa- sion to depart from what has been my usual habit, not only in this body, but also in the delib- erative assemblies in which 1 have served in my own State. The importance of this question, which has thus been unexpectedly thrust before the country, furnishes my excuse, however, for troubling the committee with any remarks at this time. Mr. Chairman, when I took leave of my con- stituents, when I bade farewell, for a time, to the people of Tennessee, and came here to mingle my humble labors with those of the chosen Represent- atives of the American people, in the needful legislation of our then happy, harmonious, and prosperous country, little did I think that at such a period of general repose, when all sections of the Union were united in the bonds of fraternal friendship, when all parties had solemnly cov- enanted and agreed to cease the agitation of sec- tional questions, I should be called upon to take part in the discussion of this ill-advised and dan- gerous measure; this firebrand, thrust upon our deliberations. Sir, where is the great project of the Pacific railroad, a measure demanded no less by the public interest than by the public judg- ment r I came here prepared to contribute my humble aid to the consummation of that great work; but it is to be thrown in the background. The country was looking with great interest to the needful improvement of our rivers and har- bors, and I had fondly hoped that something might be done to facilitate and give security to the commerce on the great lakes and rivers of the West. I had hoped, too, for a fairand just distri- bution of the public domain, now amounting to twelve or fifteen hundred millions of acres, and which has heretofore been granted in a partial and unequal manner to the more favored States. I had hoped that, by a united effort, we might have devised some plan, equitable and just to all, of distributing the public lands, or the proceeds thereof, among the States for works of internal improvement and to advance the cause of educa- tion; but in this, too, my hopes, and the hopes of my constituents, have been sadly disappointed by the untimely introduction of this unfortunateques- tion. The numerous private bills upon your Cal- endar, founded upon just and honest claims, including the French spoliation bill, are all to be postponed; all sound and useful legislation is to be suspended by this nefarious project — the work of politicians, and the effect of which is to strangle the legitimate legislation of the country for their personal and party aggrandizement. 1 believe this before high Heaven, and I should be a coward if I did not assert it and proclaim itto the country, I should not be a Tennessean if 1 did not assert it. Several Members. Good ! Good ! Mr. CULLOM. I should not be a worthy de- scendant of my mother State, Kentucky, if I did not here, in my place, denounce this scheme as a plot against the peace and quiet of the country, whether so designed or not. Mr. Chairman, Kansas and Nebraska! Ne- braska and Kansas! is the cry. These Halls are made vocal with the sound of these cant phrases. We are told that territorial governments must be given to those Territories, although Mr. Many- penny reports there are but three citizens in both of them. At the .last session of Congress we re- fused to give them one government, but now we are told that two territorial organizations are )ie- cessary. We are told, furthermore, that now the eighth section of the act of 1820, called the Missouri compromise, must he repealed; a measure which was the work of our patriotic fathers, most of whom have now descended to the tomb; a meas- ure which was passed in times of great public peril, and when tiie Union was in imminent dan- ger, to quiet and assuage the angry feelings which sectional strife had engendered, and which did, happily, calm and subdue the sectional animosi- ties of the day, and cement anew the bonds of our Union; a measure of such happy results that our fathers might v/ell pledge their honor for its faithful observance, as they did by accepting and voting for it. The bill now before this House seeks to repudiate their plighted faith, and to pull down the work of their hands, which has stood as a monu- ment of their wisdom and patriotism for thirty-four years; which has been cheerfully acquiesced in by all sections of the Confederacy, and for which the pure men of 182U have been canonized in the liearts of the American people. This great meas- ure of pacification is now, for mere party pur- poses, and party and personal advancement, to be trampled under foot; and gentlemen come here witli their books dog-eared to make shrewd speeches upon the question, and to file their spe- cial pleas in justification of this mischievous and uncalled for assault upon the time-honored com- promise of 1820. I proclaim here to-day that this Nebraska bill presents the naked question of repmliation or no re-piidiution of the faith and honor of the South, plighted by the act of 1820. You may talk to me about the bad faith of the North, i do not come forward, on this occasion, to defend the Nortli. I am here to defend south- ern honor; and I would be the first to vindicate southern rights