HOLLINGER 
 pH8.5 
 
 MILL RUN F3-1543 
 
•''"'"^^i AxVD FREEDOM, WITHOt T COMPROMISE. 
 E 423 - 
 
 Copy 1 f 
 
 .^. P. CHASE, OF (JHIO,.^^ 
 
 IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES, MARCH a«-7, 1850, 
 On the Compromise Rssoluiions .submitted by Alt. ('lay on the '25t/i of January. 
 
 Mr. CHASE said: 
 
 I rise, Mr. President, with unalTected diffidence, 
 to offer to the Senate my views of the important 
 tjuestions presented by the resolutions of the hon- 
 orable Senator from Kentucky. 
 
 Coming from the private walks of life, witliout 
 the advantage of previous public position, and 
 without experience in legislative debate, I speak 
 from no eminence which will entitle me to com- 
 mand attention. I claim for what I say that con- 
 sideration only which is due to sincerity of belief, 
 to directness of purpose, and to whatever force of 
 argument I may be able to bring to the support of 
 my positions. 
 
 It has been said, Mr. President, and said in a 
 tone of complaint, by southern gentlemen, that 
 this Government is rapidly becoming a mere Gov- 
 ernment of the majority — becoming a great consol- 
 idated democracy. Now, sir, if by this it be meant 
 ♦^af (.his Government of ours has become, or is to 
 become, a' Govemne^^-S' :;^:: .i^llJ^i/^n , people, 
 administered in conformity with the will of a major- 
 ity of the people — if it be meant that the democratic 
 principle is carried, or is likely to be carried, into 
 practical application in its administration and legis- 
 lation, I see in the fact, if fact it be, no ground of 
 complaint, but rather ground of congratulation and 
 satisfaction. Why, sir, what is this democratic 
 principle? Equality of natural rights, guarantied 
 and secured to all, by the laws of a just popular 
 Government. For one, I desire to see that prin- 
 ciple applied to every subject of legislation, no 
 matter what that subject may be — to the great 
 question involved in the resolutions now before 
 the Senate, and to every other question. 
 
 But our responsibilities are limited by our 
 powers; and however clear it may be that we are 
 bound by allegiance to democratic principle to 
 condemn, to mitigate, to abolish slavery wherever 
 we can constitutionally do so, it is equally clear 
 that we are not bound, and that we have no right 
 to interfere with slavery by legislation beyond the 
 sphere of our constitutional powers. 
 
 We have no power to legislate on the subject of 
 slavery in the States. We have power to prevent 
 its extension, apd to prohibit its existence within 
 the sphere of the exclusive jurisdiction of the 
 General Government. Our duty, therefore, is to 
 abstain from interference with it in the States. It 
 13 also our duty to prohibit its extension into 
 national territories, and its continuance wheie we 
 are constitutionally responsible for its existence. 
 
 Such, .Mr. President, is my position; 
 
 lat I am sustained in it 
 
 and for 
 the purpose of showing tha 
 by the very highest authority, I propose to review, 
 somewhat at large, the history of this Government 
 in its relations to slavery. 
 
 It was said yesterday by the honorable Senator 
 from Virginia [Mr. Hunter] that the South had 
 no cause of complaint against the North in regard 
 to slavery until the year"l820, the date of the Mis- 
 souri compromise. However that may be, we 
 must go further back in time, if we wish to trace 
 the controversy between slavery and freedom in 
 this country to its source. We must go two hun- 
 dred years further back. It was in 1620 that a 
 Dutch ship ascended the James river, bringing the 
 I first slaves into Virginia. In that same year the 
 Mayflower brought the Pilgrim founders of New 
 England to Plymouth Rock. Slavery was intro- 
 I duced into Virginia. Freedom was planted in 
 j New England. The contest between the despotic 
 principle — the element and guaranty of slavery — 
 j anu ^Mc :?." '?X':'r.'3Ji\: pnnciple — the element and 
 I guaranty of liberty — commericerf. 
 j But slavery was not established in Virginia 
 ! without remonstrance and resistance. The colo- 
 I nists complained veliemently of the introduction 
 I of slaves, and resorted to various expedients of 
 ! prevention. But the desire of the mother country 
 I to benefit the navigator, and to stimulate produc- 
 ' tion, led the British Govornment to disregard 
 every complaint, and to negative all colonial 'egis- 
 I lation against the slave trade. Slaves continued 
 ; to be imported. Tlie traffi*- extended to other 
 \ colonies, until at length slavery obtained a foothold 
 in every one of them. At the breaking out of the 
 1 Revolution, slaves were held in every colony, from 
 j Massachusetts to Georgia. 
 
 1 Well, sir, how was slavery regarded at that pe- 
 ' riod ? In September, 1774, the first Congress of 
 the colonies met in Philudelphia. Had the oppo- 
 sition to slavery, which had been previously man- 
 ifested, and the desire for its extinction which had 
 been so generally cherished, now become extinct? 
 A decisive answer to this inquiry may be found 
 in an extract from a singularly able exposition of 
 the Rights of British America, prepared by Mr. 
 .Tefterson, and laid before the Convention of Vir- 
 i ginia, which assembled in August, 1774, for the 
 j purpose of appointing dele^'ates to the proposed 
 , Congress. I will read this extract: 
 
 " The iJiolUioii of ilomentii: daveitj i.e (lie greatest object 
 111" (iBsire in rli'ise oolonies. wht " it v»as unhappily tctrr>- 
 
I 
 
 duced ii: tbeir infant stale. But, previous to the enfran- 
 chisement or thf slaves, it is necessary to exclude further 
 importi).;ioi!< from Africa. Yet our repeated attempls to 
 eflfect this by prohibitions, and by imposing duties which 
 might amouiit to prohibition, have been hitherto defeated 
 by his Maie-ty-s negative; thus preferr^.g the immediate 
 advantage of a lew \tric-an corsair; lo the lasting interests 
 of Ihc Amerijiii Stales, and the rights of human nature, 
 deeply wounded Ijy this infamous practice."— -9m. JirchiL^es, 
 'ith seriei, -jol 1 . /;. 6SC. 
 
 The Congress, which soon after assembled, 
 shared these sentiments. Among its first acts 
 was the framing of the celebrated Articles of 
 Association, which composed the Non-Importa- 
 tion, Noii-Exportation, and Non-Consumption 
 Agreerfiieni. I will read the second of those 
 articles: 
 
 " That we will neither import nor purchase any slave im- 
 ported after the first day of December next, after which 
 time we will wholly discontinue the slave trade, and will 
 neither be concerned in it oursflves, nor will we hire our 
 vessels, or sell our commodities or manufactures, to those 
 wlio are concerned iti it.'' — ^w». .Archives, 4th le.rins, vol. 1, 
 ;i. !)14. I] 
 
 There was another article in this agreement, jj 
 which I will read: I 
 
 "Art. ii4. And wc do furtliei agree and resolve, that we 1 
 will have no trade, commerce, dealings, or intercourse what- 
 ever, witii any colony or province in North America which 
 shall not accede to, or which shall hereafter violate, this as- 
 sociation, but will hold thcin as unworthy of the rights of 
 freemen, and as inimical to the liberties of this country." — 
 »3m. .Archives, 4th series, vol. 1 , p. 91.5. 
 
 Weli, sir, this .solemn covenant, thus pledging 
 every coiony and every citizen to an entire aban- j 
 donmen'. anil .suppressiun of the slave trade, was 
 signed by eveiy delegate in Congress, southern 
 and northern. Public sentiment on this subject was , 
 then iinaninious,or next to unanimous, throughout 
 the country. Among these signers we find the i 
 names, of Rodney, McKean, and Read, of Dela- 
 ware; Chase and Paca, of IVlaryland ; Richard j 
 Henry Lee, of Virginia; Hoojier and Hewes, of 
 North Carolina; and iVlidiDeton. RvVA^'i'''?r, and 
 
 _Ly'Tit'.5 of -Sf m'n Criromiii.; all of whom' subse- ; 
 
 ~ quentiy subscribed the Declaration of Independ- 
 ence. We also find the names of George Wash- 
 ington and Patrick Flenry. 
 
 Now, Mr. President, let it he remembered that 
 the.se Articles of Association, eiilered iiito as a 
 measure fjr obtaininij a redress of grievances from 
 the People and Government of Great Britniii, and 
 to the faithful observance of which, in all their 
 stipulations, the delegate.s of the colonies pledged 
 themselves and their constituencies, " under the 
 sacred ties of viitiie, honor, and love of country:" 
 let it be remembered , 1 gay, that these Articles con- ■ 
 stituteci tiie first bond of' American Union. The 
 Union thus constiU'tcd was, to be sure, imperfect, 
 partial, incomplete; but it was still a Union, a 
 Union o:' the Colonies and of the People, for the 
 great objects set forth in tiie Articles. And let it 
 be remembered, also, that prominent in the list of 
 measures agreed on m these Articles, was the dis- 
 continuance of thf- .-lave trade, with a view to the 
 ultimate extinetioti of slavery itself. 
 
 I fay v;ith a viev/ to the ultimate extinction of 
 slavery, and I have authority for saying so. I 
 ask attention to an extract from the proceedings of 
 a town meeting at Danbury, Connecticut, held on 
 the 12th of December, 1775 : 
 
 " It is with singular pleasure we notice the second article 
 of the Association, in which it i> agreed to import no more 
 negro slaves, as we cannot but think it a palpable absurdity 
 so loudly tT complaii: of iiiterapts to enslave us while we 
 
 are actually enslaving others." — .4m. vItcA>»m, 4tA serietA 
 vol \p. 1038. 3 
 
 -^'I'hia was the Northern view. What was the 
 southern .' We find it upon record in the proceed- 
 ings of the Congress of the Representatives of 
 Darien, in the colony of Georgia. Acceding to 
 the Association, they declared their views in these 
 words: 
 
 " We, the Representatives of the extensive district of 
 Darien, in the colony of Georcia, being now assembled in 
 Congress, by the atithortty and free choice of the inhabit- 
 ants of said district, now freed from their fetters, do resolve." 
 
 Then follow several resolutions setting forth the 
 grounds of complaint against the oppressions of 
 Great Britain, closing with the emphatic declara- 
 tion which I now read: 
 
 '■ To show to the world that we are not intiuenced by any 
 contracted or interested motives, but by a general plsilan- 
 thropy for all mankind, of whatever climate, languai»e, or 
 complexion, we hereby declare our disapprobation and ab- 
 horrence of the unnatural practice of slavery in America, 
 (however the uncultivated state of our country or other 
 specious arguments may plead for it)— a practice founded 
 in injustice and cruelty." and highly dangerous to our liber- 
 ties as well as lives, debasing part of our fellow-creaturea 
 below men, and corrupting the virtue and morals of the 
 rest, and laying the basis of that liberty we contend firr, and 
 which we pray the Almighty to continue to the latest pos- 
 terity, upon a very wrong foundation. We therefore resolve 
 at ail times to use our utinost eiideavors far the mamtmission 
 of our slaves in this colony, upon the most safe and equita- 
 ble footing for the masters and themselves." — ^m, .Archives, 
 4tk series, vol. i.p. 1 K^.5. 
 
 That, sir, was the Southern view. At least it 
 was the view of a large, and intelligent, and in- 
 fluential body of southern men. And with this 
 understanding of their effects and tendency, the 
 Articles of Association were adopted by colonial 
 conventions, county meetings, and lesser assem- 
 blages, throughout the country, and became the 
 law of America — the fundamental Constitution, so 
 to speak, of the first American Union. It 
 
 I less to cite '^l^\ resoiuuons of these meetings.. 
 
 j They can be found in the American Archives by 
 
 I tho.se who desire to investigate the subject, I 
 
 ': will quote but two. 
 
 The first is a resolution of the Convention of 
 
 Maryland, held in November, 1774, readopted by 
 
 a subsequent convention, more fully attended, in 
 
 December of the same year: 
 
 ^'■Resolved, That every member of tiiis meeting will, and 
 
 ' every person in the province should, strictly and inviolably 
 
 ! observe and carry into execution the Association agreed on 
 
 , by the Continental Coni:ress." 
 
 The otlier is the declatation adopted by a gen- 
 eral meeting of the freeholders of James City 
 county, Virginia, in November, 1774, in thesfr 
 words: 
 
 " The Association entered into by Congress being publicly 
 rtad, the freeholders and other inhabitants of the county, 
 that they might testify to the world their concurrence and 
 hearty approbation of the measures adopted by that respect- 
 able body, very cordially a' ceded thereto, and did bind and 
 oblige themselves, by the sacred ties of virtue, honor, and 
 love to their country, strictly and inviolably to observe .ind 
 keep the same in every particular." 
 
