•• . ** v \ . ll|# ./% VSR-' . ** v % f?#" jH 
 
 
 .0 
 
 \V,g** v'^v* *^ m '&*\* v^> 
 
 AX- ** /»^% * v ^>'i- ^ ***;&«* ** ■ 
 
 WrS ^*** °°ygWS ^\. vtSp/ 4^ v "\ °»?W>v «* 
 
 TV -^B^ 
 
 0^ *n 
 
 ,G^ V *>KT^ A <v *f.T* .0* ^> *7XT^ A 
 
 «P^ 
 
 r ^> "-SI 
 
 o5°^ 
 

 
 1 -4." * &t(l/Z?2-> * ^A y- » ' 
 
 
 N i 
 
 V* •• ittt V* -'3K'- v* s^°° ' 
 
 
 
SPEECH 
 
 / 
 
 HON. DAVID S. KAUFMAN, OF TEXAS, 
 
 ■v 
 
 THE SLAVERY QUESTION. 
 
 I' 
 
 /' / DELI VERBID 
 
 IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, FEBRUARY 10, 1847. 
 
 WASHINGTON: 
 
 PRINTED AT THE OFFICE OF BLAIR AND RIVES. 
 1847. 
 
r 6f\V 
 
THE SLAVERY QUESTION. 
 
 The following Bill, reported by the Committee on 
 Foreign Affairs, being under consideration in 
 Committee of the Whole on the state of the 
 Union, viz: 
 
 A BILL making further provision for the expenses attend- 
 ing the intercourse between the United States and foreign 
 nations. 
 
 Whereas war exists between these United Stales and the 
 Republic of Mexico, and assurances have been given to the 
 Government of Mexico of the President's wi.-di to settle all 
 questions between the two countries on libera! and satisfac- 
 tory terms to each, and their mutual interest and security ; 
 and the President may be able to conclude peace with the 
 republic of Mexico prior to the next session of Congress, if 
 means for that object are at his disposal : And whereas, in 
 the adjustment of the many complicated questions between 
 the two icoun tries, it may happen that an expenditure of 
 money wi^ be called for by the stipulations of any treaty 
 which may be entered into: Therefore, 
 
 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives 
 of the United Stales of Jim-erica in Congress assembled, That 
 the sum of thirty thousand dollars he, aiid the same is hereby 
 appropriated, out of any money in the treasury not other- 
 wise appropriated, to enable the President to enter upon 
 negotiations for the restoration of peace with Mexico; and 
 also the sum of three millions of dollars be hereby appro- 
 priated, out of any money in the treasury not otherwise ap 
 propriated, to enable the* President to conclude a treaty of 
 peace with the republic of Mexico, to be used by him in the 
 event that said treaty, when duly ratified by Mexico, shall 
 call for the expenditure of the same, or any part thereof: 
 Provided, That full and accurate accounts of all these ex- 
 penditures shall be by him transmitted to Congress as soon 
 as practicable: 
 
 The following was offered as an additional sec- 
 tion to said bill, by Mr. Wilmot, of Pennsylva- 
 nia: 
 
 Sec. 2. Jlnd he it further enacted, That there shall be nei- 
 ther slavery nor involuntary servitude in any Territory on 
 the continent of America which shall hereafter be acquired 
 by, or annexed to, the United States by virtue of this appro- 
 priation, or in any other manner whatever, except for crimes 
 whereof the party shall have been duly convicted: Provided, 
 always, That any person escaping into such territory from 
 whom labor or service is lawfully claimed in anyone of the 
 United States, such fugitive may be lawfully reclaimed and 
 conveyed out of said territory to the person claiming his or 
 her labor or service :" 
 
 Mr. KAUFMAN rose and addressed the com- 
 mittee as follows: 
 
 Mr. Chairman: In the remarks which I propose 
 to submit to the consideration of this committee, it 
 is not my intention to reply to t lie low abuse which 
 was some time since uttered by a member from 
 New York, [Mr. Culver.] I have too much re- 
 spect for the State I in part represent here, for the 
 Democratic party, and for myself, to do so. I 
 honor and respect the great " Empire State" of 
 
 this Union, and for many of her Representatives 
 on this floor I entertain that regard which ability 
 and integrity are always sure to engender. But, 
 sir, when I see a Representative so far forget him- 
 self as to indulge in language unbecoming this 
 great Council Chamber of the American Union, 
 whether against the State I represent, or the party 
 to which I have the honor to belong, the words of 
 such a man " pass by me as the idle wind, which 
 I regard not." 
 
 Texas needs no eulogy from me, one of the 
 humblest of her sons. Her history, though short, 
 is brilliant, and her acts are at once the monument 
 and vindication of her fame. Her daring resist- 
 ance to Mexican oppression; her immortal victory 
 achieved under the auspices of the lone star on the 
 plains of San Jacinto, resulting as it did in the 
 capture of the blood-stained tyrant who now " frets 
 his hour" on the stage of Mexico; her deep-rooted 
 American feeling in resisting all the allurements of 
 European diplomacy, at a critical period in your 
 and her history; and the unexampled bravery with 
 which her " Rangers" have upheld the " star- 
 spangled banner" in the resistless charge at Mon- 
 terey, will vindicate her for ever from the puny 
 attacks of mushroom politicians, whose assaults 
 upon the glorious Constitution of our country are 
 equally harmless, yet not less glaring, than upon 
 the fair fame of the " lone star State." 
 
 Still less will I attempt to vindicate the Admin- 
 istration from the attacks of that member. Such 
 assaults, from such a source, will only have a ten- 
 dency to elevate it still higher in the confidence 
 and affection of the American people. The men 
 of this country have still running in their veins 
 Jlmerican blood, and they will bring the Adminis- 
 tration and the country out of this war with honor 
 and with success. " The sword of Washington 
 is in Mexico, " and, although worn on an humble 
 thigh, it will make its way, with our army, to vic- 
 tory and renown. The present war has already 
 added immensely to our storehouse of national rec- 
 ollections, and has furnished examples for future 
 generations to admire and imitate. The sons of 
 every portion of this great Republic mingling in 
 the fray, will have their affections for the Union 
 rekindled upon the altar of patriotic sacrifice, and 
 thus, additional safeguards will be thrown around 
 the great charter of our liberties. Who, sir, pos- 
 sessed of an American heart, would, if he could, 
 strike from our annals the proud achievements so 
 
lately added to it by a Taylor of Virginia, a Worth 
 of Massachusetts, a Hays of Texas, or a Parker 
 of Pennsylvania, whose daring exploit in burning 
 the Creole, moored as she was to the very walls of 
 the castle of San Juan de Ulloa, cannot be sur- 
 passed in coolness, courage, presence of mind, and 
 patriotic determination, by any act of heroism of 
 ancient or modern times? I am persuaded, sir, 
 there is none. 
 
 There is one attack, however, Mr. Chairman, 
 on the President of the United States, from which 
 I feel it my peculiar duty to defend him, on account 
 of the quarter from whence it comes. I allude to 
 the violent and abusive language indulged in by 
 the New Era, (a press established at the city of 
 Austin, Texas,) in the absence of the regular editors, 
 against the Executive, on account of the proceed- 
 ings of General Kearny in Santa Fe — which attack 
 is now paraded in triumph in the opposition prints 
 as an evidence of public sentiment in Texas. Now, 
 sir, although every man in Texas contends for her 
 title to the Rio Grande, from its mouth to its source, 
 and none more warmly so than myself, as my re- 
 marks at the last and present session of Congress 
 will prove; and although not one would submit to 
 sec her despoiled of her territorial or other rights; 
 yet I am sure I speak the sentiments of an over- 
 whelming majority of my constituents, and indeed 
 of all Texas, when I say that they were no less in- 
 dignant than surprised at that attack. The people 
 of Texas entertain for the President the warmest 
 feelings of confidence and regard. Where is there 
 a man in the United Slates, who has proved him- 
 self a warmer and truer friend of Texas than the 
 occupant of the Executive chair? Who has more 
 zealously contended that the boundary of Texas 
 extended to the Rio Grande than President Polk? 
 Is he not now receiving the daily maledictions of 
 his political enemies on this floor and elsewhere 
 for sending the army, as he was bound by his oath 
 to do, to the Rio Grande, to protect the western 
 boundary of our State? And what excuse is pre- 
 tended as a justification of this unprovoked assault? 
 Nothing more nor less than that General Kearny 
 has. as we hive been officially informed by the 
 President in his special message of December 22, 
 1346, exceeded his orders ! Speaking of some reg- 
 ulations of General Kearny, purporting to estab- 
 lish and organize a permanent territorial Govern- 
 ment at Santa Fe, he says in thai, message: "These 
 have not been approved and recognised by me." 
 He further says: '-Any excess of power exercised 
 by officers has resulted in no practical injury, and 
 can and will be early corrected," &c. 
 
 What was the language of the President in his 
 special message communicated to Congress on the 
 11th of May, 1846? Alluding; to the commence- 
 ment of hostilities hy the Mexicans on (he eastern 
 bank of the Rio Grande, he said: " The Mexican 
 ' Government, after a long-continued scries of men- 
 ' aces, has at last invaded our territory, and shed 
 'the blond of our (*< • 1 1 < > w-citi/.eiis on our oim soil. " 
 This opinion I am proud to say was concurred ill 
 
 by a large majority of this House at this session, 
 and liy ( !ongress at the last. 
 