whenever and wherever violated or assailed. But I repeat, that the question now is, will we stand by the covenant of our fathers, by observing the compromise of 1820, and thereby maintain southern honor, the public tranquillity, and the integrity of the Union; or, shall we de- cide that the flood-gates of agitation shall be re- opened, with all the evil consequences which must flow from it, to sav nothing of the danger to the stability of the Union itself? Who can hesitate as to the side of such a question on which patri- otism and good faith demand that we shall array ourselves? And, for what, 1 ask, is this proposi- tion of repeal to be sustained ? Is it to restore rights to the South which it lost by the act of 1820? Not so; for all agree that slavery cannot be maintained among the lileak hills of Nebraska, or on the barren plains of Kansas. It cannot ad- vance any interest of the North; for all agree that these Territories must, from their climate, soil, and geographical position, be free. Who, then, is this exciting and dangerous movement to bene- fit? Your politicians. This bill, sir, should he upon the Private Calendar, and the title of it should be so amended as to read, " A bill to make great men out of small ones, and to sacrifice the Eublic peace and prosperity upon the altar of po- tical ambition." Sir, I protest against my con- stituents being used as a spring-board to throw vaulting politicians into high positions. Mr. Chairman, I hope to be respectful to all, for I can say, in all candor, that I have no unkind feeling towards any member of either branch of Congress; but I have a high public duty to per- form, and though 1 v/ould treat respectfully all those connected with this question, whether agreeing with or differing from me, still I v/ould rather tread upon the outer vers:e of parliamentary rule than, by a tame submission, be brought to the crumbling verge of a dissevered Union. I should be an unworthy and faithless sentinel if, from motives of false modesty and timid forbear- ance, I refrained from sounding the alarm, fore- seeing, as I do, the baleful consequences which must ensue from the ado|ition of this measure. Let the country rise up as one man and frown down this attem])t to advance individual and party objects, under the flimsy pretext of doing justice to the South, when it can only jeopard a nation's peace; I repeat, sir, it can only serve for personal and party purposes. Mr. Chairman, let me ask you, and let me ask every member here, if a voice or a petition has come up from any quarter of this Union demand- ing a repeal of that ancient compromise? I have heard no voice from my constituents, nor from the State which I in part represent, demanding its repeal. No public meeting of the people, no pri- mary assembly, no convention, no legislative body has called for this measure. No individual citizen has invoked your interference in this matter to break up and trample down that compromise of 1820. I demand here, this day, to know if a sin- gle voice from the people had reached this Hall demanding a repeal of the Missouri compromise before the introduction of this baleful measure? Now, sir, we do hear this call, but not from the people; and it sounds on our ears like a death- knell. But it is said that the North has volunteered this offer of a repeal of the Missouri compromise to the South. I demand to know, in behalf of my constituents and my common country, v/ho exe- cuted a power of attorney to the Senator from Illi- nois, the author of this bill, to make this offer, to reopen the fountain of bitter waters, and to renew the dangerous agitation which has heretofore well nigh severed this glorious Union ? If I may be allowed to borrow the language of the eloquent and chivalrous gentleman from Lou- isiana, [Mr. Hunt,] I will say that the South knows how to take care of its own honor, and to protect its own rights, v/henever it considers them to be in danger. This movement was not authorized by the North, judging from the remon- strances on your table; and from the recent demon- strations in popular meetings and in the popular elections, I feel assured it was not authorized by the North. It had not been even dreamed of, so far as I can learn, except by a single mind, and that the mind of a northern man, and that man a dis- appointed presidential aspirant in 1852 ! Let the whole cqjintry remember that there is the start- \ ing point, the beginning corner. I repeat, that the author of this movement was a defeated, or, rather, a rejected presidential aspirant in 1852. Mark it; not as a " fore and aft," but as a begin- ning corner. [Laughter.] How does it happen that this gentleman is so tenacious of southern rights and southern honor? How does it happen i that he loves the South more than the South loves itself? How does it happen that out of the whole South, no one had been found who loved the South so much as the Senator from Illinois? Think how many bold, chivalrous, and patriotic sons the southern States have sent up to Congress during the last thirty-four years, and yet they have suf- 5 fered this old compromise to rest upon the statute- book, and have never so much as asked its repeal. But now a little