 These, sir, are specimens of the formal and 
 solemn declarations and engagements of public 
 bodies. To sliow the sentiment which pervaded 
 the masses of the people, I will *read an extract 
 from an eloquent paper, entitled " Observations 
 addressed to the People of America," printed s.t 
 Philadelphia in November, 1774: 
 
 " The least deviation from the resolves of Congress will 
 be (reason; such treason as teiv villains have ever bad an 
 opportunity of committing, it will be treason against the 
 
3 
 
 present inhabitaats of Ihe colonies, against the mltllonx of | 
 (inborn generations who an; to exist hereaaer in America, 
 against Ihc only liliurty and liafipinetf.'i wIiIkIi rciii.iiii id 
 manliind, against the last lio|)is of the wretcli.Mi ,„ .very 
 corner of the WDrld ; inawonl, it will lie troason ag;iin-i 
 
 God. » « * VVk ARK NOW I.AVINll TIU. icll SDATIllVS or ' 
 *N AMEr.ilAN CONSTITITU.N. Let »>-, llnTflorf, hold Up 
 
 everything WO do lo llw rye oi p(i,ifrllv. 'I'liey will most 
 probably measure their liherlles and happiness by the niowt 
 careless of our footsteps, hct no unhallowed hand tourli 
 the precious send of lilieriy. Lei u<> form tlit: glorious 
 tree in si-.ch a manner, and imprcijnate li with sm h prin- 
 ciples of life, that it shall last forever. • • • / ,,'inost 
 v.ish to llje to kcur the trinmjilii of Ihe jubilee in th<- i.rnr 
 1874; to s'^e the medals, pleiures, frn;;meiits of writint'-", 
 tliatrihal) be displayed to revive thcmeniory of the proceed- 
 ings of :he Congress of i;; l. if .my adve'nlilious .ircuni- 
 stance shall give precedency on that day, it shall he to in- 
 herit the blood, or even to po.-seKs the name, of a inenibi-r 
 of that glorious assembly." — ^7n'.Ticrtii ^i,rhivei. 4tk y<r;iM, ' 
 lol. 1, p. iT/G. 
 
 In these various re.solve.s and declarations-, Mr. 
 President, we have the first expressions of the 
 public sentimcni. and vi^ill of the American people 
 upon this subject of slavery. Tiie earliest action 
 of the associated colonies Wiis anti-slavery a>:tion. 
 The Union which tliey then formed was indeed, 
 as I have said, incomplele; but it was complete 
 enough to warrant the Congre.ss wiiich represented 
 it in deCiaring independence, in wnn:in^: war, in 
 contracting debts; in assuming, in short, many of 
 the functions of nationality and sovereignty. 
 
 Well, sir, nearly two years passed by, and the 
 grievances of the colonies remained unredressed, 
 fhe war ol' the Revolution had begun, and the 
 Dcclaratior. of Independence was promulgated. 
 That instrument breathed the same spirit a? the 
 Articles of Association. The original draught, 
 as it came fro.m the hands of Jefferson, contained 
 a clause reprobating in the strongest terms the 
 traffic in men. I will read it: 
 
 " He has wag^^d cruel war again.^t. human nature il-sclf. 
 Violating its most sacred rights of life and liberty In the per- 
 sons of^ .iista.'it poople who never oftendcd hirn : captiva- 
 ang and cr.iTying them into slavery iu another hi;inl9pher.-, 
 '/r to incur a miserahle death in their tran.^portatioii thither. 
 This pirat::j.l warfare, the opprobrium of intidel. I'owers, i« 
 :he warfare of the Christian King of Great Britain. Jielei- 
 niined to keep open a m.irkct when; i.icn should he bought 
 .xnd sold, he has prosiituttd his negative for suppressing 
 ■?very legislative attempt lo proliibit or restrain this oxccra- , 
 t)le commerce." * 
 
 Thi.s clause was indeed omitted from the Decla- 
 laiion, rot because it did not express the sentiments 
 of the majority of Congress, but, as Mr. Jefferson 
 informs us, in compliance to South Carolina and 
 Georgia. He intimates also that SDme tenderness 
 under these censures was manifested by northern 
 gentlemen, whose constituents had been somewhat 
 'argely eng.^ged in the slave trade. But still the 
 great fundamental truth, which constitutes the 
 oasis ofall just government, and which condemns 
 equally every form of oppression, was retained in 
 the Declaration, and announced to the world as 
 self-evi.lenl: the truth that "all men are created 
 ' equal; '.hat they are endowed by their Creator 
 ' with certain inalienable rights; that among these 
 • are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; that 
 ' to secure these rights governments were instituted 
 'among men, deriving their just powers from the 
 ' conser.: of the governed." 
 
 Thus we see, that, in this second great act of 
 the American people, the fundamental truth, upon 
 which the Articles of Association were based, was 
 
 "3 MaiK'on Pap'rs, m the close of the volume, where u 
 fji'- si nitf ir Mr. Jcflerson's handwritinsr will be found. 
 
 reiterated— not as a "rhetorical flourish," not as 
 an abslraciion inca[t«ble of practical application in 
 human alTairs, l)Ut a.s a living principle, not to be 
 di.sregarded, without fatal consequenccB, in the 
 structure or the administration of government. 
 That such was the view neiually tukcn of the Dec- 
 laration at that time, is further evident from the 
 language of the desnatchen transmitting it to the 
 authorities of the dillerenl colonies, and to the 
 commander-in-chief of the nriny. I will quote a 
 paragraph from the letter of the Prcaident of Con- 
 gress, John Hancock, to the Convention of New 
 Jersey: 
 
 '• I do myself ilie honor to ene|r>he, in obedience to the 
 coinmunds of Congre.ss, a copy of the Declaration of Inde- 
 pendence, which you will pleaxe to have proclaimed in 
 your colony in such way and manner as you judge best. 
 The iniportint eonscquenees resulting to the .Xnierlcan 
 S^tativs from this I)>-claration of Iiidc'iM.iidence, < jwiJered 
 IIS the ground aiut fouiulalion oj a future Coiei lunvnt , will 
 naturally suggest the propriety of prnelaiming it in such a 
 mode as that the people may be iiiiiversallv informed of it." 
 — ,.?.w)i<<;» Jifrhii-ci, Mil terii's, i-ol. 1, j». 11. 
 
 Such were the principles, Mr. President, of the 
 Government and the people during the struggle 
 for independence. They were reiterated at the 
 close of It. Very .-ihortly after the treaty of peace 
 was ratified In ]783, Congress i.ssued an address 
 to the States, drawn up by Mr. Madison, the 
 inain purpose of which was to pursuade to the 
 [irovision of a fund for the discharge of the public 
 engagements. That address contains the clau.se 
 which I will now rccid: 
 
 '• het it be leiiiembcrcd, finally, that it has ever been thf 
 pride and boast of America that the rights for which jhe 
 contended were the riehts of human nature- By the blew- - 
 ing ofthc .iut/ior 0/' Mfif ri^Ws on the means everted for 
 fncir defence, they have prevailed against all opposition, 
 and form the bcmii of thirteen ittdci>endent States. No In- 
 stance lias heretofore' occurred, nor can any instance be e.x - 
 pe.ct«:rt hereafter to occur, in which thi' unadulterated forms 
 of rcpubliciin government can prci;"-' io.<io fair an opportu 
 nity of justifying themselve.^ by their-fWit'. In thi- virw, 
 the citizens of the United Stales are responsible for the 
 greatest trust ever confided lo a |K>litical society."—! MiuH 
 ■ion Papers, ^ip. 11. 
 
 This, sir, was the acknowledgment of 1783: 
 
 , That the war of the Revolution was waged not to 
 
 ' vindicate privileges, but rights; not the rights of 
 
 any part or cla^s of the people, but the rights of 
 
 all men — " the rights of human nature." 
 
 It was not long before an occasion arose to te.st 
 the sincerity of Congress in these various declara- 
 tions; to determine v/hether or not Congress was 
 prepared to carry the principles so solemnly recog- 
 nized into practical application, without re.-^pect to 
 persons or sections. Nor was Congress wanting 
 to the occasion. 
 
 On the 1st of March, 1784, Virginia ceded to the 
 United States all her claim to the territory north- 
 west of the Ohio. Much praise has been awarded 
 to Virginia for this cession. I desire lo detract 
 nothing from it. Virginia, doubtless, confiJed 
 fully in the validity of her title to the territory 
 which she reded. It is true that, acting under her 
 authority, and in anticipation of an expedition 
 ordered by Congress, the gallant George Rogers 
 Clarke, at the head of a handful of brave Ken- 
 tuckians, dispossessed the British authorities of 
 that portion of the territory which they had occa- 
 pied on the Wabash and Mississippi. But it 'a 
 right to say, and I am bound to say, that the 
 validity of the Virginia title was never recognized, 
 was always contested, by Congress. Other States 
 
claimed interests in the same territory. Nev/ York 
 claimed the whole; Connecticut claimed a part, 
 and Massachusetts also advanced a claim. Against 
 all these demands, Congress asserted a right, in 
 behalf of the United Stales, to the entire trans- 
 Alleghanian region, as crown lands, acquired from 
 Great Britain by the common blood and treasure 
 of all the States, and appealed to the claimant 
 States to relinquish their pretensions. New York 
 was the first to respond to this appeal, and her 
 cession was accepted by Congress in 1782. Vir- 
 ginia had previously proposed to cede all her 
 claim northwest of the Ohio on certain conditions; 
 but the conditions not being admitted, the cession 
 ■was not accepted. Subsequently the contest was 
 terminated by a satisfactory cession, made by 
 Virginia and accepted by Congress. It was an 
 arrangement, in fact, which involved concessions i 
 on both sides. Virginia yielded to the United i 
 States all her claims to territory northwest of the 
 Ohio, and the United States tacitly surrendered , 
 to Virginia all claim to the territory southeast of 
 that river, alleged to be within her chartered limits. 
 Ihave thought it my duty to make these observa- 
 tions, as a Senator of a State whose rights and ! 
 interests, as well as the rights and interests of her ' 
 sister States of Pennsylvania, Indiana, and Illi- 
 nois, are affected to some extent, by the claim of 
 exclusive title to the western country which has 
 been advanced in behalf of Virginia. 
 
 Whatever the title of Virginia may have been, 
 however, it is certain that upon her cession, made 
 nsl have said, on the Istof March, 1784, the United 
 States came into the undisputed ownership and sov- ' 
 ereignty of the vast region northwest of the Ohio. ; 
 To dispose of the soil and to determine the political ; 
 institutions of the territory, now became the duty 
 of Congress; and the duty was promptly performed. 
 On the very day of the cession , before the sun went 
 ' .wn, Thomas Jetter&on, in behalf of a committee, 
 consisting ofhimself, Mr. Howell of Rhode Island, 
 and Mr. Chase of Maryland, reported a plan for 
 the government of the Western Territory — not that i 
 lying north of the Ohio merely, but of all, from the 
 north line of Florida to the north line of the United 
 States. This, sir, is a memorable document of our 
 early history, and I propose to read portions of it 
 to the Senate: \ 
 
 " Tlieterritoryce<ied,or<olece<jeii, by the individual Slates ' 
 to the United Slates, " » " shall be formed into distinct 
 Stales. * * * The settlers ^ * * shall, either on 
 their own petition or on the order of Congres.-?, receive au- 
 thority, with appointments of time and place, for their free ! 
 males, of full age, to meet together for the purpose of estab- i 
 Jishing a temjiorary Government. ■' * * Such temporary 
 Government shall only continue in force, in any State, until ' 
 it shall have acquired twenty thousand inhabitants; when, 
 giving due proof thereof to Congress, they shall receive from 
 them authority, with appointments of lime and place, to call 
 a convention of representatives to establish a permantnt '. 
 Constitution and Government for themselves: Provided, i 
 That both the temporary and permanent Governments be es- ' 
 tablished upon these principles as their basis." 
 