 In his last annual Me •",<• will also be found 
 this language: ''The Texas which was ceded to 
 ' Spuin by the Florida treaty, in 1811), embraced 
 
 ' all the country now claimed by the State of Tex- 
 ' as between the Nueces and the Rio Grande. The 
 'republic of Texas always claimed this river as her 
 ' icestern boundary, and in her treaty made with Santa 
 ' Jlna, in May, 1836, he recognised it as such. This 
 ' toas the Texas which, by the act of our Congress of 
 ' December 29//i, 1845, was admitted as one of the 
 ' Stales of our Union." Such, sir, are the just and 
 magnanimous sentiments of the President in regard 
 to the rights of Texas — sentiments which entitle 
 him to the gratitude instead of the censure of every 
 true-hearted Texan. You may rest assured, Mr. 
 Chairman, that Texas is not yet recreant to dem- 
 ocratic men and democratic measures, and every 
 attempt made to alienate her affections from the 
 man in favor of whose election nearly every heart 
 in Texas beat, will prove futile and unavailing. 
 
 With these preliminary remarks, which I should 
 have made at an earlier day but for the difficulty 
 of obtaining the floor, I will now proceed to the 
 discussion of the question involved in the amend- 
 ment proposed by the honorable gentleman from 
 Pennsylvania, [Mr. Wilmot.] And here, sir, let 
 me recur to a page in the instructive history of the 
 past, for it has been well said that "history is phi- 
 losophy leaching by example." We are told there 
 that the Cantons of Switzerland, after the termina- 
 tion of a long and successful war, were near dis- 
 solving their confederacy by a contention about 
 the spoils of victory; but we, more foolish than 
 they, are about, if not to dissolve this Union, at 
 least to weaken the sacred bonds of affection that 
 bind us together, and that have made the name of 
 an American citizen honored and respected in the 
 remotest corners of the earth, by quarrelling about 
 what we expect ivill be the spoils of our victories 
 in Mexico. 
 
 We are now, Mr. Chairman, in the midst of a 
 war with a foreign Power. But, what is a thousand 
 times more to be dreaded than a war with any for- 
 eign Power, the progress of this debate has shown 
 that we are at war with ourselves. Our arms are 
 invincible, and victory will perch on our banners 
 when contending; with a foreign foe; but when our 
 arms are turned against ourselves, liberty itself 
 most bleed and constitutional Government perish. 
 Would to God that my eyes had never beheld the 
 suicidal spectacle, which has been exhibited since 
 the agitation of this question ! Would that the 
 most dangerous of all parties, that founded on sec- 
 tional and geographical considerations, had never 
 reared its horrid front within these walls! Who 
 does not imagine that he can almost now hear from 
 the lips of that sacred form (the portrait of Wash- 
 ington) looking down upon us with a countenance 
 of heavenly benignity, "frown upon the first dawn- 
 ing of every attempt to alienate any portion of our 
 country from the rest, or to enfeeble the sacred ties 
 which link together the various parts ?" How sad 
 are my feelings now, when compared with those 
 which animated my bosom, when a little more 
 than a year ago I entered under the banner of the 
 "lone star" the folds of this glorious Union. Then 
 all was resplendent with the brightness of hope. 
 The people Df Texas fell thai they were returning 
 as from a temporary exile, into the bosom of a 
 Confederacy whose bonds were never to be sun- 
 dered. In assenting; to the overtures of annexa- 
 
tion proffered to them by the voice of the Ameri- 
 can people, they were actuated by no selfish feel- 
 ings of interest, but their hearts first prompted what 
 their judgments afterwards approved. They im- 
 agined that concord and harmony would forever 
 pervade a Union cemented by the blood of your 
 and their fathers; and yet they have already heard 
 the jarring sounds of discord foreboding direful 
 consequences in regard to its perpetuity. 
 
 However anxious different gentlemen may be 
 for the paternity of the amendment under consid- 
 eration, I envy not the fame of the successful com- 
 petitor for its meretricious honors. Although one 
 gentleman from New York, [Mr. Grover,] at the 
 last session, advised its introduction, another gen- 
 tleman, from Ohio, [Mr. Brinkerhoff,] xorote it, 
 and a third gentleman, from New York, [Mr. 
 Preston King,] at this session, attempted, under 
 cover of a " personal explanation," to appropriate 
 its fancied thunder, — yet it will go down to poster- 
 ity as the amendment of the gentleman from Penn- 
 sylvania. The " Wilmot proviso" will continue 
 to be its name; but notwithstanding the solicitude 
 which the honorable gentleman exhibited for his 
 offspring at the opening of this discussion, I have 
 not the "least doubt that it will die, " unwept, un- 
 honored, and unsung." 
 
 If I believed in omens, I would think it no favor- 
 able augury for the safety of his bantling, that on 
 Monday last — the day set for the commencement 
 of the discussion of this subject — the usual invo- 
 cation of Divine Grace made at that desk by our 
 appointed Chaplain was not heard! I believe it 
 will die — if not in this House, in another stage of 
 its existence — from indications already given by 
 northern gentlemen, upon this floor and else- 
 where; and because I believe there is yet sufficient 
 independence and regard for the Constitution left to 
 secure its destruction. It will not do to tell us, as 
 was done by an honorable gentleman from New 
 York, [Mr. Grover,] that this amendment is ne- 
 cessary "to satisfy the great northern mind." Did 
 the regiment of volunteers which had lately gone 
 from New York, and the two regiments which had 
 so recently gone from Pennsylvania, require any 
 " satisfaction" of this character? No, sir. They 
 marched with alacrity to the field of,danger, thus 
 furnishing a rebuke to the slander, that, before the 
 men of the North would be willing to fight for the 
 cause of their country, they must first know what 
 was to become of the territory they might perma- 
 nently win from the enemy. They went to bat- 
 ,tle, not for land, but to uphold the honor of their 
 country. 
 
 I have no doubt, Mr. Chairman, that we will 
 acquire territory as a result of this war. It is ne- 
 cessary to the vindication of our rights that indem- 
 nity should be made us for spoliations on the prop- 
 erty of our citizens, perpetrated long before the 
 commencement of this war, and for the expenses 
 incurred by hostilities originating with Mexico, 
 after she had rejected our proffers of a peaceful 
 negotiation; and if she has no other means of set- 
 tlement, (and I believe she has not,) the acquisi- 
 tion of territory must be. the result. But should^ 
 this proposed amendment be adopted as a part of 
 the policy of this country, all hopes of acquiring 
 territory in that quarter are gone forever. The 
 
 South would never consent, under such a state of 
 things, to add any territory to what we now pos- 
 sess. The Whigs, north and south, are opposed 
 to the acquisition of any territory. In proof of this, 
 I might refer to their frequent declarations here; to 
 a bill some time since endeavored to be introduced 
 by the gentleman from Georgia, [Mr. Stephens,] 
 and to the following extract from an amendment 
 offered to a bill similar to this by the honorable 
 Senator from Georgia, [Mr. Berrien,] in the other 
 end of this Capitol: 
 
 "That the war with Mexico ought not to be prosecuted 
 by this Government with any view to the dismemberment of 
 that repul'li'', or to the acquisition by conquest of any portion 
 of her territory-" 
 
 The Whigs, then, under any circumstances, if 
 we are permitted to judge from their declarations, 
 will go against the acquisition of territory; and if 
 you adopt the principles of this amendment as the 
 settled policy of the Government, every southern 
 Representative, not utterly recreant to his duty to his 
 constituents, will be compelled to pursue a similar 
 course, and then there will be but a small number 
 left to advocate the further acquisition of territory. 
 And thus those Democrats who support this pro- 
 viso, if successful, will effectually prostrate the 
 Administration of their choice; for the country 
 would hardly sustain any Administration that 
 would terminate a war " without indemnity for the 
 past and security for the future." 
 
 I shall endeavor, Mr. Chairman, to discuss this 
 question with all good temper and good feeling. 
 Born at the North and fostered by the South, I 
 have no other feeling than an undivided affection 
 for the whole Union. Who can forget the place 
 of his nativity ? Who could prove faithless to the 
 cherished land of his adoption? But it is my 
 duty to speak out fearlessly the truth. I consider 
 this amendment as totally inopportune and singu- 
 larly out of place. There, may be "a time and a 
 place" for all things, but this is neither the time nor 
 the place for agitating a question that must shake 
 this Union to its centre. Our foreign difficulties 
 ought to be first settled before we raise domestic 
 ones. The enemy of our country ought to be met 
 and effectually humbled, before we stir up internal 
 strife (if it must come) among ourselves. 
 
 But however ill-timed may have been the entry 
 of this bantling on the political stage, it is not 
 more so than are its features deformed and mis- 
 shapen. Injustice is marked upon its front, and 
 degradation to the South, or disunion, must follow 
 its fatal adoption. It cannot be otherwise ! When- 
 ever the freemen of the South shall submit to po- 
 litical disfranchisement, they will prove them- 
 selves " degenerate sons of noble sires," and unfit 
 to be free. They would no longer be the fit asso- 
 ciates of freemen, and they would only secure tha 
 contempt of those who inflicted the injury. But 
 this they will never do. Dearly as they love the 
 Union, "proudly as they rally under the star-span- 
 gled banner to meet their country's foe by sea or 
 i>y land, they would perish in the last ditch before 
 they would yield one tithe of their constitutional 
 rights and their blood-bought privileges! You 
 may out vote them, you may hear them down at 
 the ballot-box, or by your voices in this Hall, 
 but they will still have left freedom's legacy, stout 
 
6 
 
 hearts and strong arms, to work out their political I 
 salvation. 
 