presidential capital is needed, and 1 am required to vote for its repeal, right or wrong, or be denounced and traduced, perhaps, by dem- agogues, for not doing what all my predecessors for thirty-four years have failed to do; and a tre- mendous eflbrt is being made to lash the South into a furious passion about a law which the South voted tor and has acquiesced in for so long a pe- riod of time. But, we have found another northern man with strong southern feelings. Ah ! we have tried such before. Mr. Van Buien avowed himself to be a northern man with southern feelings, when he wanted southern votes for the Presidency. We are making a small experiment with another of the same sort just now, who was so southern in his feelings that it was thought almost treasonable to support General Scott, a southern man by birth and education, in opposition to him. Weil, after the votes of the people are recorded, and the high position attained, we soon see who are his bed- fellows. He calls around him a piebald Cabinet, ring streaked and speckled, embracing every ex'- treme doctrine, and every ism known in the coun- try; and gives the prime offices to Pree-Soilers, as we learn from the speeches of his own parly on the floor of Congress, to the exclusion of the true national men of that party, who have stood firmly by the compromises of 1850 and the Union. You will, therefore, pardon me, for a natural dis- trust of those who profess such unnatural affec- tion for the South. If, indeed, these northern champions of southern interests really feel so much attachment for the South, we prefer that they should husband their strength until a practical opportunity offers to do us sot^ie substantial good. The lender they make now is a v;orth!ess boon — worse than nothing. It promises nothing but strife and sectional controversy; and I am re- quired to turn agitator for the miserable purpose of ministerins; to the ambition of your political aspirants. This, sir, I will not do for your little giants nor your big giants. [Laughter.] I wish it to be distinctly understood, that I am speaking of the bill of the Senate. As to the bill which has been reported by the honorable gentleman from Illinois, [Mr. Richard- son,] it^is but an echo of that which has passed the Senate. I know it is not the intention of its friends to pass it. They will not honor the chairman of the Committee on Territories of this House with the paternity of a great measure like this. It is the distinguished Senator from Illinois [Mr. Douglas] to whose honor the organization of these Territories is to redound. He is the great Sanhedrim of Illinois. [Laughter.] 1 have scarcely read or thought of the bill introduced into the House, as it is well known that the Senate bill is the one upon which the struggle is to be made. Now, sir, as the Senator from Illinois seems pre- pared to out-Herod Herod, and out-Southern the South, in the defense of southern interests, let us see if there is any mode by which we can test tlie value of his friendship for the South. I have a faint recollection of having read some scraps of law atone period of my life, but, being somewhat rusty in my legal knowledge, I will appeal to the distinguished gentleman from Missouri, [Mr. Ben- Tox,] who has had great parliamentary experi- ence, and is withal an eminent lawyer, if there is not a rule of law, that when the meaning of a statute is ambiguous, you may, in construing it, look to the circumstances tl'.at surrounded the Le- gislature at the time of its passage, and take into view the preamble and context? Mr. BENTON assented. Mr. CULLOM. I supposed that such was the law; and as I have great difficulty in ascertaining the real meaning of this bill, owing to the ambi- guity of its provisions, I presume the court and the jury — the people who will finally decide this cause — will find great aid in making u|i their verdict from the application of this rule of inter- pretation. I propose, therefore, to examine the surrounding circumstances in order to find out the meaning and intent of those who have originated this measure, and why the Senator from Illinois became godfather to this premature bantling by which the Missouri compromise is to be repealed as an outrage upon southern rights and a grievous burden which the South can no longer bear. How long that Senator has labored under these convictions, let the record show. In 1845, when Texas was annexed, the Missouri compromise line was extended through the territory of Texas. That extension received the Senator's vote, and it became the law of the land. Again, in 1848, the Senator proposed to insert, and voted for, a clause prohibiting slavery, according to the principle of the Missouri compromise, in the bill to establish a territorial government for Oregon. He did not then think the eighth section of the act of 1820 unconstitutional, and an abomination in the sight of God and man. No, sir, the scales had not then fallen from his eyes. Then he thought the Missouri compromise a very proper measure to be applied both to Texas and Oregon. Let us see what his 0]5inion was in 1849. I will give his own words, in addressing his constituents that year at Springfield, in his own State. Here