 Here follow sundry provisions, the last of which 
 is as follows: ' < 
 
 " That after the year 1800 of the Christian era there shall 
 be neither slavery nor involuntary servitude in any of the said 
 States, otherwise than in the punishment of crimes whereof the ; 
 party shall have been duly convicted to have been personally ' 
 guilty.' 1 
 
 This, sir, was the plan and proviso of Jefferson. [ 
 It met the approbation of the American People. \ 
 It proved that the declaration of 1776 was not an j 
 empty profession, but a true faith. It oroved 
 
 that the spirit of the covenant of 1774 yet ani- 
 mated the heart of the nation. According to this 
 grand and comprehensive scheme, the commence- 
 ment of the nineteenth century was to witness the 
 inauguration of freedom, as the fundamental and 
 perpetual law of the transmontane half of the 
 American Republic. 
 
 Had this plan and proviso been adopted, we 
 should not now be discussing the questions which 
 embarrass us. The extension of slavery would 
 have been limited by the Aileghanies. No slave 
 could ever have trodden a foot of the soil beyond. 
 Unhappily, however, the proviso was not adopted; 
 and, as 1 have already said that it met the ap- 
 proval of the people, I ask attention to the pro- 
 ceedings which resulted in its rejection. On the 
 19th of April, Mr. Spaight, of North Carolina, 
 moved that the proviso be stricken out. Under 
 the Articles of Confederation, which governed the 
 proceedings of Congress, a majority of the thir- 
 teen States was necessary to an affimative decision 
 of any question; and the vote of no Stale could be 
 counted, unless represented by at least two dele- 
 gates. 
 
 The question upon Mr. Spaight's motion was 
 put in this form: 
 
 " Shall the words moved to be struck out stand.-" 
 
 The vote stood — 
 
 For the Proviso, six States, viz: New Hamp- 
 shire, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, 
 New York, and Pennsylvania. 
 
 ^Igainst the Proviso, three States, viz: Virginia, 
 Maryland, and South Carolina. 
 
 Delaware and Georgia were not represented. 
 New Jersey, by Mr. Dick, voted aye, but her vote, 
 only one delegate being present, could not be 
 counted. The vote of North Carolina was di- 
 vided — Mr. Williamson voting aye, Mr. Spaight, 
 no. The vote of Virginia stood — Mr. Jefferson, 
 aye, Messrs. Hardy and Mercer, no. Of the 
 twenty-three delegates present and voting, sixteen 
 voted for, and seven against, the proviso. Thus 
 was the proviso defeated by a minority vote. The 
 people were for it, the States were for it; but it 
 failed in consequence of a provision which enabled 
 the minority to control the majority. It so hap- 
 pened that Mr. Beatty, the colleague of Mr. Dick, 
 had left Congress a day or two before, and returned 
 a day or two after. Had he been present, or had 
 one of Mr. Jefferson's colleagues voted with him, 
 the result would have been changed.* How vast 
 the consequences which, in this instance, depended 
 on a single vote. 
 
 Well, sir, the ordinance of 1784, thus maimed 
 and otherwise mutilated, became the law of the 
 land on the 23d of April following. In 1785, Mr. 
 Jefferson went abroad as Minister to France, and 
 was out of the country until after the adoption of 
 the Constitution. The agitation of the proviso, 
 however, did not cease in consequence of his ab- 
 sence. In that same year, (1785,) Mr. King, of 
 Massachusetts, again moved the proviso in Con- 
 gress, in a slightly modified form, as follows: 
 
 •' Thai there shall be neither slavery nor involuiitary ser- 
 vitude in any of the Stales described in the resolves of Con- 
 gress of the 23d of April, 1784, otherwise than in the punish- 
 ment of crimes whereof the party shall have been personally 
 guilty ; and that this regulation shall be an article of com- 
 pact, and remain a fundamental principle of the constitu- 
 
 * 4 Journals Cong. Confed. 374; see also Cong. Globe 
 ]848-'49, Appen., 294, Speech of Hon. John A. Dii. 
 
tions between the thirteen original States, and ench n( the 
 
 States dencrihed in llic said resolve of the SSd of April, 
 1784."— 4 Jour. Old Com., ^'*\. 
 
 The resolution was ordered to be committed by 
 the votes of New Ilnmpshire, Massuchuaclta, Con- 
 necticut, Rhode Island, New York, New Jersey, 
 Pennsylvania, and Maiyljuul — eight; aj^ainst the 
 votes of Virginia, North Carolina, South Caro- 
 lina, and Georgia — four. Delaware was not refi- 
 resented. The vote of Maryland was determined 
 by two ayes against one no, wliile that of Virginia 
 was determined by two noes against one aye. The 
 decided favor shown to this resolution by the vote , 
 for its commitment was the more remarkable, 
 inasmuch a.s it pri>posed the immediate prohibition 
 of slavery, instead of prohibition after 1800, in all 
 territory acquired and to be acquired. 
 
 No further action was had at this time; but in a 
 little more than two years afterwards, the subject 
 was brought for the third time before Congress, in 
 connection, as before, with tlie government of the 
 western territory. The ordinance of 1784, from 
 causes into which it is not material to inquire, had 
 never been carried into practical operation. Settle- 
 ments were about to commence in the Northwest, 
 and the settlers needed protection and government. 
 Congress, therefore, in 1787, resumed the consider- 
 ation of the subject of western territory. These 
 deliberations resulted in the celebrated ordinance 
 of 1787, the last great act, and among the greatest 
 acts of the Congress of the Confederation; an act 
 which received the unanimous votes of the States, 
 and, with a single exception from New York, of 
 all tiie delegates. This ordinance, in its sixth ar- 
 ticle of compact, expressly prohibited slavery and 
 involuRtnry servitude, except for crime, through- 
 out the territory, it abolislied existing slavery, 
 and it forbade future slavery. It covered with this 
 prohibition every inch of territory then belonging 
 to the Uniied States. It expressly declared the 
 national policy which this prohibition and kindred 
 provisions contained in the articles of compact 
 were meant to indicate and establish. This is its 
 language: 
 
 •■' For EXTENDING the fwuiaina^tal principles of cicil ami 
 religious lU>erty, whereon tliese republics, tl\eir laws and 
 constitutions, are erected ; to ji-r ami estaWsh tliose princi- 
 ples aj the basis of all laws, conililuHon.'i, and ^ovemtneuts, 
 which /orcrer hereafter shtill be formed in the said terri- 
 tory: * * * Be it ordained niul declared," &.C. 
 
 To guard against possible future departure from 
 this policy, it was ordained that these articles 
 should " forever remain unalterable," unless al- 
 tered by the "common consent of the original 
 States, and the people and States in the territory." 
 
 It is hardly possible to conceive of a more ex- 
 plicit declaration of governmental policy than this. 
 The state of public -sentiment in regard to slavery, 
 which resulted in this positive and unanimous ex- 
 clusion of it from national territory, is well de- 
 scribed in a letter of Mr. Jefferson to Dr. Price, 
 who published about that time a book in favor of 
 emancipation. The letter bears date Paris, Au- 
 gust 7th, 1785. I will read an extract: 
 
 '• Southward of the Cliesapeake, it "ill find hut few 
 readers conourrinc with it [Dr. I'.'s book] in sentiment on 
 the subject of slavery. From the mouth to the head of the 
 Chesapeake, the Imlk of the pi'ople will approve it in 
 theory, and it will find a resperlalile minority ready to adopt 
 it in practice ; a minority which, for weight and worth of 
 cliaraoter, preponderates against the greater number who 
 have not the courage to divest their families of a property 
 which, however, keeps their conscience uneasy. North- 
 ward of the Chesapeake, you may find here and there an 
 
 I opponent to your docirino, aii you may And here and Ibere 
 
 I a robber or a murderer ; but in no (jrealer number. In that 
 part of Amcrie.i, there being but few ulavex, they can eiu-ily 
 
 ' diHeneuiiibrr lliemoclvcM of thi'iii ; and eniancipalion is put 
 into Much a train Hint in a ffw yiarsthent will be no hUvci. 
 norllivvurd nt MarN land. In Maryland I do not find such u 
 disposition i()b''iji'ii the redress of tin: enormity an in Vir- 
 ({iiiiu. 'Ibis iH ihf iitit .SlaiiMo which we may turn our 
 eye for tfie Intireslinir spectacle of justice in cunflict with 
 
 I avarice and oppression; a conflict wherein the sacred tiidc 
 is gaiiiini; d ily r.crullH from the intlux into oflice of young 
 III' n, grown and giciwing up."' 
 
 The general state of opinion is also well ex- 
 pressed by Mr. Jefferson in his Notes on Virginia, 
 where he says: 
 
 " 1 think a change already prrcrplible since the oripn of 
 our present revolution, 'i'he hpiril of the tnaxter is abatiiic ; 
 that of the blave is ri'^ing from the duAl, liis condition toolli- 
 fying, and the way I hope preparini,', under the auspices of 
 Hem en, for a total emamipalion." 
 
 In another place, declaring his own sentiments, 
 
 he said; 
 
 '-'Noliody wishes more ardently th.Hn I to .lee an ab<Hi- 
 
 ' tion not oiily of the trade, but of the condition of slavery; 
 
 and certainly nobody will be more willing to encounter any 
 
 ' sacrifice for that object." 
 
 These sentiments were shared by nearly every 
 distinguished character of that time. 
 
 In a letter to Robert Morris, dated Mount Ver- 
 non, April 1-2, 1786, George Washington said: 
 
 " I can only say that there is not a man living who 
 wishes more sincerely than I do to gee a plan adopted tor 
 tlie abolition of it, [slavery;] hut there is only one proper 
 and efl'ectual mode in which it can be accomplished, and 
 that is by legislative authority : and this, so far as my suf- 
 frage will go, shull never he wanlinz."'—!' SyarA>' ffaihini;- 
 ton, 158. 
 
 In a letter to John F. Mercer, September 9, 
 1786, he reiterated this sentiment: 
 
 '• I never mean, unless some particular circumstaocefi 
 should compel me to it, to possess another slave by purchase, 
 it being among my first wishes to see some plan adopted 
 by wbich slavery in this countrv may be abolished by 
 law."— /'!<i. 
 
 And in a letter to Sir .Tohn Sinclair, he turther 
 said: 
 
 " There are in Pennsylvania laws for (be gradual abolition 
 of slavery, which neither Virginia nor Maryland have nt 
 present, ijut which nothing is inoie certain than they must 
 liave, and at a period 710/ renwte.'' 
 
 It is unnecessary to multiply these extracts. So 
 universal weie these sentiments, that Mr. Leigh, 
 in the Convention of Virginia, in 1832, did not 
 hesitate to say: 
 
 " I thought till very lately, that it was known to every- 
 body ih;it, during the Revolution, and for many years at'ter, 
 the abolition of slavery was a favorite topic with many of 
 our ablest statesmen, who entertained with respect all the 
 schemes which ivisdoni or ingenuity could suggest for it.< 
 accomplishment." 
 
 I think, Mr. President, that two facts may now 
 be regarded as established: First, that in 1787 the 
 national policy in respect to slavery was one of 
 restriction, limitation, and discouragement. Sic- 
 ondly, that it was generally expected that under 
 the action of the State governments slavery would 
 gradually disappear from the States. 
 
 Such was the state of the country wlien the 
 Convention met to frame the Constitution of the 
 United States. That Convention was sitting in 
 Philadelphia while Congress was framing the Or- 
 dinance in New York. 
 
 It has been said, in the course of this debate, 
 that there was some understanding between Con- 
 gress and the Convention in regard to the question ^ 
 of slavery. Thatmaybcso. There is, however. 
 
6 
 
 nothing in history which proves it, though cir- 1 
 cumstances do certainly seem to warrant such a 
 conjecture. But, if there was an understanding, 
 to what did it relate? Not certainly to the whole 
 subject of slavery; for, up to the time of the pro- 
 mulgation of the ordinance, no discussion had 
 taken place in the Convention on that suUject, ex- 
 cept ill respect to the question of representation 
 and taxation. That question had been discussed 
 with considerable heat: so much, indeed, that some 
 members declared themselves ready to break up 
 the Convention rather than consent to the repre- 
 sentation of slaves. The exclusion of slavery 
 from the territories by the ordinance may have 
 had, and may have been intended to have, some 
 influence upon this discussion. It may be that 
 members from the free States, seeing slavery ex- 
 cluded from national territory, and supposing its 
 extension to be thereby forever interdicted, v/ere 
 the more v/illing to consent to a representation of 
 slaves as a temporary arrangement, which would 
 cease of itself when slavery itself should cease or 
 run out, at some period " not remote. " But there 
 is not a particle of foundation for any supposition 
 that there was any understanding between Con- 
 gress and the Convention, based upon the idea 
 that slavery and freedom were entitled to equal 
 regard in the action of the Government. Far from 
 ii. Whatever understanding there was, if there 
 was any, must have been based upon the idea of 
 slavery restriction; upon the fact that its extension 
 was prohibited, and that its final disappearance ' 
 was expected. 
 