 I do not make these remarks by way of menace 
 or threat. Such an attempt is the farthest possible ' 
 from my thoughts. Thank God, the people of 
 every portion of this wide-spread Confederacy, 
 are brave and totally above all influence from fear. 
 The "northern mind" could be reached, not by 
 an appeal, to their fears, but to their patriotic feel- 
 ings, and to those historic events which made, 
 and I humbly trust in the providence of God, not- 
 withstanding the clouds that sometimes over- 
 shadow our path, will, for ages, preserve us a 
 united people. I have made them for the purpose 
 of awakening the perhaps slumbering patriot 
 everywhere, in order that his voice may come up 
 trumpet-tongued to stimulate his Representative to 
 the discharge of his duty to the whole country, 
 and to give his " aid and comfort" to the friends 
 of that legacy bequeathed us by our fathers. 
 
 Our constitutional Union, Mr. Chairman, was 
 based upon compromise, and by compromise alone 
 can it be preserved. Cut when you depart from 
 this principle; when you take the lion's share of 
 the common stock, and appropriate it to one por- 
 tion of the Union, and leave nothing for the other, 
 you at once destroy that equality which is the basis 
 of all lasting unions. And what is the proposition 
 of the honorable gentleman from Pennsylvania? 
 Where is that "neutrality" on the subject of sla- 
 very, so warmly contended for by that gentleman? 
 What "neutrality" is there in a scheme that pro- 
 vides that all the spoils of victory, though won by 
 the common blood and common treasure of both 
 North and South, should be open to the enjoy- 
 ment of the North alone ? Was there not real neu- 
 trality in what is contended for by the South, that 
 the territory won by the joint exertions of all 
 should be left open to all under the guaratees and 
 compromises of the Constitution ? 
 
 But this amendment is not the offspring of equal- 
 ity. It says to the South, "Thus far shalt thou go, 
 and no further." It substantially says to the South, 
 that her citizens shall not remove into any portion 
 of the territory, their blood or their treasure may 
 assist in acquiring, but they must remain within 
 their present limits; or, if they go there, they must 
 r.ot take with them property guarantied to them by 
 the Constitution. Yes, sir, properly guarantied to the 
 South by the great compromises of the Federal Consti- 
 tution. 1 trust, sir, I shall not shock the nerves of 
 any sensitive gentleman in applying the word pro- 
 perty to slaves. In 1783, the British Government 
 (however differently they might talk now) express- 
 ly recognised slaves os property. Wn the treaty of 
 peace of 1783, between Great Britain and the Uni- 
 ted States, signed by D. Hartley, on the part of 
 the British Government, and John Adams, Ben- 
 jamin Franklin, and John Jay , on the part of the 
 United States, (all north* rn men.) will be found this 
 language : " His Britannic Majesty shall, with all 
 1 convenient speed, and without causing any de- 
 
 * struction, or carrying aioay any negroes or other pro- 
 1 perty of the American inhabitants, withdraw all his 
 •an. uis, and fleets, from the, said United 
 
 • States. This treaty, recognising slaves as pro- 
 pi ity, was ratified by the British Government, and 
 wu; voted for bv every northern representative in 
 
 Congress, consisting of the following members: 
 Mr. Foster, of New Hampshire; Messrs. Gerry, Pa- 
 tridge, and Osgood, of Massachusetts; Messrs. El- 
 lery and Howell, of Rhode Island; Messrs. Sher- 
 man and Wadsworth, of Connecticut; Mr. Beatty, 
 of New Jersey; and Messrs. Mifflin, Hand, and 
 Morris, of Pennsylvania. Here, then, we have 
 John Jay designating slaves as property, whose 
 character and sentiments were referred to with so 
 much approbation and complacency by the gentle- 
 man from Massachusetts, [Mr. Winthrop,] upon 
 another question, (the war of 1812,) and Mr. Mor- 
 ris, of Pennsylvania, whose opinions, expressed 
 in the Federal Convention, formed a text for the 
 gentleman from New York, [Mr. Rathbun,] from 
 which he yesterday lectured northern Represent- 
 atives who dared to do their duty. 
 
 It had been well said by the able and distin- 
 guished chairman of the Committee on Foreign 
 Relations, [Mr. C.J. Ingersoll,] that "the ultra 
 opposition to slavery was not an American senti- 
 ment." It is an exortic, and if it flourish in the 
 new soil to which it has been transplanted, its in- 
 fluence will be as disastrous as that of the deadly- 
 Upas. It was not even a British sentiment, as I have 
 shown, in 1783. In the convention which framed 
 our Constitution, the North looked upon slaves as 
 so entirely possessing the character of property, 
 that they were for a long time unwilling that they 
 should be considered in any respect in the light of 
 persons in fixing the basis of congressional repre- 
 sentation, until, at last, 'the difficulty was settled by 
 the three-fifths basis, as it now stood — giving slaves 
 the mixed character of persons and property. This 
 sentiment had arisen since the early and better days 
 of our republic, and was looked to as the last re- 
 sort of the advocates of monarchy to overthrow 
 the noblest Government ever erected by man. 
 We had shown in our revolutionary war and the 
 war of 1812, " the might that slumbers in a free- 
 man's arm;" and unless this last effort of foreign 
 abolitionism did the work which British steel could 
 not do, our republic would be perpetual. And 
 here, Mr. Chairman, permit me to read an ex- 
 tract clipped from a respectable newspaper, show- 
 ing very clearly the foreign origin of this mischiev- 
 ous movement: 
 
 "Objects or Abolitionists. — Henry C. Wright, a trial 
 frig Abolitionist from Boston, has recently written aiettei 
 dated at London, which has been published in the ' National 
 Antp-Slavery Standard. 9 in which he says: 
 
 "•Last Sunday we all spent with William Ashhuisf at 
 ' his lowly seat at Muiwell Hill. Mr. Pox, the anti-corn-law 
 ' orator, and James Haughton were with us. Tin- dissolution 
 'fifihe American Union, as the giganticfoe oj lit i rty.theright 
 ' of the British people to promote this object, and the altty 
 'Jrieifds offri ed >m to oi ■ nize a league against sloven 
 'Governments, were prominent t tpies of our' conversation.' " 
 
 And so, sir, the rigid of the British people to effect 
 
 a dissolution of the . ?mi rican I r nion is boldly asserted 
 
 j by an American Abolitionist, and concurred in by his 
 
 ' British confederates ! Who can read such langi 
 
 ! without feeling the blush of shame mantling on his 
 
 s'heek, that America should have ever given birth 
 
 to such a bastard and traitorous son ? 
 
 It is not my intention to discuss the question of 
 slavery in the abstract, tf « rong il be, 11 is erti 
 for me to Know thai the people of the Sotith an in 
 no way answerable for thatwrong. They found 
 
it existing amongst them without any agency on 
 their part; and if they were disposed to abolish it, 
 it could not be done, except in the lapse of time, 
 without consequences of the most awful character. 
 That it was introduced into the American colonies 
 by the agency of the British Government, and even 
 against the remonstrances of those colonies, history 
 will bear her testimony. Those very foreigners 
 who now met and caballed to sow the seeds of po- 
 litical dissolution and ultimate ruin in this Republic, 
 are the sons of those who entailed slavery upon the 
 colonies. And the place where these foreign in- . 
 cendiaries receive the greatest support, the city of 
 Boston, (I by no means intend to implicate any- 
 thing like a majority of her citizens,) furnished the 
 first individual, James Smith, a Boston merchant, 
 who in 1645 imported slaves into the American 
 colonies. I make this assertion on the authority 
 of George Bancroft, a Massachusetts historian. 
 
 The advocates of the proposed amendment, if I 
 understand correctly their position, base their con- 
 stitutional right to pass it on Sec. 4, Art. 4, of the 
 Constitution of the United States, which is as fol- 
 lows: " The Congress shall have power to dispose 
 1 of and make all needful rules and regulations re- 
 ' specting the terrritory and other property belong- 
 ' ing to the United States." And here, let me re- 
 mark, how cautiously this grant of power is made; 
 and how latitudinarian must be the construction that 
 would warrant, under such a grant, the adoption of 
 this amendment! The Constitution, in granting to 
 Congress power over the District of Columbia and 
 places purchased from the States for the erection of 
 "forts, magazines, arsenals, and dock yards, "uses 
 the language, that " Congress shall have power to 
 exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever 
 over such district and such places;" whereas, in 
 regard to the territory of the United States, they 
 are only authorized to " make all needful rules and 
 regulations." Mark the strong distinction in the 
 grants of power! In the first grant, how full and 
 comprehensive ! In the second, how limited and re- 
 stricted! In the one case, it is exclusive legislative 
 power; in the other, a mere right to dispose of and 
 to make needful rules and regulations; evidently al- 
 luding to such rules and regulations as may be neces- 
 sary to carry into effect the power granted of dispos- 
 ing of said territory. Let us look further into the 
 terms of this grant of power. Congress has power 
 to make all "needful rules and regulations." Will 
 it be said that the framers of the Constitution could 
 have intended that such a stretch of power as is 
 contained in this amendment was a " needful rule ?" 
 Could men representing slave States in that con- 
 vention (for New York then had 25,000 slaves, 
 and New Jersey 15,000, and indeed every State 
 but one had then slaves within its limits) have im- 
 agined that such a rule as this is was a rule " need- 
 ful" in its character? The supposition cannot be 
 maintained. But this grant is confined in its terms 
 to " territory belonging to the United States." 
 Does this territory upon which we now propose to 
 plant this restriction " belong to the United States?" 
 What says the amendment? It expressly applies 
 to "territory which shall hereafter be acquired by 
 or annexed to the United States." Again, it is 
 only in regard to territory or other property belong- 
 ing to the United Stales that we are authorized to 
 
 make "needful rules and regulations;" and yet 
 under this grant we are asked to make rules and 
 regulations in regard to property not belonging to 
 the United States, but ivhich belongs to individuals. 
 You are asked to say, that if a slave goes to this 
 territory, he is free; and thus you are directly le- 
 gislating in regard to property belonging to individ- 
 uals, and not to the United States! Such is the 
 sandy foundation upon which the advocates of this 
 restriction have built! 
 