they are: " In 1?48 the f]iie?tion arose again in a new shapp upon the propn^ilion to eslablisli a tprritnrial governnienl in Ore- eon, containing a provision proliibiting slavery in the Terri- lory while it should reniain a Territory, and leaving the people to do as they pleased, when they should he called upon to form a State constitution, preparatory to their ad- mission into the Union. A brief discussion took place upon this branch of the subject, elicitins; very little interest, and creating no excitement, for the reason tliat it was well known that the people of Oregon had already established a provisional government, in wliich they had unanimously prohibited and excluded the institution of slavery, and for the further reason that the whole of the Territory was situ- ated far north of the line known as the ' Missouri compro- mise.' The Missouri compromise had then been in prac- tical operation for about a quarter of a century, and had received the sanction anda))probation ofmenof all parties, in every section of the Union. It had allayed all sertional jealousies and irritations growing out of this vexed ques- tion, and harmonized and tranqnilized the whole country, [t had given to Henry Clay, as its prominent champion, the proud sobriqwet of the ' Great Pacificetor,' and by that title, and for that service, his political friends had rer peatcdly appealed to the people to rally under his standard as a presidential candidate, as the man who had exhibited the patriotism and the power to suppress an unholy and treasonable agitation, and preserve the Union. He was not aware that any man or any party, from any section of the Union, had ever urged as an objection to Jlr. Clay that he was the great champion of the Missouri compromise. On the contrary, the etibrt was made by the opponents of Mr. Clay to prove that he was not entitled to the exclusive merit of that great patriotic measure, and that the honor was equally due to others as w-ell as him, for securing its adoption; that it had its origin in the hearts of all patriotic men who desired to preserve and perpetuate the blessings 6 of our glorious Union — an oiipin akin to that of the Con- stitution of the United States, conceived in the same spirit of fraternal afl'ection, and calculated to remove forever the only danger 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 iiad become canonized in the hearts of the Amer- ; ican people, as a sacred thing, which no ruthfess hand would ever be reckless enough to disturb." The Senator then boldly asserted that the Mis- 1 souri conipiomise had been in practical operation for about a quarter of a century, and had received the sanction and approbation of men of all parties ' in every section of the Union; that it had allayed all sectional jealousies and irritations growing out : of this vexed question, and harmonized and tran- i quilized the whole country, that it had given to Henry Clay, as its prominent champion, the proud i sobriquet of the " Great Pacificator," and he con- , eluded this glowing narrative in the following words: i " All the evidences of public opinion at that day seemed ! to indicate that the compromise had become canonized in : the hearts of the American people as a sacred thins, which ! no ruthless hand would ever be reckless enough to disturb." And yet his own is the " ruthless hand" that is ' now " reckless enough," to use his own language, | to disturb the measure which he then declared had i received the sanction and approbation of men of all parties, had allayed all sectional jealousies and irritations, had harmonized and tranquilized the ! country, and had become canonized in the hearts ! of the American people ! I These were just anti noble sentiments, and could, with equal truth and propriety, have been repeated '■ the day the Senator introduceti the bill which has revived those very jealousies and irritations which, he formerly shovi'ed us, were healed by the Mis- souri compromise. This is one of the numerous circumstances to which I call the attention of the committee, and of the country, as showing con- clusively the character, end, and object of this plot. He that runs may read, and reading, cannot fail to understand. But I have not done yet with the author of this bill. Not only did he speak as I have' quoted in 1849, but in 1850 he proposed to extend this same Missouri compromise line, now become so iniqui- tous, through the territory acquired from Mexico to the Pacific ocean. Had not the Senator had ample opportunity, during his long legislative career and frequent investigations of this question, to have discovered the enormity of the Missouri compromise, if that was its character.' And yet he persisted in recomtnending the adoption of tiiis notorious eighth section of the act of 1820, on every occasion which arose, as late as 1850. If the com- mittee v/ill pardon me, I v.'illshow that Mr. Doug- las recommends, in his report to the Senateas late as the 4th of January, 1854 — yes, sir, 1854 — that the Missouri compromise should not be repealed; ^' and yet I, and those who think with me, are coin- j plained of, because we believe now what the author of the bill himself believed as late as