 The framers of the Constitution acted under the 
 influence of the general sentiment of the country. 
 Some of them had contributed in no small meas- 
 ure to form that sentiment. Let us examine the 
 instrument in its light, and ascertain the original 
 import of its language. 
 
 What,_then, shall we find in it? The guaran- 
 tees so much talked of? Recognition of property 
 in men ? Stipulated protection for that property 
 in national territories and by national law ? No, 
 sir; nothing like it. 
 
 We find, on the contrary, extreme care to ex- 
 clude these ideas from the Constitution. Neither 
 the word " slave" nor "slavery" is to be found 
 :n any provision. There is not a single expres- 
 sion which charges the National Government with 
 any responsibility in regard to slavery. No power 
 is conferred on Congress either to establish or sus- 
 tain it. The framers of the Constitution left it 
 where they found it, exclusively within and under 
 the jurisdiction of the States. Wherever slaves 
 are referred to at all in the Constitution, whether 
 in the clause providing for the apportionment of 
 representation and direct taxation, or in that stip- 
 ulating for the extradition of fugitives from ser- 
 vice, or in that restricting Congress as to the pro- 
 hibition of importation or migration, they are 
 spoken of, not as persons held as property, but as 
 persons held to service or having their condition 
 determined, under State laws. We learn, indeed, 
 from the debates in the Constitutional Convention, 
 that the idea of property in men was excluded 
 v\?ith special solicitude. 
 
 Mr. Madison declared, he " thought it wrong 
 to admit in the Constitution the idea that there 
 could be property in men." — 3 .Vati. Pap., 1429. 
 Mr. Gerry thought the Convention " had noth- 
 ing to do with the conduct of the States as to 
 
 slaves, but ought to be careful not to give any 
 sanction to it."— 3 Mad. Pap., 1394. 
 
 Similar expressions were used by other mem- 
 bers. But I need go no further. Multiplied words 
 will not convince those who will not regard the lan- 
 guage of the Constitution itself, or the plain decla- 
 rations of its framers. 
 
 It may, however, be worth while to refer briefly 
 to the views expressed in the State Conventions 
 which convened for the purpose of considering the 
 Constitution with a view to its ratificaticn. Did 
 they expect the extension or continuance of slavery 
 through the action or under the protection of the 
 Government which they were called on to estab- . 
 lish ? Not at all. 
 
 James Wilson, of Pennsylvania, had been a 
 leadintr member of the Con\'ention, and in the 
 Ratific'ation Convention of his State, whenspeaking 
 of the clause relating to the power of Congress 
 over the slave trade after twenty years, he said: 
 
 " 1 consider tliis Claiiso as laying the foumlation for ban- 
 ishing slavery out ol" ihis county; aud though the period is 
 more distant than I could wish it, it will produce the same 
 kind, gradual ehanae as was produced in Pennsylvania. 
 * *' * * The new States which are to be formed will be 
 under tlie control of Congress in this particular, and slavery 
 will never be introduced among them.''~i Elliot's Debate-, 
 45-2. 
 
 In another place, speaking of this ciause, he 
 said: 
 
 '' It presents us with the pleasing prospect that the rights 
 of mankind will be acknowledged and establisedthroughou: 
 the Union. If there was no other lovely feature in the Con- 
 stitution but this one, it would diHuse a beauty over its whole 
 countenance. Yet the lapse of a few years, and Congress 
 will have power to exterminate slavery from witiiin our 
 borders."— 2 Elliot's Debaiex, 484. 
 
 In the Ratification Convention of Massachusetts, 
 General Heath said: 
 
 " The migration or importation, &c., is confined to the 
 States now cxistiugonly; new States cannot claim it. Con- 
 gress, bv their ordinance for creating new States.. some time 
 since declared that the neVi- States shall be republican, and 
 that there shall be no slavery in ihem."— 2 Elliot's Debater, 
 115. 
 
 Nor were these views and anticipations confined 
 to the free States. In the Ratification Convention 
 in Virginia, Mr. Johnson said: 
 
 " They tell us that they see a progressive danger of biiiiging 
 about emanciiiation. The principle has begun since the 
 Revolution. Let us do what we will, it will come round. 
 Slavery has been the foundation of much of that impiety and 
 dissipation which have been so much dissemminated among 
 our countrymen. If it were totally abolished, it would do 
 much good." — 3 Elliot's Debates, 6 — 18. 
 
 And Governor Randolph, while denying, and 
 justly denying, the power of the General Govern- 
 ment, under the Constitution, to interfere with 
 slavery in the States, rebuked those who ex- 
 pressed apprehensions that its influence might be 
 exerted on the side of freedom, by saying: 
 
 " I hope that there are none here who, considering the su'o- 
 ject in the calm light of philo-iophy, w'ill advance an objec- 
 tion dishonorable to Virginia, that, at the moment tliey are 
 securing the rights of their citizens, there is a spark of hope 
 that those unfortunate men now held in boi\dage may, by 
 the operalion of the General Government, be made/ree."— 
 y Elliot's Debates, 598. 
 
 But the people were not satisfied with the fac: 
 that no power to invade personal freedom was 
 conferred on Congress by the Constitution. They 
 demanded direct and positive guarantees of per- 
 sonal rights. In compliance with these demand.?, 
 several of the Ratification Conventions proposed 
 to Congress such amendments as were desired by 
 their respective States. 
 
Virginia proposed a bill of rig;htP, omiiiing, mn- 
 gularly enough, the first and rundamentai piovibioii 
 of her own bill of rights, namely, lii'it " all men 
 fire born equally free and indept ndr-iit," hut coii- 
 taiiiiiig this provih;ioi\: 
 
 "N<)/ror»iini oiikIii to t»' takoii, iiiipiiH<)MrJ,i)r diHsi-izfil 
 of his frpfliDUl, liliirlics, ptivilcgci', or rrnnrliispfi, or out- 
 lawed, or exiled, or in any iniiiiiirr deKtroyoil or deprived of 
 bin life, lilicrty, or |iro|i. ily. M A;/ the liiw nj Ihr /dm/."— .'I 
 Kliiot's Debates, COe. 
 
 North Carolina and Riiode Island each proposed 
 the same olause. (4 Elliot's Debutes, -M'.i-, 1 Ib./SM.) 
 New York proposed a ilill'crent provision: 
 
 •' No ;)iTvoii ouslit to \k taken, imiitisoiii'd. or rtisdei/.ed 
 of liis freehold, or In; exiled, or deprived of his privilfcpeH, ; 
 franchises, life, liherty, or propntv. hill hy due proeen.-* of 
 law."— I rutiofs Dchitirs, .'Wy. 
 
 These various propositions came before Con- 
 gress, and that body, at its first session, agreed 
 upon several amendments to the Constitution, 
 which were subseiiunntly ratified by the States. 
 That which related to personal liberty was ex- 
 pressed in these comprehensive words: 
 
 «' No person » •» » » shall b« deprived ol life, lili- 
 lifty, or property, without due process t.f law.'"— C'o/iv., 
 .ihicni., ^ht. 5. 
 
 In my judgment, sir, if this amendment had i 
 never been made, Congress would have had no 
 power to institute slavery ; that is to say , to enforce, 
 by its laws, the subjection of one man to the ab- 
 solute control and disposal of another mun: for no 
 such power is conferred by the Constitution, and ■ 
 the action of Congress nui.st be restrained within ; 
 its delegated powers. But the amemlmeiU is an | 
 e.x[)ress guarantee of personal liberty. It is an ex- [i 
 press prohibition against its invasion. So long as 
 jlreinainsapart of the Constitution, and is obeyed, \ 
 slavery cannot be constitutionally introduced ariy- 
 where or maintained anywhere by the legislation 
 of Congress. It must depend, and depend wholly, 
 upon y*iUe law, both for existence and support. 
 Beyond State limits, within the boundaries of the 
 United States, there can be constitutionally no 
 slave. 
 
 Here I may pause. 1 have rapidly sketched the 
 rise of the American Government and the Ameri- 
 can Union, so far as their relations to American 
 slavery are involved, from their origin in the As- 
 sociation of 1774 to the establishment i^'i the Con- 
 stitution in 1787. One spirit pervaded, one prin- 
 ciple controlled al! this action— a spirit of profound 
 reverence for the rights of man as man— the prin- 
 ciple of perfect equality of men before the law. 
 
 Animated by this s-pirit and guided by this prin- 
 ciple, the Association bound all its members to di.s- 
 conlinue the slave trade. If any of them continued 
 it— and some of them did— the guilt was on tircir 
 own heads only, for the Association liad no power 
 to enforce the covenant. When the Ameiican Con- 
 gress resolved on independence, they solemnly an- 
 nounced the great doctrine of inalienable ri'j,hts as 
 the basis ofthe national political faith and the 
 foundationof all just government. When the war 
 of the Revolution was over, they renevvcd the dec- 
 laration, that the contest which they had waged 
 was in defence of the rights of human nature. 
 When the acquisition of the Northwesterii Terri- 
 tory presented an opportunity of carrying into 
 practical application their exalted principles, they 
 did not hesitate, but established tnem tbrever as 
 the basis of all law.?, constitutions, and govern- 
 ments, witliin its limit.-?. When the Confederation 
 
 proved inadequate to the exigem icb of the Repub- 
 lic, and the people undertook the v/ork of reform- 
 ing their political system, they niiifititutod the new 
 Govenimtnt and establitlied the new t;>.!i6titiition 
 upon priu' iples which madi: the « rihlavernent of 
 men i)y the (jJovernment under the Constitution a 
 legal iinpo.ssibiluy. Let those who nre inclined to 
 murmur b« cause no more waHdone, ask theraselves, 
 by what people, in what ap btsidcH.haa .,o much 
 been done for the c«u."e of freedom and right r Up 
 to llic time of the adoption of the ConMtitulion, 
 there wiu) not a single slave in America, made such 
 or held such, under any law of the United States. 
 Had the policy of the founders of the Republic been 
 puisued, and had the [>rinripl( s which they estab- 
 lished been failhCully cnrrietl out in legislation and 
 administration, there would have been r.ow no 
 slave anywhere uiidor exclusive national 'urisdic- 
 tion— probably no slave within the bounouries of 
 the Republic. 
 
 Unhappily, however, the original policy of the 
 Govcriimenl and the original principles of the Gov- 
 ernment in ri sjicci to slavery did not nerrriar.ently 
 control it:j action. A change occurred — almost im- 
 perceptible at firt-t, but becoming more and more 
 marked and decided, until nearly total. The hon- 
 orable Senator from iMassachusetts in the course 
 of his late speech noticed this change, and ascribed 
 it to the rapid increase in the production of cotton. 
 Doubtless, sir, that was a leading cause. The pro- 
 duction of cotton, in consequence of the invention 
 of the cotton gin, increased from 487,600 pounds 
 in 1793, to 6,-J7(j,300 pounds in 17'J6, and continued 
 to increase very rapidly afterwards. Of course the 
 market value of slaves advanced, and masters were 
 less inclined to emancipation. 
 
 But the increase of the cott.ni crop was rot the • 
 only,. nor, in my judgment, the chief cause of al- 
 tered public sentiment and governmental action. 
 The change in the structure of the Governnient 
 which introduced into one brancli of ;hfc Lcgisia 
 ture, and into the electoral college, a representation 
 for slaves, constituted, I think, a far more potent 
 cause. 1 will sketch the progress of the power 
 derived from this source, for I think it '.rnportani 
 that its practical Ojieration should be understood. 
 , I admit that it is conferred by the Constitution; 
 but , , ^ 
 
 iVlr. BORLAND. Will the honorable senator 
 allow mo to ask him a question r 
 
 Mr. CHASE. Certainly. 
 ' Mr. BORLAND. I think i understood the 
 Senator as giving as a reason for adhering to the 
 institution of slavery on the part of southern states- 
 men, that the Constitution allowed the slave popu- 
 lation to form a basis of representation. Does the 
 Senator give that as a reason why they adhered 
 to the institution of slavery, and became more 
 attached to it .' 
 