 I hold in my hand, Mr. Chairman, a speech de- 
 livered in this House on the 16th of last January, 
 by an honorable gentleman from Maine, [Mr. 
 Hamlin,] in which occurs this extraordinary lan- 
 guage — extraordinary, considering that it comes 
 from one of the straitest of the sect of restriction- 
 ists: "California and other territories (says he) 
 ' to which a declaratory law may apply, are now 
 ' free. By the law of nations, then, the momenta 
 ' slave treads upon their soil he becomes free. Sla- 
 ' very, then, must exist there, if at all, in viola- 
 ' tion, utter violation of law. It cannot exist except 
 ' by positive enactment. A declaratory law ofCon- 
 ' gress, then, will only affirm the law of nations 
 'and prevent a violation of that law." If slavery 
 cannot exist in California and other territories now 
 free " without a positive enactment," let me ask, 
 where is the propriety of agitating this question ? 
 Is the South asking this House for any "positive 
 enactment ?" Does she ask the North for her aid, 
 legislative or otherwise, to spread her domestic 
 institutions? Never! She has not done so. She 
 will not do so. All that she asks is, that you "let 
 it alone," as the Constitution has fixed it. Let me 
 again ask, why attach to this bill an amendment in 
 the nature of a brand upon all who reside south of 
 "Mason and Dixon's line?" Cui bono? Will 
 nothing be conceded to harmony? nothing to the 
 pride and feelings of a powerful and patriotic sec- 
 tion of this Confederacy? Let me quote again 
 from the "Father of his Country," if, in the new 
 lights that have arisen to guide modern statesmen, 
 his " parting advice" has not become stale and 
 unpalatable: "You cannot shield yourselves too 
 ' much against the jealousies and heart-burnings 
 ' which spring from geographical discriminations: 
 ' they tend to render alien to each other those who 
 ' ought to be bound together by fraternal affec- 
 ' tion." — [Washington's Farewell Mdress.] 
 
 But the gentleman from Maine, [Mr. Hamlin,] 
 while he says that slavery, without " a positive 
 enactment," could not exist in California, except 
 in utter violation of law, says also that a declara- 
 tory law of Congress will prevent a violation of 
 that law, (the law of nations.) What, sir ! will 
 not individuals who violate one law, violate two 
 or a dozen ? How will this declaratory law prevent 
 a violation of another law? Are there any penal- 
 ties in this amendment that are wanting in the 
 laws of nations? Is there any penalty at all in 
 this amendment; or was there any in the North- 
 western ordinance, or the Missouri compromise 
 act? None whatever. But I have not time further 
 to show up the fallacy of such reasoning. 
 
 The gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Wil- 
 mot] said, that when his proviso was adopted by 
 this House, at the last session of Congress, the 
 South acquiesced in its adoption. This I utterly 
 
8 
 
 deny. There was not a southern member on this 
 floor whose name stood recorded in its favor. 
 They voted against it to a man; and when it was 
 attached to a bill similar to the one now under 
 consideration, they voted against the bill itself, on 
 account of the proviso, although without that pro- 
 viso the southern Democrats would have generally 
 given it their support. And I might also here 
 remark, that some northern members who had 
 even spoken against the bill — among others the 
 gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Wixthrop] — 
 were so enamored of the amendment, that when 
 incorporated with it, they turned round and gave 
 the bill their cordial support. 
 
 The gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Wil- 
 mot] seemed indignant that the South should not 
 submit to the decision of a majority of the Demo- 
 crats, as expressed at the last session of Congress 
 on his proviso, as if blows would be received from 
 a Democratic hand with more forbearance than 
 from any other source ! I can tell that gentleman 
 that he knows little of human nature if he does not 
 know that the dearer the friend the more terrible 
 is felt the injury he may inflict, and the more bit- 
 terly will it be resented. But the gentleman is 
 slightly mistaken as to his premises. The Demo- 
 cratic majority of this House happened at the last 
 session to vote against his proviso; and as he has ac- 
 cused the South of what he himself and his friends 
 have been guilty, it remains to be seen whether, 
 having discovered his error, he will take his own 
 advice, and abandon hisamendment. Consistency 
 is, indeed, a jewel; and a conformity of action to 
 advice inspires confidence in the sincerity and in- 
 tegrity of the adviser. 
 
 I will now, sir, pay my respects to the gentle- 
 man from New York, [Mr. Rathbun,] who im- 
 mediately preceded me in this discussion. That 
 gentleman formally proposed to the southern Repre- 
 sentatives on this floor, that "if they would agree 
 to amend the Constitution, so as to strike out the 
 compromise feature of the three fifths slave repre- 
 sentation, he would be willing that the South might 
 take their slaves into the new territory in whatever 
 numbers they might think proper. " It seems, then, 
 that he does not oppose shivery because it is an 
 evil, either social or political; not because it was a 
 curse to the free population amongst which it ex- 
 isted, as contended by the gentleman from Indiana, 
 [Mr. Pettit;] not because it was a sin; not at all: 
 but simply because it urns to the South an element of 
 political jwwer. I would ask the members of this 
 House upon all sides; I would ask the country, 
 whether this proposition does not prove the truth 
 of the remarks on this subject, made by my friend, 
 the able, independent, and patriotic member from 
 New York, [Mr. Strong,] that the agitation of 
 this question was a mere scramble for political 
 power. And will the country tolerate the agitation 
 of such a question for such purposes, at a time like 
 this, so near the close of the session, when so many 
 important measures are necessary to be brought 
 forward to secure the comfort of our soldiers, the 
 credit of the Government, and tin- triumph of our 
 arms? The gentleman complained thai the South 
 had too many Presidents, loo many judges, and 
 too many Speakers of the House of Representatives! 
 And is it a good reason, because the South may 
 
 have been somewhat more honored by the confi- 
 dence of the American people than our brethren of 
 the North, that their feelings should now be out- 
 raged, and the ligaments of the Union weakened? 
 It is true, the South has had a majority of the most 
 important offices ; but while she held the majority 
 of the offices, the North, through the agency of 
 the United States Bank, the protective tariff', the 
 internal improvement system, and the funding of 
 the public debt, had secured- to herself the lion's 
 share of the finances of this Union. Virginia has 
 had, thus far, more than her due proportion of the 
 Presidents of the United States; but let it not oe 
 forgotten that she is literally " the mother of 
 States and of statesmen;" that she gave to her 
 sister States a Washington — " first in war, first in 
 peace, and first in the hearts of his countrymen;" 
 a Henry, to thunder in the very ears of tyranny 
 the inalienable rights of man; a Jefferson to draft 
 the charter of our independence, " inestimable to 
 us and formidable to tyrants" throughout the 
 world; and a Marshall, who, for a third of a cen- 
 tury, expounded the Constitution of our country, 
 with an ability and integrity never equalled ! Let 
 it be remembered, too, to her lasting honor, that 
 she never asked nor received any portion of Fed- 
 eral patronage, in the shape of what she believed 
 unconstitutional expenditures of the public money 
 in internal improvements, but, like her own Har- 
 per's Ferry eagle, " towering in her pride of 
 place," she nobly refused the boon ! She, alone, 
 of the original thirteen, never deserted the Demo- 
 cratic flag in a Presidential election; and when the 
 liberty of speech and of the press was invaded by 
 the "Sedition law," her resolutions of '98 con- 
 signed that law to the hissing execrations of their 
 contemporaries and posterity. It is to these causes, 
 more than to any other, that she owed her political 
 elevation and unrivalled fame. " Principles not 
 men "has ever been her motto. Did she not, in 1840, 
 backed by South Carolina, Alabama, Arkansas, 
 and Missouri, repudiate both her sons, " Tippeca- 
 noe and Tyler too," and adhere to the fortunes of 
 New York's favorite son, (Martin Van Buren,) 
 while New York deserted him, and cave a major- 
 ity of 13,000 to General Harrison ? General Har- 
 rison, too, was opposed to such a provision as this 
 under consideration; for we are told by a friend of 
 this amendment [Mr. Pettit, of Indiana] that, 
 when Governor of Indiana, he used all his influ- 
 ence to prevent the anti-slavery provision in the 
 Northwestern ordinance from having any appli- 
 cation to that Territory. And yet, New York now 
 complains that the South had too much political 
 power, and too many of the offices in the Federal 
 Government. 
 
 Mr. GORDON. New York makes no such 
 pitiful complaints. 
 