January last: M nam.ely, that the Missouri compromise should not j be disturbed ! But let me quote the language of |' the Senator's report. Here is an extract from it: ' "Your coSimittee do not feel themselves called upon to enter into a discussion of those controverted questions. They involve the same grave issues which produced the agitation, the sectional strife, and the fearful struggle of 1850. As Congress deemed it wise and prudent to refrain from deciding the matters in controversy fhe>i, either by afTirming or repealing the Mexican laws, or by an act de- claratory of 'he true intent of the Constitution, and the extent of the protection afforded by it to slave property in the Territories, so your conuniuee are not prepared now to recommend a departure from the course pursued upon that memoralde occasion, either by tiffirming or repealing the eighth section of the Missouri act, or by any act declaratory of the meaning of the Constitution in respect to the lecal points in dispute. Your committee deem it foriunale for the peace of the country and the security of the Union that the controversy then resulted in the adoption of llie com- promise measures, which the two great political parlies, with singular unanimity, have affirmed as a cardinal article of their faith, and proclaimed to the v.orld &sa final settle- ment of the controversy and an end of the agitation. Due respect, therefore, for the avowed opinions of Senators, as well as a proper sense of patriotic duty, enjoins on your committee ihe propriety and necessity of a strict adherence to the principles, and even a literal adoption of the enact- ments of that adju.-tment in all their territorial bills, so far as the same are not locally inapplicable." These, sir, were the views of Mr. Douglas, incorporated in his report to the Senate as late as the 4th day of January, 1854. He there expresslv deprecates any expression of opinion by Congress as to the constitutional rights of either section of the Union under the act of 1820, or even under the Constitution itself; because, he says, they involve the same grave issues which produced the agita- tion, the sectional strife, and the fearful struggle of 1850; and as Congress then refrained from deciding the matters in controversy, either by i affirming or repealing the Mexican laws prohib- iting slavery, so the committee were not prepared now to recommend a departure from the course pursued upon that memorable occasion, either by affirming or repealing the eishth section of the Mis- souri act. The Senator, then, having a clear con- ception of the dire consequences which would flow from a repeal of the Missouri compromise, warned the country that such a course would reopen agita- tion, excite sectional controversy, and disturb the peace of the country. Then it Vv-as not proper to repeal the act of 1820, because such a repeal would revive agitation; now, he insists, it is im.portant to repeal it to put down agitation. T/ieri it was not proper to repeal the act of 1820, because the Congress of 1850 refrained from repealing the Mexican laws — leaving the question of slavery to be decided by the judicial department of the Gov- ernment under the Constitution; now we are told that we must repeal the act of 1820 to make these acts consistent with the legislation of 1850. Oh " consistency, what a jewel thou art ! Here we have Mr. Douglas advocating the Missouri compromise throughout his whole legis- lative career, down to the fourth day of January, 1854, urging the most conclusive, weighty, and solemn reasons against its repeal; holding up so vividly before the country the inevitable rnischief which would flow from it, and then suddenly, within a few hours, or at most a few days, he throws all his previous experience and scruples to the winds, turns a complete somersault, and be- comes the vociferous champion of repeal ; one day shrinking back with trepidation and alarm at the mere contemplation of the terrible consequences of repealing the Missouri compromise; the next, he becomes its open advocate, and is prepared to denounce, and does denounce, every man. North and South, who will not go with him, as a foe to the public tranquillity, a foe to the principle of "squatter sovereignty," and unfaithful to the Constitution. Well, this is the greatest feat of political ground-and-Iofty tumbling, so far as my memory serves me, that 1 have ever seen, heard, or read of in history. But how is it to be ac- 1 counted for? The public will be curious to know j something of the secret and mysterious, yet pow- j erful causes, which must have combined to pro- i duce a result so far out of the common track of political tergiversation and blundering. I know of no better clue to the mystery than to recur to those surrounding circumstances which, like the preamble and context of a statute, in helping to discover its true meaning, may enable the pub- ; lie to arrive at some satisfactory conclusion as to the secret and unrevealed agencies which may have led to this most extraordinary, not to say , miraculous, conversion. 