 Mr. CHASE. 1 believe that was or-e of the 
 reasons. ' 
 
 Mr. BORLAND. Then 1 can say to the Sena- 
 tor that his argument, it seems to me, confutes 
 itself; for the reason that if the slaves were liber- 
 ated, each would be counted; whereas, being re- 
 tained as slaves, only three-fifths of their number 
 are brou^rht into the computation, and we lose two- 
 fifths. ' „ ., ^ 
 Mr. CHASE. Undoubtedly, Mi'- President, if 
 the slaves were free they would be reckoned at 
 their full number in the basis of representation; 
 
8 
 
 but the iofluence of their representation upon the 
 character of the Government would be wholly 
 changed. There would be no slave interest. 
 
 Mr. BORLAND. Free negroes are represented . 
 
 Mr. CHASE. I am obliged to the Senator from 
 Arkansas for the information he jrives me: I had 
 learned the fact he states from the Constitution. 
 Why, sir, is it not quite obvious that in a district 
 where the number of slave.s is considerable, even 
 iif suffrage be universal, the number of votes must 
 be proportionably reduced? And, inasmuch as 
 slaveholders are usually the chief landholders and 
 p^operty holders, and have a common interest, is it 
 not quite obvious that they will generally be able to 
 wield the political power of the district : Destroy 
 the slave representation, and their power is gone. 
 Enfranchise the slaves, and there are no slave- 
 holders, and of course no slave power. Enfran- 
 chisement will, doubtless, increase the political 
 power of the State, but it will annihilate the slave 
 power. I repeat, Mr. President, a:; J they who 
 think me v/rong may refute what I say, if they 
 can, that there must have been some adequate 
 cause or causes for the remarkable cliange of feel- 
 ing and action in regard to slavery which began to 
 manifest itself about this time, and that these 
 causes, in my judgment, were— first, the politi- 
 cal power derived by slaveholders from the rep- 
 resentation of three-fifths of their slaves; and, 
 secondly, the augmented value of slaves arising 
 from the sudden increase of the cotton culture. 
 The last of these causes requires no further con- 
 sideration; but I v/ish to direct attention some- 
 what more particularly to the^first. 
 
 The firat apportionment was made by the Con- 
 stitution Convention. Regard was had, doubtless, 
 to the three-fifths rule in determining the number 
 of Representatives assigned to each State; but we 
 cannot now ascertain how tinany were allowed for 
 ihe slaves. Tiie census supplies the means of 
 ascertaining the precise quantum of slave repre- 
 sentation in each decennial period since the first 
 apportionment. I nov.- propose to submit to the 
 Senate a table, which exhibits at one view each 
 decennial period since the adoption of the Consti- 
 tution; the number of inhabitants required for 
 one Representative; the number of slaves reck- 
 oned at three-fifths of their actual nuhi'oer; ar.d 
 the number of Representatives for slaves for each 
 period: 
 
 Dftcrnnial 
 
 Representative 
 
 Threp-flfths of 
 
 Re, 
 
 resenta- 
 
 period. 
 
 iiuiriber. 
 
 slaves. 
 
 tives 
 
 or slaves. 
 
 1780 — 1800 
 
 30,100 
 
 408,737 
 
 
 13 
 
 1800 — 1810 
 
 33,0;i0 
 
 .-5.35,894 
 
 1 
 
 16 
 
 1810 — 182!) 
 
 35,000 
 
 714,816 
 
 
 20 
 
 1820 — 1830 
 
 40,1100 ~ 
 
 922,839 
 
 
 23 
 
 1830 — 1840 
 
 40,700 
 
 1,205,418 
 
 
 2.1 
 
 1840 — 1850 
 
 70,6f'0 
 
 1,493,013 
 
 
 21 
 
 From this table it appears that in the very first 
 Congress, if the Convention based their original 
 apportionment upon anything like a correct esti- 
 mate of the population, there must have been at 
 least ten representatives of slaves, and that in the { 
 second Congress there were thirteen. It was irn- ! 
 possible that the influence of this representation 
 should not be felt. It was natural, though it does I 
 seem to have been anticipated, that the unity of [ 
 the slave interest, strengthened by this accession ; 
 of political power, should gradually weaken the j 
 
 public sentiment and modify the national policy 
 against slavery. 
 
 Well, sir, occasion was not long wanting to test 
 the dispositions of Congress in this respect. At an 
 early period of the second session of the first Con- 
 gress, petitions were presented from the Society of 
 Friends in Philadelphia and New York, and from 
 the Pennsylvania Abolition Society, of which 
 Benjamin Franklin was the President, praying 
 Congress to take such measures as the Constitu- 
 tion would permit to discountenance and discour- 
 age slavery and the slave trade. A similar address 
 had been made by a deputation of Friends to the 
 Congress of the Confederation, in 1783, who were 
 received and heard with great respect, though 
 Congress, having no power over the subject, was 
 obliged to decline taking such action as was de- 
 sired.'" The petitions now presented were not 
 treated with similar consideration. They were, 
 however, received and referred, and in due time a 
 report was made. In this report the limits of the 
 powers of Congress over the subjects of slavery 
 and the slave trade were carefully defined. In re- 
 gard to slavery in the States, it expressed the fullest 
 " confidence in the wisdom and humanity of the 
 ' legislatures, that they would revise their laws 
 ' from time to time, when necessary, and promote 
 ' the objects mentioned in the memorials, and every 
 ' other measure that may tend to the happiness of 
 ' slaves;" and, in regard to slavery within the 
 sphere of the legitimate action of Congress, it con- 
 cluded with the following expression; 
 
 '•That the riienioiialists be inronned that, in all c.ise? to 
 which the aiithiirity of Congrrss extends, they will eseroi^H 
 it for the humane ohjpcts of the memorialists, so far as they 
 can lie promoted on ttie principles ofjustice, huniauity,anil 
 good policy."— 2 Deh. Cong., Old Sej., 1465. 
 
 This report was assailed with great vehemence, 
 especially by the meiT»bers from South Carolina 
 and Georgia, who denounced the petitioners and 
 their objects, not sparing even the venerable Frank- 
 lin, very much in the style of later days. The 
 African slave trade itself came in for a share of 
 approval and vindication. 
 
 It was apparent that there was a large majority 
 in favor of the report; but a desire to satisfy even 
 unreasonable objectors, induced the concession of 
 one point after another, until the report was 
 reduced to three propositions: First, that migra- 
 tion or importation could not be prohibited prior 
 to 1608. Second, lha.t Congress had not power to 
 interfere in the emancipation or treatment of slaves 
 in the States. Third, that Congress could pro- 
 hibit the slave trade by the citizens of the United 
 States for the supply of foreigners, and provide 
 for humane treatment, on their passage, of those 
 imported into the States. The last resolution of 
 the original report, which pledged the Governmen:, 
 in conformity with its past policy and profe.ssed 
 principles, to promote the objects of the memorial- 
 ists, was stricken out altogether. 
 
 This was the first fruit of intimidation on the 
 one side, and concession and compromise on the 
 other. The majority of the House forbore to ex- 
 jiress their own settled convictions; forbore lo 
 pledge themselves to that course of disfavor to 
 slavery and the slave trade, which consistency, 
 honor, and humanity, required of them; yielded 
 everything of substance, and retained little else 
 
 * 4 Journal Congress Confed., 286-89.; 1 Oeh. Congrpss, 
 Old Series. 1224. 
 
9 
 
 ihan form. Could they have seen that this was 
 but tlie first step in a. \in\i: lincof coiicesaioiiH, per- 
 haps not yet ended, surely the patriotic men who 
 composed thai CongresB would never have taken 
 chat first step. 
 
 \VI>Ml follinvcd, sir? In tli;U Htime ycnr, North 
 Carolina tendered to the United States ii ccHhion of 
 the territory lying lietwecn the mountains which 
 form her present western l)0(indnry and the Missis- 
 sippi, and nowconstiiuting; the Slate of Tennessee, 
 upon condition " that the inhnl)itan(3 should have 
 all the privileges, benefits, and advantuges, of the 
 ordinance of 1787, provided, always, that no regu- 
 lations made or to be mtide by Congress should i 
 tend to emancipate slaved." Congress accepted ; 
 this cession, and provided for the government of I 
 'he ceded country as a slaveholding territory. j 
 
 Hitherto Congress had never sanctioned slave- 
 holding. Never hitherto had a single slave been 
 held under any authority emanating from Con- 
 -gress. On the contrary, us we li-ive seen, ii\ all 
 •he territory iiiiherto acquiicd, slavery had been 
 promptly abolished, and impregnable barriers , 
 erected against its renewed introduction. The ac- 
 ceptance of the North Carolina cession rexxrsed 
 '.he. policy of the Government, and was a step in ; 
 '.he wrong direction. To preserve the dominion 
 Df a few masters over an inconsiderable number 
 of slaves, established policy, settled principle, and 
 dafe precedent, were alike disregarded. It was a 
 miscnievous — an almost fatal error. 
 
 In 1802, Georgia ceded to the United States;.the 
 country lying between her present western limit 
 tnd the Missi.ssippi, stipulating that the ordinance j 
 >f 1787, in all its provisions, should extend to the 
 ;eded lerritory, " that article only excepted which 
 forbids slavery." Tliis cession was accepted, and 
 *.he territory placed under a territorial govern- , 
 ment, restricted from all interference with slavery. ; 
 This was the second chapter in the history of re- 
 action.* , 
 
 In 1803, we acquired Louisiana by purchase ; 
 ■'rom the French Republic. There were al that 
 -ime about forty thou.sand slaves held within its ; 
 • imits, under the French law. The treaty con- , 
 :ained this stipulation: ; 
 
 -' The iiili.ii)itaiils of tlifi ceded teriitory shall be iiifor|io- 
 •atf.il in the Union of llie Uniled Suites and adniiUed :is soiin 
 IS pnssihic, according to the principles of the Federal Con- 
 stitution, to the enjoyment of all the rights, adviintanes, and 
 aninunities of citizens of the Uniti'd St.itea; and, in the 
 .neari time, they shall be maintained in the free enjoyuien' 
 >f their libertv, propertv, and the reli'iion which they pro- ' 
 ess."'— 8 Uniicd Stairs Statutes iit Large, 20Q. i 
 
 This Stipulation, interpreted according to the 
 plain sense of its terms, and carried into ))ractical 
 iffect, would have enfranchised every slave in 
 Louisiana; for no one, I apprehend, will venture ; 
 .0 affirm that the slaves were not inhabitants. In- ; 
 iependently of this stipulation, it was tKe duty of 
 'he Government — even more imperative then in 
 i787, for since then the Vv'hole country south of 
 '.he Ohio and east of the Mi-ssissippi had been 
 formed into slave Slates and slave territories — to 
 establish freedom a-j the fundamental law of the ^ 
 aew acquisition. But this duty was not performed, i 
 There was some feeble legislation against the in- || 
 '.roduclion of slaves from foreign countries, and of jj 
 
 ■"More properly .speakini; tin tliird, ^inrt the cession of j| 
 tlie District of Columbia had lieen previously accepted, and :, 
 the slave code.^ of Virginia and Maryland adopted and con- ;| 
 '.iaued therein by act of Congress. I 
 
 slaves imported since 1798 from tlie other Stales; 
 but that was all, and that was useless. 
 
 Tiien came the cession of Florida by Spain in 
 1820. The stipulation in the treaty was subslan- 
 tially the same as in the treaty with France;" the 
 duty of llie GovLrnmcni in reajiect in the acquisi- 
 tion was the same; and there was the saiTie failure 
 to perform it. 
 
 Finally, Texas came in, in 1845, not as a terri- 
 tory, but as a State. Within her iimiia, slavery 
 was never under the control of Congress. The 
 existence of slavery there was nil objection to her 
 admi.s.oion into the Union; but once admitted, and 
 admitted ns a Slate, lur internal legislation on that 
 subject was as much beyond the reach of the 
 National Government as before. 
 