 Mr. KAUFMAN (resuming.) One of her Rep- 
 resentatives [Mr. Ratiiuun] had, and, as far as 
 he was concerned, by the proposal he offered in re- 
 gard to the slave representation, and the enumera- 
 tion he made of high offices held by the South, 
 _ i e conclusive evidence that opposition to slavery 
 with him was purely << question of federal and poli- 
 tical power. The northern or free States have 
 now a majority offorty-four voles in the electoral 
 colleges; and on the admission of Wisconsin, they 
 
9 
 
 will have a majority of forty-eight votes over the 
 South; and if, with that predominancy of numbers, 
 they cannot sustain their sons against southern 
 competitors, it would be a libel on the North to 
 intimate that anything but superior qualifications 
 and superior claims in the southern candidates 
 insured them northern preference. Yes, sir, the 
 North had now the political power, and she would 
 continue to have it. And how did the free States 
 get the political ascendency? It is an interesting 
 fact, Mr. Chairman, that they are indebted for that 
 power to the magnanimity and uncalculating gen- 
 erosity of Virginia. Never dreaming of future 
 consequences, she ceded to the United States the 
 Northwestern Territory, now formed into the States 
 of Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Michigan, and, I may 
 add, Wisconsin; and never thinking of any con- 
 sideration but kindness to the slave, who required, 
 for his comfort, a milder climate than the North- 
 western Territory, she agreed, by the vote of all 
 her Representatives in the Congress of the United 
 States, viz: Messrs. Grayson, Carrington, and 
 Richard Henry Lee, to that provision in the North- 
 western Ordinance, which forever prohibited sla- 
 very in said Territory. Indeed, every southern 
 Representative in the Congress of the United States, 
 and every northern member, except Mr. Yates, 
 from New York, (then a slave State,) voted for 
 this ordinance. The South thus unanimously agreed 
 to give the free States a territory and a power 
 which, unless her magnanimity should awaken a 
 perhaps slumbering feeling of gratitude in the 
 bosoms of the northern Representatives, and par- 
 ticularly those from the States formed out of Vir- 
 ginia's magnificent donation, may enable them to 
 weaken the South, and endanger her security. It 
 is for the Representatives of the North to say 
 whether this gift of Virginia is to be an instrument 
 in the hands of a northern Delilah, to shear the 
 South of the locks of her strength, and thus to 
 endanger this glorious edifice of freedom, whose 
 sudden rise and beautiful proportions are the won- 
 der and admiration of the whole world. 
 
 Notwithstanding the outcry which has been 
 made against the South upon this floor, yet his- 
 tory will show that the North has gradually en- 
 croached upon the rights of the South, from the 
 commencement of our Union to the present time; 
 and this is the third act in the drama. In the 
 course of my remarks connected with the Mis- 
 souri compromise and the history of Texas, this 
 position will be clearly established. 
 
 When the Constitution of the United States went 
 into operation, every State, but one, had slaves 
 within its limits. It appears by the census of 1790, 
 the first that was taken under the Constitution, 
 that at this period, more than a year after the 
 Government went into operation, New Hampshire 
 had 158 slaves within her limits; Rhode Island 
 952; Connecticut 2,759; Pennsylvania 3,737; New 
 Jersey 11,423; New York 21,324; while, the State 
 of Georgia had but 29,624. Massachusetts is the 
 only exception, although it was not until the year 
 1783, that it was positively known to the people of 
 that Commonwealth whether slavery lawfully ex- 
 isted there or not. Bradford, in the second volume 
 of his History of Massachusetts, says, (pages 226 
 and 227,) that " a judgment of the supremejudicial 
 
 ' court in Massachusetts, in the course of this year 
 ' (1783) given in the county of Worcester, was a 
 ' final decision unfavorable to the existence of sla- 
 ' very in Massachusetts." li Many slaves," says 
 Mr. Bradford, " were holden in bondage within 
 the Province (of Massachusetts) until the Revolu- 
 tion;" although, the writer continues to say, " the 
 'odious and highly criminal traffic of human be- 
 ' ings (the African slave-trade) was never allowed 
 ' in Massachusetts." It seems, then, slaves were 
 held even in Massachusetts up to the time of our 
 Revolution, whether sanctioned by their laws or 
 not. I find by the Encyclopedia Americana, that 
 even as late as 1832, the writer remarks that there 
 " are 2,246 slaves in New Jersey; 386 in Pennsyl- 
 ' vania, and a few survivors of former times in New 
 ' York, Connecticut, and Rhode Island." Leav- 
 ing out of the calculation the States of New Hamp- 
 shire, Rhode Island, Connecticut, and Pennsylva- 
 nia, on account of the small number of their slaves, 
 it will be found that there were still eight of the 
 original thirteen States which were slave States at 
 the adoption of the Constitution of the United 
 States. And now, how comes it that a Constitu- 
 tion made by a majority of slave States can be so 
 construed, without any alteration, as to strike a 
 blow at the very institutions which existed in the 
 States that created it? The proposition of the gen- 
 tleman from Pennsylvania is either violative of the 
 Constitution, or the framers of that invaluable in- 
 strument were not the sage men we have always 
 so fondly considered them. 
 
 In the progress of events a new empire is added 
 to our Federal Union. Louisiana is ceded to us 
 by France in 1803. The opposition to this glori- 
 ous measure beina: foiled by the overwhelming 
 voice of the American people, turned their batter- 
 ies against the permission of slavery there. Un- 
 prepared for this attack when the State of Lou- 
 isiana was admitted in 1812, upon the applica- 
 tion of Missouri, in the year 1818, for admission 
 into the Union, the storm burst forth in all its 
 fury. Yes, sir, although Missouri applied in the 
 early part of 1818 for admission, it was not until 
 the 26th of February, 1821, after many trials and 
 dangers in her way, that her admission was con- 
 summated. And what occurred, Mr. Chairman, 
 during the clamor of opposition against the admis- 
 sion of Missouri into the Union? An immense 
 territory was ceded to Spain to conciliate this north- 
 ern influence. Texas — the State which I have the 
 honor in part to represent, and the title of the Uni- 
 ted States to which, in the language of John duin- 
 cy Adams, "was as clear as their title to the Island 
 of Orleans" — was ceded by this same Mr. Adams, 
 then Secretary of State, to Spain, on the 22d of- 
 February, 1819, in part, for the relinquishment of 
 the right of Spain to the territory of Oregon. Here 
 icas slave territory bargained away for free. It is 
 true that the South obtained Florida, but what is 
 Florida in comparison to the boundless and fertile 
 prairies of Texas, extending from the 26th to the 
 42d degree of north latitude, and six times as large 
 as Scotland and Ireland combined ? Mr. Chair- 
 man, I do not speak at random in saying that 
 Texas was ceded to Spain partly to satisfy the 
 feelings of opposition engendered towards the South 
 by the agitation of the Missouri question. In a 
 
10 
 
 letter from Mr. Monroe, who was President of the 
 United States at the time of this surrender, address- 
 ed to General Jackson, dated May 23, 1820, apol- 
 ogizing for this treaty, which may be found in 
 vol. 67, Niles's Register, pages 343-4, he says: 
 
 " The Missouri question lias excited feelings and raised 
 difficulties which did not exist before. * * * 
 Having long known the repugnance with which the eastern 
 portion of our Union, or rather some of those who have en- 
 joyed its confidence, (for I do not think that the people 
 themselves have any interest or wish of that kind,) have 
 seen its aggrandizement to the West and South, I have been 
 decidedly of opinion that we ought to be content with Flori- 
 da for the present, and until the public opinion in that quarter 
 shall he reconciled to any further change. I mention these 
 circumstances to show you ihat our difficulties are not with 
 Spain alone, but are likewise internal, proceeding from va- 
 rious causes, which certain men are prompt to seize and 
 turn to the account ot'their own ambitious views*" 
 
 Here, sir, we have the statement of the (then) 
 President of the United States of the causes which 
 led to the surrender of Texas. It was the ambi- 
 tious views of northern or eastern politicians, (not 
 of the people;) and the re-acquisition of Texas in 
 1845, by the voice of the northern people, in op- 
 position to northern politicians, secret circular men, 
 and all, shows the propriety of the distinction 
 made by President Monroe between the people and 
 the politicians. 
 
 But, sir, this surrender of Texas did not satisfy 
 the eastern politicians. Missouri was not to be 
 permitted to select for herself her own domestic 
 institutions, and thus enjoy the rights guarantied 
 by the Constitution to every State; but her applica- 
 tion was to be rejected unless she abolished slavery 
 then existing within her limits. This difficulty 
 was, however, after a protracted struggle, compro- 
 mised, and, as the patriot trusted, forever; but the 
 discussions of this session have shown how falla- 
 cious are the best-founded hopes, when they con- 
 flict with the ambitious views of politicians. The 
 South finding they were the weaker in numbers, 
 agreed to what is called the Missouri compromise, 
 which is in these words: 
 
 " Sec. 8. Jlnd he it further enacted, That in all that terri- 
 tory ceded by France to the United States under the name 
 of Louisiana, which lies north of 36° 30' north latitude not in- 
 cluded within the limit- of the State, [of Missouri,] slavi ry 
 and involuntary servitude, otherwise than in the punishment 
 ofcrimes whereof tin parties shall have been duly convicted, 
 shad he, audi- hereby, forever prohibited : Provided, al Bays, 
 That any person escaping into t ic same, from whom laboror 
 service is lawfully claimed in any State or Territory of the 
 United States, such fugitive may be lawfully reclaimed and 
 conveyed to tha person claiming his or her labor or service 
 as aforesaid." 
 
 (The line of 3G°30' is the southern boundary of 
 the State of Missouri.) 
 
 This compromise forever secured the prepon- 
 derance of political power in the North. It secured 
 one of the grand objects of the politicians, and, 
 that being attained, u is to be hoped that they will 
 not push i!i' ii' plans, originally conceived for a 
 purpose already accomplished, to a point that will 
 endanger the integrity of this Union. 
 