1 hope, at least, to be, able to present facts sufficient to enable the jury — the people — to make up a just verdict upon the question. From some cause or other, we know! that a sudden change has come over the spirit of; the Senator's dream; and, though it is true that the '.'' ways of Providence are past finding out, I do not ;i believe that the ways of politicians are so deeply i: hidden from human ken that we cannot trace, in !| their devious courses, the secret promptings which : j guide them. First, it is notorious, and no man^; can deny it, that, at the period of this conversion, j we had a weak and tottering Administration, reel- 1 j ing under the blows laid on from every quarter — [ north, south, east, and west — for its gross disre- 1, gard of the platform upon which it came into | power, and of the just claims of the conservative portion of the Democratic party; taking to its|- close embrace the two most pernicious factions : North and South, and pouring into the laps of" Free-Soilers and Abolitionists at the North, and of , the Secessionists and fire-eaters at the South — I the Treasury pap and patronage at its command — ' to the almost total exclusion of the compromise men, both North and South. The Administration ! \ got into great straits from this course, and the] Democratic party was threatened with fatal dissen- 1 j sions; suspicions got abroad among the compro- i mise men at the North, and the Union party at ! the South, that General Pierce himself was " no | better than he should be. " The Senator from Illi- 1 nois, seeing this state of things, thought he had a good chance to do somethinghandsome for himself, i and at the same time to relieve the Democratic |, party from the suspicions which had attached to 1 its head, and ward off the dangers which threatened ; its ascendency. Some new and exciting move- \ | ment was necessary to divert the public attention from theconductof the Administration. The Sen- ; ator from Illinois was the man for the occasion. [', He did not wait to be bidden by the Administra- tion. Inlookingoverthe whole ground, he thought the readiest way of creating a counter-excitement, j to save the Administration and the Democratic party, in the success of which he had an interest, I would be to get up a row on the slave question. This is the true history of this movement. But the Senator did not think it necessary, in order to i carry out this nefarious scheme, to repeal the ^ Missouri compromise, as is evident from his report of the 4th of January. Oh, no, he would not do that. No " ruthless hand" would dare do that; but he would go so far as to declare it " Inoper- , ative" by force of the principles recognized in the legislation of 1850. As a part of the history of this matter, it will be remembered that the Admin- ' i istration took ground in favor of this provision in i the bill of the 4th of January, and in favor of the ij I reasons assigned in the report against the repeal I of the Missoui'i compromise. The Washington Union, the organ of the Administration, cameout and indorsed, without reservation, both the bill and the report of the 4th of January; and when a Senator from Kentucky [iMr. Dixon] introduced an amendment to repeal the Missouri compromise in direct terms, the same organ denounced him as being in league with the Senator from Massachu- setts, [Mr. Sumner,] an out and out Abolitionist, who had offered an amendment affirming the validity of the Missouri compromise. The Wash- ington Union, I repeat, denounced both Dixon and Sumner, the one for proposing the repeal, and the other the affirmance of the Missouri compro- mise. The editor of that paper could see nothing else in those opposite propositions but the evi- dence that the authors of them had formed an un- holy alliance to break down the Administration and the great Democratic party; and he called lustily on the true men of the country to come to the rescue, and maintain the time-honored compromise of 1820. But when Mr. Douglas found — I hope it is not unparliamentary to men- tion his name, though 1 really feel that I ought to ask pardon for doing so, [laughter] — that the North did not approve his incipient movement, and that the South viewed it with distrust, he saw that his scheme would be a failure unless he could hit upon some new tack. He had supposed that he had made his bait tempting enough to catch the South, and he did not think that the people of the North would take offense. He thought he had laid his plans deep enough to dupe both the North and the South. But, lo, and behold! the South refused to accept the delusive offer. They were a little afraid that there was "a cat in the meal," and it turned out, as I will show, that they were not mistaken. [Laughter.] When this little Magician of the North, No. 2, found that he had overreached himself, that he was fairly caught in his own net, he concluded that it would be about as well to die for a grown sheep as for a lamb, [laughter,] and in his amended bill of the tv/enty-third day of January, he made his second advance towards a direct repeal of the Missouri compromise. Still he was not quite bold enough to write down the word "repeal." He thought it would do to say that the eighth section of the act of 1820 was superseded by the principles of the compromise of 1850, and was, therefore, " inop- erative." The