 Now, sir, what would have been the resull if 
 the fiolicy which formed the cessions of North 
 Carolina, Georgia, France, and Spain, into slave 
 territories, and finally admitted slaveholding Tex- 
 as, had prevailed in 1787? Slavery, it is well 
 known, existed in the Northwestern Territory. 
 The honorable Senator from Illinois [Mr. Douo- 
 LAs] has informed us that slavery was continued 
 in that State, notwithstanding the ordinance, 
 under liie protection of the State constitution. 
 We know what persevering efTorts — continued 
 from lci02 to 1807, and until final rejection of the 
 application here — were used to induce Congress to 
 suspend the operation of the slavery prohibition 
 in tne ordinance in respect to all the territory not 
 included within the limits of Ohio. We know 
 what arguments were employed — the same pre- 
 cisely which have ever since been urged by those 
 who would reconcile the pcopU^ to the extension 
 of slavery — the same, doubtless, which were urged 
 with too fatal success to persuade the National 
 Legislature to its first departure from the policy 
 of 1774 and 1787. It was said that slavery would 
 not be increased by the prope^ed ••♦I'ension, its 
 only effect being to change the locality of persona 
 already slaves; that the happiness of the slaves 
 would be promoted by increased comforts of their 
 new abodes; and, finally, that emancipation would 
 be promoted by spreading the slaves over the 
 largest possible extent of lerritory, and thereby 
 making emancipation safe t 
 
 These facts furnish conclusive proof that but 
 for the positive prohibition of slavery by the or- 
 dinance of 1787, every foot of land west of the 
 Alleghany mountains would have been at this day 
 slave toil. No law of physical geography or 
 formation of the earth, no want of adaptation of 
 soil or climate to the great staples of slave labor, 
 no imaginary barrier in degrees of latitude, would 
 have arrested the progress of the fatal blight. 
 
 Let us be thankful that the wisdom of iha 
 founders of the Republic forsaw, and by positive 
 prohibition prevented this great calamity. Let 
 us be thankful, also, that those who followed 
 them, though they failed to imitate their example, 
 were yet unwilling to undo their work. 
 
 Let me now, sir, sum up the results of thi« 
 policy of adding new slave territories and new 
 slave States to the Union, which was substituted 
 for the original jjolicy of free territories and free 
 States. ».^ 
 
 I make no remark here upon the admission of 
 
 * 8 United States Statutrs at Laige, 256^ 
 t20 American ?t:ite Papers, 3t7, 485. 
 
10 
 
 Kentucky. That State was a district of Virginia, 
 and never a territory of the United States. But 
 out of territories ceded to the Union, and actually 
 organized under national jurisdiction, since the 
 adoption of the Constitution, seven slave States 
 have been erected and admitted: Tennessee out of 
 the cession of North Carolina; Alabama and Mis- 
 eissippi out of the cession of Georgia; Louisiana,^ 
 Missouri, and Arkansas, out of the cession of 
 France; and Florida out of the cession of Spain. 
 Besides these States, we have annexed slavehold- 
 ing Texas, vast in her undisputed limits, and 
 •with vast claims beyond them. Here are eight 
 new slave States, created and admitted out of ter- 
 ritories, not one foot of which had been ceded to 
 the United States prior to the Constitution, and 
 five of them out of foreign territory acquired by 
 purchase or annexation since its adoption. 
 
 Well, sir, where are the free States which have 
 come into the Union out of these territories .' 
 There is but one. Iowa is the single State yet 
 admitted out of all the vast territories acquired 
 eince the organization of the Government. 
 
 Thus, sir, we see that while the original policy 
 of the Government secured to freedom all the ter- 
 ritory acquired before the Constitution, and al! the 
 States erected out of it, the reversal of that policy 
 secured to slavery most of the territory subse- 
 quently acquired, and al! the Slates formed out of 
 it except one. 
 
 Now, sir, I desire to submit to the Senate a 
 comparison of the areas which belonged respect- 
 ively to freedom and to slavery at the date of the 
 Constitution, and the areas which have been de- 
 voted to freedom and to slavery, respectively, in 
 States created out of territories, and admitted into 
 the Union since that dale. I have compiled from 
 the reports of the Commissioner of the Land Office 
 a statement exhibiting this comparison, which I 
 will read : ^t .j^ 
 
 FREE STATES. Square miUs. 
 
 States in 1787, including Vermont and Maine 164,081 
 
 States out ol" North westera Territory, viz: Oiiio, 
 
 Indiana, I IIinoi^:, Michigan, and Wisconsin 239,345 
 
 State out of foreign ttrritory acquired, vie; Iowa.. 60,914 
 
 454,340 
 
 SLAVE STATES. 
 
 States in 1787, includii^s Kentucky 243,642 
 
 States o.it of territory within original limits, viz: 
 
 Tenne.-see, Ai:ib,iina,aiid Missio-ippi 141,959 
 
 States out of foreign ttrrliory acquirf d, including 
 
 Texas witliia her undisputed boundaries 373,786 
 
 7.59,3(17 
 
 Difference in favor of slave States, in square miles.. 304,937 
 
 Add to tliirf pars of Tamaulipas and Coahuila, be- 
 tween the Nueces and Rio Grande, claimed hy 
 Te.xaB 52,018 
 
 Adialso paitof New Mexico, ea;t of Kio Grande, 
 claimed by Toxas 124,£33 
 
 And the v.ist aggregate difference would swell to. . . 431,918 
 
 Upon inspection of this table, it will be seen 
 that, had the original policy of the Government 
 been persevered in, and no new slave States cre- 
 ated out of territories, the difference of area in fa- 
 vor of freedom within the orijinal limits of the 
 Republic would have been 2b2,738 square miles; 
 and all territory acquired beyond those limits 
 
 would of course have been free. It will be seen, 
 also, that the reversal of this policy reduced this 
 difference to 18,905 square miles, and by acquisi- 
 tions of foreign territory, changed the balance 
 and created a difference in favor of slavery of 
 304,967 square miles, which will be increased, if 
 the claims of Texas are allowed, to the erorntious 
 quantity of 431,918 square miles. Within these 
 limits slavery suffers for want of room — is " cab- 
 ined, cribbed, confined," and seeks a wider sphere! 
 Sir, complaints from the slave States, under 
 these circumstances, sound strangely to me. Why, 
 sir, has not the policy of the Government been re- 
 vei-sed in favor of their system } Has not slavery- 
 been extended to undreamed-of limits ? Have not 
 the slave States been more than doubled in num- 
 ber.' Has not their area been almost tripled in 
 extent.' And yet they complain — complairi of the 
 aggressions of the North. They complain that 
 the recapture of fugitive slaves is rendered difficult 
 by free State legislation and free State sentiment; 
 and that the subject of sla.very is discussed and ad- 
 verse opinions formed in the free Slates, which the 
 electors ask us to embody in national legislation; 
 that slavery has been already excluded from a por- 
 tion of the national territories; and that a determi- 
 nation is manifested to prevent its further exten- 
 sion, and to restore the original policy of slavery 
 restriction and discouragement. 
 
 Now, sir, BO far as these complaints have refer- 
 ence to the action of the people, it is impossible to 
 appease them. This is a Government of the peo- 
 ple, and the voice of the people must be heard and 
 respected in its administration. The States also 
 are governments of the people, and must be ad- 
 ministered in conformity with the popular will. 
 If the settled judgment and conscientious convic- 
 tions of the people are against slavery, legislation, 
 within constitutional limits, must follow that judg- 
 ment and those convictions. 
 
 And, so far as these complaints respect the for- 
 mer action of the National Government, they who 
 make them complain of themselves. For where 
 has resided the practical control of this Govern- 
 ment."' Let a few facts answer this question. At 
 the close of the current Presidential term, the slave 
 States will have held the Presidency fifty-two 
 years; the free States only twelve years. Of the 
 gentlemen who have filled the Department of State, 
 fourteen have been from the slave States, and five 
 only from the free. Thirteen of the Judges of the 
 Supreme Court have been taken from the slave 
 States; from the free States, twelve. No northern 
 man has filled the office of Chief Justice during this 
 century; and, notv/ithstanding the population of 
 the free States is more than double the free popu- 
 lation of the slave States, the latter have always 
 been represented by a majority of the Judges upon 
 the Supreme Bench. Ofthe Speakers of the House 
 of Representatives, twelve have been from the slave 
 States, and eight only from the free States; thus 
 giving to the slave States the control of the ap- 
 pointment of the committees, and, consequently, 
 of the business of the House. Sir, it cannot be 
 denied that the power of this Government, in al) 
 its departments, has been for many years, practi- 
 cally and substantially, in the hands of southerti 
 men, and has been used to advance the interests, 
 real or supposed, of the slave section of the coun- 
 try. 
 These are not my assertions merely. They are 
 
11 
 
 the nsHcrtions of our public history, confirmed by 
 the testimony of southern gcntleiuen. 1 bes; leave 
 to quote un extract from One, Cliarleston Courier 
 of October 30, IB44: • 
 
 " Oiir piist experience \m\* ^-Iiowii that the wclfjlit of llie ; 
 :?OUth lia.-* Iieq;! luMvily fell in tlic |Mi|ilic;il IjaLiiice, uiid Imn 
 llmoit nlway.M iiiot\o|M)liz(!il liixh IVderiil olticc. 
 
 " TtiH soullierii or sluvf holding tit.itiis liiiVt |;ivini( fix nut 
 often Prrsidenis to ilin I'nioii ; tlie iiortliurii or iion-HJavi'- 
 holdint; States have Kivrn lint four, and nut of thuMc four 
 the twi) liist were chosen hy a larRe majority of snulhcrn 
 votes, and the l:ist \va.s a nativv' Virginian, filially devoted J 
 to the rights and intf resis of tlie land ofliin hirth ; and even , 
 ihe two lir-''t enlisted a strung southern ttuppnrt. 
 
 " Again, of the six sonthern I'residenL", live were reelect- ' 
 ■d to their liiyh offices, and each occupied it for eight yearn, | 
 ind only one will have occupied it liut four ye rs, giving in ' 
 all to the slaveholding interest the poji^cssinn and conirnl 
 of the I'regnlency for forty-four years out of fifty-six, while 
 of the four nonslaveholding Presidents three occupied the 
 Presidency but four years each, and one only a little month, 
 ^ivine in all to (he non-s!aveli(ddin); intfrest the possession 
 jnd control of the Presidency for only twelve years out of 
 fifty-six. 
 
 ".So of the OliiefJusiices of the Union; the South has 
 had three, and the North but two out of the five incumbents 
 ')( that auifust judicial seat. 
 
 "At this moment (October 30, 184-1) the southern or 
 jiavehntdiiig interest enjoys a m(mopoly of higli federal 
 office, executive, judicial, legislative, military, and naval. 
 John Tyler, of Virainia, is President; and his Cabinet con- 
 sists of John C. Calhoun, a South Carolinian, Secretary of 
 Slate; George M. Uibb, a Kentuckian, Secretary of the 
 Treasury; John Y. Mason, a \'irj;lnian, S.'cretary of the 
 Navy; Charles A. VVickliire,a Kenluckian, Postmaster Gen- 
 eral ; John Nelson, a Marylander, Attorney General , and 
 William Wilkins, a Pennsylvaninn, the single exception on 
 the list, Secretary of War; Rojer II. Taney, a Marylander, 
 is Chief Justice of the United Slates ; Willie P. Manj-uni, a 
 North Carolinian, i- President of the Senate ; and John VV. 
 Jones, a Virginian, is Speaker of the House of Representa- 
 tives; and southern men stand at the head uf the niovt iin 
 pnrtant committees of both branches of Congress ; Winfield 
 Scott, a Virginian, is Major General of our Army: and 
 James Barron, a Virsinian, senior officer of our navy : and, 
 to crown all, Henry Clay, a Kentuckian, is the Whig, and 
 Jamei) K. Polk, a 'I'ennessean, the Democratic candidate 
 for the next Presidency, securing to us the future as well a-s 
 'he p^--*. 
 
 " Ifthis be not the lion's shnr? of political power, words 
 iiavc lost their meaning; ifthis be not enough to satisfy tlie 
 South, she must be insatiable indeed."' 
 
 All thii^, Mr. President, with unimportant modi- 
 fications, is as true of IS-W as it was of 1844. The 
 President and a majority of his Cabinet are slave- 
 holders; the Speaker of the House is a slaveholder; 
 '.he committees of both Houses are so constituted 
 f.hat tiie slave interest may receive no damage; and 
 the slave States have now, as ever, a majority of 
 the Judges of thcSupreme Court. The E.Kecutive, 
 Legislative, and .Judicial Departments are in the 
 hands of the slave power. What more can they 
 desire ? 
 
 Having referred, Mr. President, to the Supreme 
 Court, I desire to say something further in this 
 place of the regard paid to the security of slavery 
 jn the organization of that tribunal. No one joins 
 more cordially than I in respectful acknowledg- 
 ments of the probity, learning, and ability of the 
 distinguished men who occupy its seats. But, 
 eminent and upright as they are, they are not 
 more than other men exempt from the bias of edu- 
 ;ation, sympathy, and interest. It was but the 
 other day that the honorable Senator from Mis- 
 sissippi, [Mr. Davis,] speaking of the adjustment 
 of the Texian boundary by this Government, 
 said: 
 
 " In referring it to the Senate, Texas referred it to a body 
 .»n which at that time ono-half the membt-rs had interests ' 
 .ike those she desired to m;unialn. In referring it to the ' 
 
 I Prenident, she referred it to a southern man, who^e educa- 
 { tiori and aisociation wnrr.inted a reliance both on liin in- 
 ' formation and hiHHympatliiCri." 
 