 'Plus compromise, Mr. Chairman, has been bit- 
 terly denounced by many gentlemen who haw ad- 
 vocated the amendmi nl now mi ler consideration. 
 It has been represented .is a trick, a cheai upon the 
 North; and us northern supporters have been held 
 
 up to public condemnation as traitors to the* sec- 
 tion of country which they represented. Never 
 was there a more totally unfounded statement 
 made in the face of the world. It is a fact, that 
 only seven members from the northern Slates, out of 
 the one hundred and twenty-seven which the North 
 then had in both Houses of Congress, voted against the 
 Missouri compromise line. Does it not bear inter- 
 nal evidence of its being a northern measure ? Is 
 it not concession and guarantee to the North, 
 without any concession or guarantee at all to the 
 South ? But the object of this misrepresentation 
 is palpable. It is now for the purposes of politi- 
 cal power, (as has been openly avowed on this 
 floor;) to make that unpopular which was put 
 upon the South by northern votes, and acceded to 
 by but a small majority of southern members, for 
 the sake of conciliation, harmony, and with an 
 earnest desire for the preservation of the Union. 
 Let us look into the imperishable record of this 
 " compromise," and see whether it is deserving 
 of being "kept" by the American people. The 
 South this day, as one man, stand up for its ob- 
 servance ; and it is for the men of the North to 
 answer the fearful question propounded to them, 
 Will you do likewise? I ask the record — is the 
 Missouri compromise of northern or southern ori- 
 gin? Perhaps its paternity, if traced, may re- 
 vive that attachment for its offspring that is en- 
 joined by a law of nature. Well, then, sir, it is 
 of northern extraction. It was first proposed in 
 the United States Senate by the Hon. Jesse B. 
 Thomas, a Senator from the State of Illinois, and 
 afterwards introduced into this House by Mr. 
 Storrs, a very distinguished member from the 
 State of New York. As this compromise was the 
 best that could be done for the South— as it seem- 
 ed to secure some portion of the acquisitions made 
 for the Union by her immortal son, Thomas Jef- 
 ferson, for the benefit of the South— we may say, 
 how appropriately did it come from a representa- 
 tive of the sovereignty of Illinois !— a State which 
 had been yielded" by Virginia to the North, and 
 which, with Indiana and Ohio, had given her the 
 preponderance of political power ! 
 
 And here, Mr. Chairman, I cannot refrain, as a 
 Representative of the South, from paying the trib- 
 ute of my respect to a distinguished son of Illinois, 
 [Mr. Douglass,] of this House, not only for his 
 manly struggle in favor of the State I in part rep- 
 resent, and all the compromises of the Constitu- 
 tion, but for the fearless and patriotic manner in 
 which, when the North was eloquently appealed 
 to, early in the session, by the able gentleman from 
 Alabama, [Mr. Daugan,] to know whether any 
 one of them would stand by the Missouri compro- 
 mise, he was the first to rise in his place and de- 
 clare that he would abide by it in its spirit and 
 letter. It came appropriately, and with peculiar 
 effect, from the Representative of a State which 
 gave birth to the compromise, and showed 
 thai the spirit which originated it is not yet ex- 
 tinct. Although, after this session, this Hall will 
 not be enlightened and instructed by the eloquence 
 of this distinguished Representative, we may ex- 
 press our gratification that he has been transferred 
 to a higher sphere, in the other end of this < iapitol, 
 where he will supply the place, as he has illustra- 
 
11 
 
 ted the principles, of the author of the Missouri 
 compromise. 
 
 And I would be doing injustice to my feelings 
 were I not to return my thanks to another distin- 
 guished son of Illinois, [Mr. McClernand,] and 
 to a distinguished Representative, [Mr. C. J. Iv- 
 gersoll,] of my native State, Pennsylvania, which 
 is now, and always has been, among the foremost 
 to rush to her country's standard, for the prompt 
 manner in which they disavowed the apparently ex 
 cathedra remarks of the gentleman from New York, 
 [Mr. Grover,] in regard to the course that north- 
 ern members would pursue upon the question now 
 under, consideration. There is a number of other 
 gentlemen from the North who, when the time 
 comes, will not be found wanting in their duty to 
 themselves and their country, notwithstanding the 
 denunciations so improperly promised them from 
 their constituents by the gentleman from New York, 
 [Mr. Grover,] and the gentleman from Maine, [Mr. 
 Hamlin.] Those gentlemen will find that they are 
 much mistaken when they suppose that all the mem- 
 bers of tuis House come here to vote merely to se- 
 cure their reelection, or to cater to and foster pre- 
 judices fatal to the perpetuity of this Union, and 
 violative of those principles of equality and justice 
 which lie at the basis of our Constitution. 
 
 "When the Missouri compromise was adopted, 
 there were twenty-two States in the Union, eleven 
 free States and eleven slave States, and of course 
 the representation in the Senate was equal, with a 
 northern Vice President, (Daniel D. Tompkins, 
 of New York;) while, in the House of Represent- 
 atives, the North had one hundred and five mem- 
 bers, and the South had but eighty-one; giving a 
 majority of twenty-four to the North. And yet 
 the Missouri compromise was adopted in the Sen- 
 ate by 34 ayes, to 10 noes; and in the House by 
 ayes 134, noes 42. Every Senator from the free 
 States, except the two from Indiana, voted for the 
 Missouri compromise line; and every member 
 from the free States in the House of Represent- 
 atives, except three from Massachusetts, one 
 from New Hampshire, and one from New York, 
 also voted the same way. And whilst we find the 
 northern members voting with such extraordinary 
 unanimity in favor of this measure now repudiated 
 by so many of their successors, we find such men 
 as Samuel Smith, of Maryland; Louis McLane, 
 of Delaware; Floyd and Nelson, of Virginia; 
 Lewis Williams, of North Carolina; Joel Craw- ) 
 ford and Cuthbert, of Georgia; William R. King, 
 of Alabama; Richard M. Johnson, of Kentucky, 
 and Williams, of Tennessee: southern men of such 
 high character and unquestioned patriotism, back- 
 ed by majorities, although small, from the South 
 in both Houses of Congress, as will justify their 
 successors at this day in following their example. 
 It is an interesting fact, that this Missouri compro- 
 mise was adopted in the House of Representatives 
 on the 2d of March, 1820, the very day on which, 
 sixteen years afterwards, Texas declared her inde- 
 pendence; and which opened the way for the re- 
 newal of that compromise by the American people 
 themselves in regard to Texas, for the Missouri 
 compromise now constitutes a part of the consti- 
 tution (if her Stale, the only State in the Union of 
 which that can be said. 
 
 I have stated that every Senator from the free 
 States, except the Senators from Indiana, voted in 
 favor of this compromise. Among them were Ru- 
 fus King, then a Senator from New York, and for- 
 merly a Representative of Massachusetts in the 
 Federal Convention, which framed the Constitu- 
 tion of the United States, and one of the most 
 strenuous of the Missouri restrictionists; and Har- 
 rison Gray Otis, Senator from Massachusetts, who, 
 as late as 1835, made Fanueil Hall ring with his 
 eloquent denunciations against the mad crusade 
 of Abolitionism carried on against the venerated 
 Constitution of our country. And yet, is it not 
 strange that a compact ratified with such extraor- 
 dinary unanimity by the whole North and acqui- 
 esced'in by a majority of the South, should so soon 
 be repudiated by a majority of the North ? What a 
 sudden'change has come over the spirit of the north- 
 ern dream ! Is the present generation wiser and bet- 
 ter than their immortal ancestors, the framers and 
 protectors of the glorious Constitution under which 
 we live ? An honorable member from Massachu- 
 setts, [Mr. Win.throp,] in his speech made a few 
 weeks since, on the subject of slavery in any ter- 
 ritory that might be acquired, at the same time 
 avowing his opposition to the acquisition of any 
 more territory, and thus virtually disavowing the 
 policy of our securing indemnity for the expenses 
 of the war and the payment of acknowledged dues 
 owing to us by the Mexican Government, said: " I 
 ' have no time to discuss the subject of slavery on 
 ' this occasion, nor should I desire to discuss it in 
 ' this connexion if I had more time. But I must 
 ' not omit a few plain words on the momentous 
 1 issue which has now been raised. I speak for 
 ' Massachusetts — I believe I speak the sentiments 
 ' of all New England and of many other States out 
 ' of New England— when I say that, upon this 
 ' question, our minds are made up. So far as we 
 ' have power to control political events, we are re- 
 ' solved that there shall be no further extension of 
 ' the territory of this Union subject to the institu- 
 ' tions of slavery. This is not a matter to argue 
 ' about icith us. My honorable friend from Georgia 
 ' [Mr. Toombs] must pardon me if I do not enter 
 ' into any question with him whether such a policy 
 ' be equal or just." And so, sir, as far as the gen- 
 tleman from Massachusetts is concerned, the South 
 is to be robbed of her rights by the strong arm of 
 political power; and the blow is not to be soften- 
 ed even by a single word of conciliation or reason 
 for such course. Their minds are made up .' This 
 is not a question to argue about with them ! We are 
 to be struck without even being heard ! Such lan- 
 guage, sir, from the immediate Representative of 
 the cradle of American liberty is calculated to 
 awaken feelings of indignation in every southern 
 bosom, and to make the Representatives of the 
 people pause before they leap into the awful chasm 
 yawning before them. Does it not show the grasp- 
 ing and unscrupulous character of political power, 
 that its morbid appetite grows with what it feeds 
 on, and that concessions only whet the desire for 
 further encroachments upon the weak? 
 