Administration approved and sym- pathized with the design of the Senator from Illi- nois in his first movement, and perceiving that it was about to prove abortive, came forward and patted him on the back, saying : "Go it, little gi- ant; go it a little stronger; set your thumb lancet a little deeper, and let all the blood out of the act of 1820." [Much laughter.] See the Senator's giant stride when he is thus backed by the Ad- ministration ! He now comes forward, and, by additional amendments, demands a full repeal of the Missouri compromise, denouncing it as an act of gross injustice to the South, and unfit to stand longer upon the statute-book. Here, Mr. Chairman, I cannot refrain from re- peating what I have before stated as to the ante- cedents of the Senator from Illinois upon this ques- tion. The Senator has always supported this same odious, unjust, and now unconstitutional measure, when he had an opportunity of doing so. 8 Even in 1850, he proposed to extend the com- promise line of 1820 to the Pacific. Then it was highly just and proper; then it was canonized in the hearts of the American people. Yes, Mr. Chairman , the Senator from Illinois had then a very- proper estimate of the men of 1820; and truly, in those days, there were g-ian^s in the land. But now we are told that the Missouri compromise of 1820, which I have been taught to revere as a sacred thing, was unjustly forced upon the South by the North, and that, therefore, the South is not bound in good faith longer to abide by it. I will tell you how it was forced upon the South, and I want the whole country to understand its history. It was passed by a majority of southern votes, indeed, with hardly a dissenting voice from the South, in the Senate, and by a majority of south- ern members in the House of Representatives. It was claimed, at the time, by the South as a southern triumph, and under it the South has enjoyed unmolested, for this long period, all the territory south of 36° 30' as slave territory. The North now asks us to perform our part, of the contract. Can we honorably refuse to do so? Do you urge as a reason why the South should be absolved from this covenant, that it was an unjust bargain ? Sir, it is one that our fathers made. What dutiful son, receiving an inheritance from a deceased and venerated father, encumbered with trusts and liabilities binding in honor, would con- tinue to enjoy the estate, but repudiate, upon technical grounds, the obligations contracted by his ancestor? For one, I v/ould not. I am not here to draw subtle distinctions, and to indulge in special pleading. This is a family question, be- 1 tween brethren of the same Confederacy, and I choose to place it upon its broadest merits. We are told that the North themselves have repudiated this compromise. Havethey? If so, I am not here to defend them; for I am as southern in my feelings as a man ought to be, to be at the same time a friend of tlie Union. Whenever southern rights and southern honor are invaded, I am ready, at all hazards, to defend them; but you would not have me renounce my attachment to the Union, and hazard the inheritiince of my children by foment- ing sectional dissensions, for nothing. I must , have a larger stake than you hold out to me in j this concerd before I denationalize myself, humble as I am. But in what'have the North repudiated the com- promise of 1820? Have they not a majority of fifty-four votes over the South in Congress? And yet I aver, and I appeal to the record to sustain the truth of the averment, that the North have j never attempted to repeal the act of 1820. True, \ 'they have refused to make a similar bargain in ' reference to the Territory of Oregon, and the ter- I ritory acquired from Mexico; but is it a repudia- tion of the Missouri compromise simply to refuse to make a similar contract twenty or thirty years • afterwards, and in relation to newly acquired ter- ritory? To illustrate this idea, suppose I buy a : tract of land of a neighbor, and thirty years after- wards I propose to make a similar contract for i another tract of land, and he declines it; is that a repudiation of the former bargain, and does his \ refusal relea^^e me legally or morally from theobli- ' gations of the first contract? I think not. i But it is also said that the act of 1820 was vio- 1 ■Jatsd by the North in 1821, when Missouri pre- 1 I sented her constitution for admission into the Union as a State. Let us look for a moment at that. I The Constitution of the United States secures ' equality among the citizens of the several States. Missouri had a clause in her constitution prohib- j iting free negroes and mulattoes from emigrating to the State. In several of the States free negroes I were citizens, and itwas insisted, in 1821, by many ; northern members of Congress, that that restric- ' tion in the constitution of Missouri was in conflict I with the Constitution of the United States. It was removed, and Missouri was admitted into the Union. All who have familiarized themselves I with the debates of that day, knowihat the resist- ance to the admission of Missouri in 1821, was caused by that clause in her constitution to which I have adverted, and