 What more natural than that gentlemen from the 
 
 ' slave States, in view of the questions likely to 
 
 come bcfor'! the Sufiremc Court, whould desire 
 
 that a majority of its mcm!)cr» might " have in- 
 
 terestH like those which they would de.sire to 
 
 maintain.-" Certain it is that some care has been 
 
 , taken to secure auch a coii.ititution of the court, 
 
 I, and not without succes.s. I have prepared a table 
 
 I showing at one view the circuits, the Slates com- 
 
 'i posing them, and the aggregate free population in 
 
 jl each, which I will now submit: 
 
 FREE STATES. 
 
 Second. 
 Third .. 
 Seventh 
 
 Circuit. 
 
 Fourth. 
 Fifth.... 
 Sixth.... 
 
 Eighth.. 
 Ninth... 
 
 Slates compo«lng it. 
 
 Maine, New Ilanipsliire, MaMachu- 
 
 sett.-', and Rhode Island 
 
 Vermonl,<;onneeticiil,aiid New York 
 
 New Jersey and Pennsylvania 
 
 Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, and Michigan 
 
 8LAVK STATES. 
 
 States composing it. 
 
 Delaware, Maryland, and \ irginia. . . 
 
 Alabama and Louisiana 
 
 North Carolina, South Carolina, and 
 
 Georgia > .' 
 
 Kentucky, Tennessee, and .Missouri. 
 I Mississippi and Arkansas 
 
 I Free pop- 
 u1aiion< 
 
 l,t;J2,896 
 .1,0.'»,847 
 2.097,339 
 2,883,783 
 
 1,246,572 
 52I,3S3 
 
 1, IK? ,110 
 
 l,r)61),163 
 
 2.)8,079 
 
 From this it will be seen that in order to secure 
 I a majority from the slave States upon the bench, 
 ! the circuits are so arranged that, with something 
 I le.ss than half of the free population, the slave 
 j States have five circuits and fivejudgesout of nine. 
 I The smallest of the slave State circuits contains 
 little more tlinn one-seventl". ■■ft'": fri nopula'ion 
 I of the smallest of the free State circuits; while 
 ' the largest of the latter contains near twice the 
 ; number of free inhabitants in the largest of the 
 I former. The four southwestern slave States, lying 
 ] contiguous to each other, arc divided into two cir- 
 cuits, whilo the four nortiiweslern free States, with 
 . nearly four times the free population, compose but 
 
 ■ one. 
 
 \ Mr. President, I have spoken freely of slave 
 ; State ascendency in the affnirs of this Government, 
 ' but I desire not to be misunderstood. I take no 
 ; sectional position. The supporters of slavery are 
 the aectionalists, if scctionaliats there are. Free- 
 dom is national; slavery only is local and sec- 
 tional. I do not complain at nil that the offices of 
 ' the country have been filled by southern gentle- 
 
 ■ men. Let them have the offices, if they will only 
 administer the Government in conformity with its 
 original princijilcs. But I do complain that it has 
 not been so administered; that its powers have 
 been perverted to the suppoit of an institution 
 which those principles condemn; and that, in con- 
 sefjuence of this perversion, we are involved in 
 all the difficulties of the strujgle between slavery 
 and freedom, in the midst of which Vve now are. 
 
 I shall now proceed still further to illustrate the 
 character and results of the .slavery extension 
 as contrasted with the slavery restriction policy, 
 by a comparison of the piesent condition of Ohio, 
 in respect to pop!ilntion,area, and political power, 
 with the seven slave States which have come into 
 
12 
 
 the Union since the date of her admission. I 
 ehall submit this comparison in tabular form: 
 
 State. 
 
 Date of 
 admission. 
 
 Free pop- 
 ulation, 
 
 IS40. 
 
 Area, 
 squaie 
 
 ItlilC::. 
 
 Votes 
 for Pres. 
 
 and 
 V. Pros. 
 
 21 
 
 c 
 a 
 c 
 
 0) 
 
 m 
 2 
 
 2 
 
 2 
 2 
 
 2 
 2 
 2 
 2 
 
 £ ^ 
 a; > 
 
 Ohio 
 
 Nov. 29, 1802 
 
 1,519,487 
 
 39,694 
 
 328,633 
 
 23 
 
 
 States 
 
 admitted 
 
 since. 
 
 
 4 
 4 
 
 7 
 5 
 1 
 1 
 2 
 
 
 Lou. 
 
 Miss. 
 
 Ala. 
 
 Wo. 
 
 Ark. 
 
 Fla. 
 
 Tex. 
 
 April 8, 1812 
 Dec. 10,1817 
 Dec. 14,1819 
 Aug. 10,1821 
 June 15, 1836 
 Mar. 3,1845 
 Dec. 29, 1845 
 
 183,959 
 180,440 
 337,224 
 ^5,462 
 77,639 
 54,477 
 104,145 
 
 46,431 
 47,147 
 50,732 
 67,380 
 52,198 
 59,268 
 148,.569 
 
 33,653 
 51,376 
 61,845 
 
 72,748 
 16,888 
 7,777 
 12,535 
 
 6 
 6 
 
 . 9 
 
 3 
 3 
 
 4 
 
 Asgreg 
 
 ate of Slates. 
 
 1,253.336 
 
 471,715 
 
 236,822 
 
 24 
 
 14| 38 
 
 These are the results. Ohio was admitted into 
 the Union in 1802. She had, in 1840, upon an 
 area of not quite forty thousand square miles, a 
 free population of more than a million and a half, 
 and three hundred and twenty-eight thousand vo- 
 ters. Seven slave States have been admitted since. 
 They had, in 1840, making the proper deduction 
 from the enumeration of Texas in 1847 given in 
 the table, upon an area nearly twelve times greater 
 than that of Ohio, a quarter of a million less in- 
 habitants, and ninety thousand fewer voters. And 
 yet these States, having, in addition to their free 
 
 Eopulation, a representative population of four 
 undred and fifty-six thousantJ slaves, have three 
 votes more in the House of Representatives, twelve 
 votes more in the Senate, and fifteen votes more 
 in the electoral college. Such are the fruits lOf 
 slavery extension — less population, larger area, 
 and more political power. 
 
 And now, Mr. President, let me ask what have 
 been the results, on a larger scale, of the subver- 
 eion of the ^rigiiat policy of slavery restriction 
 and discouragement, and the substitution, in dis- 
 regard of the letter and spirit of the Constitution, 
 of the opposite policy r Why, sir, instead of six 
 slave States — for I do not reckon among the slave 
 States New York or New Jersey, in both which 
 emancipation was expected in 1787, and soon after 
 actually took place — instead of six slave States, 
 we have fifteen; instead of a majority ol'free States, 
 we have an equal number of slave and free; in- 
 stead of seven hundred thousand slaves, we have 
 three millions; instead of a property estimate of 
 them at ten millions of dollars, we hear ihern rated 
 at a thousand millions, and even fifteen hundred 
 millions; instead of slavery being regarded as a 
 curse, a reproach, a blight, an evil, a wrong, a sin, 
 we are now told that it is the most stable founda- 
 tion of our institutions; the happiest relation that 
 labor can sustain to capital; a blessing to both 
 races, the white and the black, the master and the 
 slave. 
 
 Sir, this is a great change, and a sad change. 
 If it goes on, the spirit of liberty must at length 
 become extinct, and a despotism will be estab- 
 lished under the forms of free institutions, 
 
 Mr. President, I do not know that any monu- 
 ment has been erected over the grave of Jefferson, 
 in Virginia. 
 
 Mr. MASON. There is — a granite obelisk. 
 
 Mr. CHASE. I am glad to hear it. No mon- 
 umental marble bears a nobler name. '" 
 
 Mr. SEWARD. The inscription is : •* Here 
 
 was buried Thomas Jefferson, Authorof the Decla- 
 ration of American Independence, of the Statute 
 of Virginia for Religious Freedom, and Father o' 
 the University of Virginia." 
 
 Mr. CHASE. Jt is an appropriate inscription, 
 and worthily commemorates distinguished servi- 
 ces. But, Mr. President, if a stranger from some 
 foreign land should ask me for the monuinent of 
 Jefferson, I would not take hitn to Virginia, and 
 bid him look on a granite obelisk, however ad- 
 mirable in its proportions or its inscriptions. { 
 would ask him to accompany me beyond the Al- 
 leghanies, into the midst of the broad Northwest, 
 and would say to him: 
 
 Si monumentuin quajris-, circuinspice '. 
 Behold, on every side, his monument. Thest 
 thronged cities, these flourishing villages, these 
 cultivated fields; these million happy homes of 
 prosperous freemen; these churches, these schools, 
 these asylums for the unfortunate and the helpless: 
 these institutions of education, religion, and hu- 
 manity; these great States, great in their present 
 resources, but greater far in the mighty energies 
 by which the resources of the future are to be de- 
 veloped; these, these are the monuments of Jeffer- 
 son. His memorial is over all our western land — 
 Our meanei-t rill, our niishlicst river, 
 Rolls mingling w ill) his lame lorever. 
 
 But what monument should be erected to those 
 whose misapplied talents, energy, and persever- 
 ance, have procured, or whose compromising tim- 
 idity has permitted, the reversal of the policy of 
 Jefferson ? What inscription should commemorate 
 the acts of those who have surrendered vast terri- 
 tories to slavery; who have disappointed the ex- 
 pectations of the fathers of the Republic; whc 
 have prepared for our country the dangers and dif- 
 ficulties which are now around us and upon us '• 
 It is net for me, sir, to say what that inscriptioT 
 should be. Let it remain a blank forever., 
 
 Without concluding, Mr. Chase gave way for 
 a motion to adjourn; whereupon the Senate ad- 
 journed. 
 
 Wednesday, March 27, 1850. 
 
 The Senate having under consideration the re*!- 
 olutions submitted by Mr. Clay — 
 
 Mr. CHASE resumed: If, Mr. President, the 
 views which I submitted to the Senate yesterday 
 are correct, there can be no foundation whatever 
 for the doctrine advanced, and somewhat boldly 
 of late, that an equilibrium between the slaveholding 
 and non-slaveholding sections of our country has 
 been, is, and ought to be, an approved feature of our 
 political system. No such equilibrium, nothing 
 looking towards such an equilibrium, can be found 
 in the Constitution, nor in any early action under it. 
 It was notthoughtof byanybody. On thecontrary. 
 the Constitution was formed for seven free States 
 and six slave States, and with full knowledge, on 
 the part of those who framed and those who 
 adopted it, that provision had been made by 
 the Ordinance for the erection of five additional 
 free States out of the Northwestern Territory. Ii 
 was equally well known that Vermont must soon 
 come, and that Maine must ultimately come into 
 the Union, and both as free States. Many expected 
 also that Kentucky would come in as a free State. 
 It is matter of history that a strong effort was made 
 in the convention which framed her constitutior 
 
13 
 
 to provide for the abolition of slavery within her 
 limits, nnd ihat this effort came very nearsuccesB. 
 On the other iiiind, there is nothinj; in history, so 
 far ns I nm aware, wiiich gives the least snpjiort to 
 the idea that anyliody wished Citr liie extension of 
 slavery beyond tiie limits of the existing Siatco, 
 or for the creation of any more new slave Stuica 
 within those limits. But, let it he conceded that it 
 was anticipated that all the territory west of the 
 Alleghanies and south of the Oliio would he formed 
 into slave S'ates, just as it has heen, and where 
 then would be the equilibrium r P'our ;dave Stales 
 — Kentucky, Tennessee, Mississippi, and Ala- 
 bama — added to the six existing slave States, 
 wodid make but ten; whercaa the seven expected 
 free States added to the seven existing free States, 
 would make fourteen; thus giving to the free Slates, 
 after the division of every inch of territory into 
 States, a majority of eight in this Chamber, as 
 well as a large majority in the other House. The 
 truth is, sir, Ihat this idea of an equilibrium was 
 never started until after we began to create slave 
 States out of territory acquired from foreign pow- 
 ers. It is alien to our original policy, and incon- 
 eislent with the interest.^ and the duly of the country. 
 