 But, Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Maine, 
 [Mr. Hamlin,] the gentleman from New York, 
 [ .Mr. Grover,] and the gentleman from Ohio, [Mr. 
 Vinton,] say that the Missouri compromise line 
 
12 
 
 has nothing to do with the territory hereafter to be 
 acquired; that it only applied to the country then 
 belonging to the United States. This is a distinc- 
 tion made, as Mr. Monroe would say, by the poli- 
 ticians, and not hy the people of the North. It is 
 the absurd construction of a law which sacrifices 
 the spirit to the letter. If the country east of the 
 Rio Grande, and south of thirty-six and a half de- 
 grees north latitude, should be permitted to choose 
 whether slavery shall exist there or not, why should 
 they not, if territory is acquired, be permitted to have 
 choice west of the Rio Grande and south of that 
 line ? But let us see whether this distinction is not 
 one of the politicians, and whether the people have 
 not repudiated it. Texas was ceded to Spain in 
 1819, and the Missouri compromise was adopted 
 in 1820. It did not, therefore, that is, its letter did 
 not, extend to Texas — Texas that was put out of 
 the Union by ihe politicians in 1819 to propitiate the 
 anti-slavery sentiment, and was brought in in ac- 
 cordance with the voice of the American people, 
 North and South, expressed in tones of thunder in 
 1844. The Missouri compromise covenant was 
 again renewed by the American people, and ex- 
 tended to territory that did not belong to the Uni- 
 ted States at the time of the adoption of the Mis- 
 souri compromise line — a thine which the politicians 
 say shall not be done now. What say the annex- 
 ation resolutions passed in Congress by the repre- 
 sentatives fresh from the field of victory achieved 
 under the banner of annexation ? Here is an ex- 
 tract: 
 
 " Such States as may I>o funned out of that portion of the 
 territory of Texas lying ^outli of36 9 30' north latitude, com- 
 monly known ;is tin- Missouri compromise line, shall lie 
 admitti d into the Union with or without slavery, as the peo- 
 ple of such State asking admission may desire. And in such 
 Staf or States as may he formed out of said territory north 
 of said Wis onri compromise line, Blavery or involuntary 
 servitude (except for crime) shall he prohibited." 
 
 How does this provision of the annexation reso- 
 lutions, incorporated into the constitution ofTexas, 
 correspond with the declaration of the gentleman 
 from New York, [Mr. King,] in his "personal 
 ( xplanation," made to tins House on January 5th, 
 1847, " that every inch of Texas was yielded to 
 slavery?" He should have said, that every inch of 
 Texas north o/36° 30' ufas guarantied to freedom, 
 while south if that line the people xoere left free to 
 choose. 
 
 For this provision in the annexation resolutions, 
 thegentleman from New York [Mr. Grover] and 1 
 believe the gentleman from Maine [Mr. Hamlin] 
 voted, in ol < dienceto the. will of the people of New 
 York and Mai it , expressed in 1844. Here, then, 
 they w< ut beyond thet< rritory belonging to the Uni- 
 ted Stati s at the time ofthe adoption of jhe Missouri 
 
 compromise. Bui in answer to this, it is said that 
 
 slavery existed in Texas, ami that it existed in the 
 territory purchased under the name of Louisiana, 
 bui that n does nol exist in California. It is true 
 
 slavery did exist in i e parts of Texas and 
 
 ofthe Louisiana Territory, but no slavery existed 
 north of 34° in rexas, and consequently none in 
 
 thai it nse tt rritoi j ween the Red river 
 
 ami Arkansas south of 36° 30* , west of the State 
 of Arkansas, which, by the votes of those gentle- 
 men, were thrown open to slavery- According to 
 then- doctrines now advanced, they should have 
 
 made a new compromise line, and fixed it at 34° 
 north latitude. But this is evidently an after- 
 thought, and a desire to altera "fixed fact:" fixed, 
 because it belongs to the past and cannot be alter- 
 ed — and that is, that the Missouri compromise line 
 teas extended into Texas because it had been so allowed 
 in regard to the Louisiana Territory, and because the 
 compact made in 1820, originating with the .Korth, 
 and sanctioned by the South, was regarded as sacred, 
 and as a settlement forever of this vexed question. 
 Gentlemen may attempt to twist and turn the sub- 
 ject as they may, but " to this complexion it must 
 come at last." These were the reasons, and the 
 only reasons, for that course. It was not because 
 of slavery in Texas, for this argument proves too 
 much, as it gives a number of degrees of latitude 
 and longitude to slavery where a slave had never 
 been, and where indeed the white man had scarcely 
 ever penetrated. 
 
 To warrant this inference, the remarks of the 
 gentleman from New York [Mr. Grover] conclu- 
 sively tend; for he, by way of justifying himself, 
 charges the South with voting against any restric- 
 tions in regard to slavery in Oregon at the last ses- 
 sion of Congress, and thus themselves forgetting 
 the Missouri compromise. This, Mr. Chairman, 
 is a weak argument, and will be a flimsy shield 
 against the attacks of an awakened conscience, or 
 the indignation of a betrayed people, should the 
 worst consequences flow from the agitation of this 
 question. I have always believed that one error 
 would not justify another. It must be recollected, 
 that however the South may have voted on that 
 question, or may vote on any question of a sec- 
 tional character, it is a matter of no consequence 
 whatsoever, as the northern or free States have a 
 majority of forty-six votes in this Hall, and can 
 control any vote of the South, while a vote of the 
 North against us can effect any object within the 
 supposed power of the Constitution. It must be 
 recollected, too, that this censured vote of the South 
 did not have for its object to impose slavery on the 
 people of Oregon, but merely to prevent any re- 
 strictions, and to give the people their own choice; 
 while the effect of the amendment offered by the 
 gentleman from Pennsylvania is to prevent the 
 people of the acquired territory from having their 
 choice in regard to a domestic institution sanction- 
 ed by the Constitution of the United States. Be- 
 sides, many believed in a want of constitutional 
 power to restrict the citizens of Oregon on that 
 subject, and they only now ask that those who do 
 believe in the power may exercise it with modera- 
 tion, fairness, ami justice, and not in such a man- 
 ner as to inflict an indelible stigma on the South 
 and her institutions, and to outrage the principles 
 of equality and State sovereignty. When the vote 
 on the subject of slavery in Oregon was taken at 
 the' last session of Congress, there was no discus- 
 sion whatever on the subject. Their vote may be 
 compared to an obiter dictum of a court. The at- 
 tention of members was not called byasingle indi- 
 vidual to the subject, for the simple reason that the 
 North fell secure in iis power to impose the restric- 
 tion, and the South was harmless in iis weakness 
 
 to oppose it. It is true that my colleague [Mr. 
 Pillsbum] and myself voted iii favor of that restric- 
 tion, and thus separated ourselves from the mass 
 
13 
 
 of our southern associates upon that question; but 
 it was owing to the peculiar position which we held 
 as the Representatives of the State of Texas. Tex- 
 as occupies a different position in regard to this 
 question from any other State in the Union. Au- 
 thorized by the jointresolutionsof theUnited States 
 Congress to subdivide herself into five States, and 
 extending, as she does, to the forty-second degree 
 of north latitude, it was made one of the conditions 
 of annexation, that in the division of Texas into 
 States, the Missouri compromise should be re- 
 spected. This condition was incorporated into the 
 constitution of our State. In voting for annexa- 
 tion, the constitution of Texas, and for the resolu- 
 tion of the Texas Congress giving the consent of 
 that Government to annexation, we had repeatedly 
 recognised the Missouri compromise line; and 
 when the question came up on the Oregon bill, it 
 neither took us by surprise nor found us unpre- 
 pared to act. In voting for the restriction, we 
 were only carrying out the views of our constitu- 
 ents; and where that led us, we were satisfied we 
 could not err. Indeed, for the Representatives of 
 Texas to have voted differently on the Oregon re- 
 striction, would have been virtually saying, that 
 she had come into the Union on degrading and dis- 
 honorable terms, and that Texas was not an equal 
 member of this Confederacy. It would have been 
 granting privileges to the people of Oregon denied 
 to the people of Texas who live north of 36° 30' 
 of north latitude. These are the reasons that in- 
 duced us to vote as we did, and not from any supe- 
 rior foresight or sagacity as to the favorable bear- 
 ing our vote would have on the subject now under 
 discussion. But the South are now united to a 
 man; they hold out the Missouri compromise as 
 the olive branch of peace to the North; or rather, 
 they now offer to return it to the North, who hand- 
 ed it to the South in 1820: and will you not take 
 your own offering? Do you ask of the South a 
 return of a better peace-offering than you your- 
 selves gave her in times past and gone? 
 