nofbecause her constitution admitted slavery. It is also said that the North resisted the admission of Arkansas because of the j slavery clause in her constitution. That is un- true in point of fact. No such opposition was I made. There was a clause in her constitution forbidding the Legislature to pass emancipation laws, and that was one ground of northern oppo- sition; but that was not the main objection. Arkansas and Michigan were both admitted into the Union in 1836. ' Mr. Van Buren was then a candidate for the Presidency, and he and his party friends were urgent that those States should be admitted, in order that he might receive their electoral votes. The opposition, embracing ultra southern men, resisted it upon party grounds; and the admission v.'as claimed by the Washington Globe, then the organ of General Jackson, as a party triumph. To be assured that the question of slavery had nothing to do with the resistance to the admission of Arkansas into the Union, you need only be informed that the same opposition was made to the admission of Michigan as a free State. Hear what the Globe of that day says upon the subject: " It gives us pleasure to announce that tlie bills to ;idmit Michigan and Arkansas into the Union have passed the Senate. There was a hard struggle on the part of the op- position to prevent the admission of Micliigan. This was a stroke at both Territories. If the application of Michi- gan had been defeated, having nearly double the population of Arkansas, it would have followed inevitably that both applications would have been rejected. The repugnance of the opposition to the admission-of these new States arises from a knowledge that it tveakens their strength in the next presidential election and their dwindling phalanx in the Senate." — Washington Globe of Jlpril 5, 1836. But we are told that the act of 1820 is uncon- stitutional and void. If so, why disturb it, as it must be perfectly harmless? The men of 1820, who voted for it under oath to support the Con- stitution, did not believe they were committing perjury. President Monroe, a southern slave- holder, who approved and signed it by the advice of an enlightened Cabinet, did not regard it as unconstitutional; nor did the country, which has acquiesced in it for a third of a century, so consider it; nor did the various Congresses which have repeatedly, as I have shown, froin time to time, proposed its reenactment, backed by nearly the entire South. But it has been strongly argued here that the act of 1820 is unconstitutional, because it violates that article of the treaty of 1803 by which France ceded Louisiana to the United States, guarantying the protection of the persons and property of the citizens in the ceded territory. It is contended that the treaty being, under the Constitution, the supreme law of the land, it could not be super- seded by a mere legislative act, limiting slavery to a particular geographical line. 1 wish now to shov/ that those who take this view of the ques- tion cannot consistently support this bill. If, sir, the Congress of 1820 had no constitutional power to limit slavery to the line of 36° 30', be- ; cause it was in violation of the treaty of cession, then the Congress of 1854, sitting under the same | Constitution, can have no power to repeal all the French and Spanish laws authorizing slavery in ; this Territory, and much less the clause in the treaty with France which protects slavery, yet this is what the Badger amendment to this bill actually does. Here then we have presented this ] absurdity: the friends of the bill assert that the ' Missouri compromise was unconstitutional and \ void, because itviolated theprovisions of a treaty, j which is the supreme law of the land, and they ' therefore insert a provision repealing the Mis- { souri compromise; but, at the same time, they i support the Badger amendment, which provides that nothing contained in the bill shall be so con- strued as to revive or put in force any law or regulation which may have existed prior to the act ; of 6th March, 1820, either protecting, establishing, i prohibiting, or abolishing slavery. Who does not see that that Badger amendment abolishes slavery in these Territories as effectually as did the compromise act of 1820, and tha't if the act of 1820 was unconstitutional, this bill must be unconstitutional for the same reason; for there ■ is intervention by Congress in both cases, and exactly to the same extent. The act of 1820 pro- hibited slavery north of 36° 30', where it was formerly allowed by law and treaty; and the act - of 1854, if this bill becomes a law, after repealing the act of 1820, proceeds to abolish slavery in the sam.e territory. It is true that the bill provides ' that the question whether slave-y shall hereafter be established in this territory shall be decided by the future inhabitants of the Territories, but ' the Badger amendment takes away all protection ; to the property of the citizens of the South emi- j grating with their slaves to this Territory, by nullifying the treaty and laws which, after the I repeal of the Missouri compromise, would have ; been in force, and would have protected slave property. And this is called ?io?i-i)j