 In a few days, Mr. Chairman, this House will 
 be called upon to decide this momentous question, 
 as far as we are concerned. Let me earnestly ask 
 northern gentlemen to renew that covenant which 
 once before saved this Union, and which will save 
 it again. It will revive good feeling between the 
 North and the South, and banish all discontent and 
 dissatisfaction. Even under the Missouri com- 
 promise, the North will get the most valuable por- 
 tion of California, and two-thirds of the soil. The 
 North have the political power, and will continue 
 to have it. The cession of Virginia, the north- 
 western ordinance, and the Missouri compromise, 
 settled that matter forever. To all these measures 
 the South gave her assent. When has the North 
 ever yielded like the South on a question of sec- 
 tional or political power? Will not her justice and 
 magnanimity now induce her, not to yield, but to 
 divide — to compromise? A magnanimous enemy 
 will not take advantage of a weak adversary; how, 
 then, ought friends and brothers to act towards 
 one another! You have the power here. Look 
 well to it how you exercise it. This is a matter 
 entirely of feeling, and not of pecuniary interest with 
 the South. I question very much whether, under 
 any circumstances, slavery would ever be trans- 
 
 planted into Califoi r-ia. South of 36|° the territory 
 is comparatively barren, and not adapted to slave 
 labor. But still, we do not feel willing to be forced 
 into measures by the strong arm of power. Prin- 
 ciple is dearer to us than mterest. It was not the 
 amount of the duty on tea that induced our fathers 
 to throw it overboard, and to resist to the last; but 
 it was because of the violation of the principle that 
 " taxation and representation should go together." 
 And so, sir, I solemnly assure the men of the 
 North that it is not for a moment the idea of pecu- 
 niary loss that has united the South in resisting the 
 principle of the " Wilmot proviso," but because 
 it violates and outrages the principles of the Con- 
 stitution, and destroys the compromise proposed 
 to the South in 1820, by northern representatives, 
 and accepted by a majority of the South " for the 
 sake of the Union." 
 
 Let me again urge upon our friends of the North 
 to think of the past, and to look to the future, be- 
 fore they cast their votes. I have heard out of 
 doors some northern members deprecate the agi- 
 tation of this question, and yet I fear, from the 
 signs of the times, they will cast their suffrages in 
 its favor. Their hearts are right, their judgments 
 are correct, and yet they think, perhaps, that they 
 are constrained, by the anti-slavery sentiments of 
 their constituents, to vote in favor of this measure. 
 But I sincerely believe they are mistaken. The 
 people of the North, 1 cannot doubt, would prefer 
 to let this question remain as it was settled by those 
 who have gone before us, rather than to sow the 
 seeds of alienation and distrust amongst the mem- 
 bers of a confederacy which was founded upon, 
 and can only be preserved by, mutual affection and 
 regard. You may rely upon it that force can never 
 preserve it. Force would be a mere rope of sand, 
 while mutual interests and mutual regards will knit 
 us together forever. I believe the people of the 
 North will sustain their Representatives who fear- 
 lessly do their duty. When the people fail to sus- 
 tain an honest and independent Representative in 
 the discharge of his duty under the Constitution, 
 however variant his course may be from their feel- 
 ings and wishes, the days of our republic will have 
 been numbered. / have not the least doubt, that if 
 ever this Union is destroyed, it will be brought to its 
 end by a want of firmness and independence in the 
 Representative to march up to his whole duly. Lack 
 of moral courage in the Representative is as fata 1 ' 
 to republican Governments as cowardice to Sii 
 army in the hour of battle. Last session, my col- 
 league and myself voted for the restriction of sla- 
 very in Oregon, because we solemnly believed it 
 right, for reasons I have akeady explained, al- 
 though we knew, by doing so, we would probably 
 raise a clamor against us, and perhaps endanger 
 our reelection; whereas, by voting against the re- 
 striction, we would have glided on upon the deceit- 
 ful current of popular favor, uncensured and unop- 
 posed. Being both of us natives of the North, it 
 would furnish additional hopes to competitors of 
 our overthrow. The attempt icas made, but it sig- 
 nally failed. My colleague was reelected by a ma- 
 jority over all competitors, and I had no opposi- 
 tion whatever. I do not mention these matters by 
 way of self gratulation. The farthest from it pos- 
 sible. It is solely for the purpose of showing that 
 
14 
 
 the people are intelligent, discriminating, and just; 
 that they will not discard faithful public servants 
 for taking the responsibility of doing right, how- 
 ever it may, at the first blush, contravene their 
 wishes and feelings, and to appeal to northern 
 members to take such responsibility as we suc- 
 cessfully took upon the Oregon bill at the last 
 session of Congress. 
 
 I appeal to the more liberal members of the North 
 not to precipitate the fatal catastrophe that I fear lies 
 before us, in case of the final adoption of this amend- 
 ment by both Houses of Congress. Go with the 
 friends of the Constitution now, and take time for 
 "a sober second thought," and a consultation with 
 your constituents, whose better judgment, I feel 
 confident, will, in most cases, approve your course. 
 Let it not at least be recorded in history that the 
 most powerful republic that ever existed sowed the 
 seeds of its dissolution by a dispute about what 
 was not hers. Let us at least wait until the matter 
 comes properly before us. California is not yet 
 ours; it may never be ours. " Sufficient unto the day is 
 the evil thereof." Let us not act on so exciting a 
 subject before action becomes absolutely necessary; 
 and I have not the least doubt that the patriotism 
 which triumphed over so much opposition to all 
 the compromises of our Constitution, will ensure 
 its preservation; that the superintending Provi- 
 dence which "united" our fathers will protect their 
 sons from all the dangers that now surround them; 
 and that this people will remain for centuries to 
 come a " cloud by day and a pillar of fire by night" 
 to lead the nations of the earth out of the Egyptian 
 bondage which now enslaves them, and plant their 
 feet upon the Canaan of equal privileges and the 
 inalienable rights of man ! 
 
 NOTE. 
 
 [The vote was taken on Mr. Wilmot's amendment on 
 Monday, February 15, 18-17. It was adopted by the follow- 
 ing vote: 
 
 Every member from the southern States voted against it, 
 
 and every member from the norlh voted in its favor, except 
 Messrs. Brodhead, Black, Erdman, Charles J. Ingersoll, and 
 McClean, of Pennsylvania ; Cunningham, Morris, Parrish, 
 Sawyer, and St. John, of Ohio; Douglass, Ficklin, and 
 McClemand, of Illinois; Owen v.nd Wick, of Indiana; 
 Strong of New York, and Chipman of Michigan.] 
 
 YEAS — Messrs. Abbott, John Quincy Adams, Anderson, 
 Arnold, Ashman, Benton, Blanchard. Brinkerhoff, Bufling- 
 ton, William W. Campbell, John H. Campbell, Carroll, 
 Cathcart, Collamer, Collin, Cranston, Culver, Cummins, 
 Darragh, Delano, De Mott, Dillingham, Dixon, Dunlap, 
 Edsalf, Ellsworth, J. H. Ewing, Faran, Foot, Foster, Fries, 
 Garvin, Giddings, Goodyear, Gordon. Grinnell,Grover, Hale, 
 Hamlin, Hampton, Harper, Henley, Henry, Hoge, Elias B. 
 Holmes, Hough, John W. Houston, Samuel D. Hubbard, 
 Hudson, Hungerford, Washington Hunt. James B. Hunt, 
 Joseph R. Ingersoll, Jenkins, James H. Johnson, Kennedy, 
 D. P. King, Preston King, Lawrence, Levin, Lewis, Maclay, 
 McClelland, McCrate, "Joseph J. McDowell, McGaughey, 
 Mclhaine, Marsh, Miller, Moseley, Moulton, Nivon, Norris, 
 Perrill, Pettit, Pollock, Ramsey, Rathbun, Ripley, Ritter, 
 Julius Rockwell, John A. Rockwell, Root, Runk, Russell, 
 Sawtelle, Seammon, Schenck, Seaman, Severance, Truman 
 Smith, Albert Smith, Thomas Smith, Caleb B. Smith, 
 Starkweather, Stewart, Strohm, Sykes, Benjamin Thomp- 
 son, James Thompson, Thurman, Tilden, Vance, Vinfon, 
 Wentworth, Wheaton, White, Williams, VVilmof, Win- 
 throp, Wood, Woodruff, VVoodwoilh, Wright, and Yost — 
 115. 
 
 NAYS — Messrs. Stephen Adams, Atkinson, Barringer, 
 Bayly, Bedinger, Bell, Biggs, James Black, James A. Black, 
 Bovvdon, Bowlin, Boyd, Brockenbrough, Brodhead, Milton 
 Brown, William G. Brown, Burt, J. G. Chapman, AugllstW 
 A. Chapman, Reuben Chapman, Chase, Chipman, Clarke, 
 Cobb, Coeke, Constable, Cottrell, Crozier, Cullom, Cun- 
 ningham, Daniel, Dargan, Garrett Davis, Dobbin, Dockery, 
 Douglass, Drorngoole, Ellett, Erdman, Edwin H. Ewing, 
 Ficklin, Gentry, Graham, Grider, Haralson, Harmanson, 
 Hiiliard, Isaac E. Holmes, Hopkins, G. S. Houston, Edmund 
 W. Hubard, Hunter, Charles J. Ingersoll, Joseph Johnson, 
 Andrew Johnson, George W. Jones, Seaborn Jones, Kauf- 
 man, T. B. King, Leake, La Sere, Ligon, Long, Lumpkin, 
 McClean. McClernand, McDaniel, James McDowell, Mc- 
 Henry, McKay, John P. Martin, Barkley Martin, Morris* 
 Morse, Newton, Owen, Parrish, Payne, Pendleton, Perry, 
 Phelps, Pillsbury, Reid, Relfe, Rhett, Roberts, Sawyer, Sed- 
 don, Alexander D. Sims, Leonard H. Sims, Simpson, Stan- 
 ton, Stephens, St. John, Stiong, Thihodaux, ThomaSBOJfc 
 Jacob Thompson, TibbattS, Toombs, Towns, Tredway, 
 Trumbo, Wick, Woodward, and Young — 106. 
 
 W4S