 Nor, Mr. President, is there any better founda- 
 tion for the assertion that slavery and freedom are 
 entitled to equal reg.ird in the administration of 
 this Government. The argument is, that the 
 States are equal ; that each State has an equal right 
 with every other State to determine for itself wliat 
 shall be the character of its domestic institutions; 
 and, therefore, that every right acquired under the 
 laws of any State must be protected and enforced 
 in the national territories as in the States whose 
 laws conferred it. Sir, the argument does not 
 warrant the conclusion. It is true that the States 
 are equal, entirely, absolutely equal; it is true that 
 each State, except where restrained ' y constitu- 
 tional provisions, may form its domi stic institu- 
 tions according to its own pleasure; but it is not 
 true that every right derived from Siate law can 
 be carried beyond the State into the territories or 
 elsewhere; it is not true, for example, that, if a 
 Stale chooses to authorize slaveholdmg within its 
 limit.s. Congress is therefore bound to authorize 
 slaveholding in the territories. It is no more true 
 than that a bank, chartered by the laws of a par- 
 ticular State, would have a right under that law to 
 esablish branches in the territories, although the 
 National Government might be constitutionally in- 
 competent to legalize banking. Why, sir, slavery 
 depends entirely for its existtnce and continuance 
 on local law. Beyond the sphere of the operation 
 of such law, no man can be compelled to submit to 
 the condition of a slave, except by mere unauthor- 
 ized force. 
 
 I come now, Mr. President, to consider, in the 
 light of these general principles, the particular 
 questions under the consideration of the Senate. 
 The honorable Senator from Kentucky has sub- 
 milted to us several propositions, which mark out 
 a general plan for the settlement of all questions 
 growing out of the subject of slavery. I am 
 afraid, sir, that the plan will hardly prove compre- 
 hensive enough. If we were prepared to adopt 
 the whole scheme, who can say that other ques- 
 tions and other difficulties will notarise from this 
 prolific source of embarrassment and trouble. 
 
 The first proposition of the Senator from Ken- 
 tucky relates to the admission of California. It 
 
 is not now a matter of dispute whether Californis 
 shall or shall not bendmilted into the Union. That 
 question is seiiled. No one doubtn that California 
 is lo come in, with the boundaries which nht 
 claim.s, and with the consiituiion she ha.Hadopl<d 
 i concur cordially in ihi.s decision. Ah a weHterti 
 man, I should have preferred the erection of two 
 States rather than one, out of the territory ac- 
 quired from Mexico oii_ihe Pacific; and I wish 
 also, in common with many of the most intelligtni 
 citi/.(^ns of California, that her eastern l)oundary 
 had been restricted to the range of the Sierra Ne- 
 vada. Under existing circumstances, however, I 
 desire to sec California come in us she is, without 
 rcRtriction and without delay. 
 
 But it is [iroposed to connect the admission of 
 California with the general Hcttlement of the sla- 
 very question. It is proposeil, also, since the re- 
 cent report of a bill for her admission, and of a 
 bill providing territorial governments for Utah and 
 New Mexico, from the Committee on Territories, 
 to give to ihi.s territorial bill precedence over the 
 California bill. I am opposed, sir, to both of these 
 propositions. I expect no good result in the pres- 
 ent state of the country, from the appointment of 
 such a committee to devise a general plan of settle- 
 ment, in which the admission of California shal 
 be included. The appointment of such an omni- 
 bus committee would excite alarm, distrust, indig- 
 nation, it would not, in my judgment, inspire 
 confidence or command respect. The task as- 
 signed to it would be an impossible work, and 
 membership of it an unenviable distinction. Any 
 adjustment that it could devise would be mort 
 likely to compromise the conifiromisers than to 
 restore tranquillity to the country. I hope thai 
 the motion for the appointment of this conamillttt 
 may not be pressed. I have observed, indeed, 
 with pleasure, some indications that it will not bt 
 pursued. 
 
 But it will be insisted that the territorial bill foi 
 Utah and New Mexico shall have precedence of 
 the California admission bill. That, sir, is an ad 
 justment in another form. The design of it it 
 palpable enough. It is cjcpected that it will bt 
 easier to carry the territorial bill, without any re- 
 striction as to slavery, before than after the admis- 
 sion of California. I do not know how this may 
 be; but, for one, I will not consent to change the 
 order in which the bills are reported by the com- 
 mittee. The country will regard, and, in my judg- 
 ment, will justly regard, any change in that order 
 postponing the California bill tothe territorial bill, 
 as a concession to the demand for the extension of 
 slavery over free territories. No such concession 
 can ever receive the sanction of my vote. 
 
 Mr. FOOTE. Will the Senator bear with nit 
 for a moment. 
 
 Mr. CHASE. With pleasure. 
 
 Mr. FOOTE. I did not myself hear a remark 
 which fell from him sometime since: but I under- 
 stand that he is under the impression that I do not 
 intend pressing the motion I have made for tlie 
 appointment of a committee. 
 
 Mr. CHASE. I said 1 hoped it might not be 
 pressed . 
 
 Mr. FOOTE. With the Senator's permission 
 I will embrace the opportunity to say , and I w ish it 
 to be heard by all the Senators present, or at least 
 by those who are favorable to the measure, that 
 I had hoped that this day the motion would have 
 
14 
 
 oeen taken vip and acted on. I am still in hopes 
 that, after we get through this discussion, it may 
 be acted on, if not to-day, at the earliest possible 
 oeriod. I deem it my duty, my most solemn duty, 
 *o press the motion most earnestly. 
 
 Mr. CHASE. I am sorry to find, Mr. Presi- 
 ient, that I have been under a misapprehension 
 *s to the Senator's intention. I do not believe that 
 it will be esteemed, in future times, a creditable dis- 
 tinction to have been, in the year of grace 1850, a 
 member of any committee, by whose interveniion, 
 rn- by whose non-intervention, free territory was 
 subjected to the blight of fclavery, and unless the 
 ■■".ommittee is designed to promote this object, I 
 5ee no reason why its appointment should be 
 urged. 
 
 Mr. President, the next two propositions of the 
 Senator from Kentucky relate to the adjustment of 
 the Texan boundary, and the assumption by the 
 United States of the Texan debt. 
 
 It seems to me, sir, that both these questionshave 
 been brought prematurely into this discussion. I 
 see no good reason for pressing them at this time 
 upon the consideration of the Senate. Texas is 
 here. Her Senators are in this Chamber; her 
 Representatives are in the other branch of the Na- 
 tional Legislature. She is one of the United States. 
 It is too late to question the constitutionality of 
 her admission. And we might well leave all 
 :)uestions connected with the erection of new 
 States within her limits, the liability of the United 
 States for her debts, and the determination of her 
 v/estern and northwestern boundary, to be dispo.sed 
 ■>f v^hen they arise. Not one of them is important 
 now, except that which relates to the boundary 
 between Texas and New Mexico; and that should 
 be determined in a bill for the government of that 
 '.erritory rather than by a resolution, in forced 
 :onneclion with distinct matters. But as these 
 .questions sr; l:ere, anJ have been made the sub- 
 ject of debate by Senators who have preceded me, 
 I propose to state my own impressions in regard 
 to them. 
 
 And I wish to say, in the first place, that I do 
 not doubt the constitutional power of Congress to 
 admit Texas. The power to admit new States is 
 '-.onferred upon Congress by the Constitution in 
 die broadest and most general terms. " New 
 States may be admitted by Congre.ss into this 
 Union," is the language of the Constitution. 
 Statesmen and constitutional lawyers of great emi- 
 nence have denied, I am aware, that this power 
 was designed to extend to the admission of foreign 
 States; but I see no such limitation in the instru- 
 ment myself. 
 
 But a power to admit a new State is a very dif- 
 ferent thing from a power to covenant for the 
 future admission of other States, to be created out 
 of the State admitted. In my judgment, the latter 
 is as completely beyond, as the former is com- 
 pletely within, the powers of Congress. The ques- 
 tion of admission must be addressed to the Con- 
 gress to which the application for admission is 
 made, and must be determined according to its 
 :>wn discretion, uncontrolled by any action of any 
 preceding Congress. 1 do not say that Congress 
 can propose no terms or conditions of admission, 
 3r none that will be binding. 1 think otherwise. 
 I only say that one Congress cannot, upon the 
 admission of one State, bind the discretion of a 
 ■subsequent Congress in respect to the admission 
 
 of other new States. This seems to me too plain 
 for argument; but let me add a single illustration. 
 Suppose Congress, upon the admission of a State, 
 should agree that as soon as any district within it 
 should contain five thousand inhabitants, it should 
 be admitted as a State: would that stipulation bind 
 a future Congress .' I think not. 
 
 I am very far, therefore, from concurring in the 
 views of the honorable Senator from Massachu- 
 setts in regard to the obligation to admit new slave 
 States out of Texas. I confess, sir, that I was 
 somewhat surprised by the argument which he 
 addressed to us. I was aware that no one had more 
 zealously opposed the admission of Texas than 
 
 I that distinguished Senator. In his strongest Ian- 
 !i guage — and no man uses stronger language — he 
 ;| had denied the constitutionality of the resolu- 
 
 II tions of annexation. After the adoption of these 
 !l resolutions, and after compliance with the condi- 
 |! tions and acceptance of the guarantees tendered by 
 i them, on the part of Texas; when, according to 
 I, the argument of the Senator from Georgia, de- 
 j livered upon that occasion, the faith of the Gov- 
 ij ernment was firmly bound, he had still spoken 
 j: and voted against her admission. This determined 
 Ij and unyielding opposition was understood to be 
 i based not only upon a conviction of the unconsti- 
 ;! tutionality of the measure, but also upon a fixed 
 i and settled hostility to the extension of slavery, 
 
 : and to the increase, in either branch of the iegis- 
 i; lature, or in any department of the Government, 
 
 ! of the slave power. I was startled, therefore, 
 |j when I heard the Senator declare, not only that 
 
 ' he regarded the constitutionality of the admission 
 j of Texas as a matter adjudged, and not now open 
 r to question in any way; but that, when the proper 
 I time for the enactment shall arrive, Congress will 
 
 I be bound to admit four new slave States out of 
 ii Texas. Sir, I deny this obligation. The history 
 ;; of those resolutions was known to the country 
 ;! and known to Texas. It is, and was at the 
 ji time, known, and well known, that those resolu- 
 
 i tions could not have been carried except upon the 
 ! assurance of Mr. Polk, the President elect, that he 
 li would adopt thelatterof the alternatives presented 
 ;; by them, which contemplated negotiation and a 
 !: treaty. It is, and was, well known, also, that Pres- 
 |l ident Tyler, availing himself of the last days of 
 [{ his official power, took the matter out of the hands 
 ', of the President elect, and adopted the course of 
 |l proceeding authorized by the first of those alter- 
 jl natives. 
 
 :: Sir, i will go as far as any man to maintain and 
 jj uphold the constitutionally plighted f;\ith of the 
 jl Government; but when a claim is put forth under 
 i resolutions, so adopted and so acted upon, it must 
 be shown that the claim is warranted by a fair con- 
 jj struction of the stipulation, and it m.ust be shown 
 !i further that the stipulation itself is warranted by 
 jj the Constitution. We have had too much, quite 
 |i loo much of constitutional amendment by legisla- 
 
 1 tion and resolution. 
 
 jl Now, sir, I undertake further to say, that the 
 !j guarantee asserted to existby 'hedistinguished Sen- 
 1 ator from Massachusetts, " that new States shall 
 |l be made out of Texas, and that such Stales as are 
 
 I to be formed out of that portion of it lying south 
 i! of 36'' 30' may come in, to the nuinbtr of four, 
 ti in addition to the State then in existence, and 
 |; admitted by these resolutions," is not to be found 
 l! in the resolutions. In the first place, the resolu- 
 
15 
 
 tione do not Ray that any new Stale "shall " be 
 formed out of Texns. They provide thni " nf w 
 Slates, nol exceeding four in nunil)er, in addition 
 to siiiil S" ite of Texas, and haring svjDhienl popula- 
 tion, MA' ' eaftfr, hy the consent oC Hii:d St;i!e, be 
 formed ou'. of i(pi> terniory thereof, which «h:»ll be 
 entitled to admiN.Jion undtrthf provisions oj the Fed- 
 eral Comlitiiliun.^' Where is thai absolute "sAa//?" 
 And what me (he " provisions" r( fcrred lo ? The 
 shall does not exist. The provisions are ihcHC : 
 " No new State shall be formed within the juris- 
 diction of any other State; nor any State be formed 
 by the junction of two or more Sinlcs, or partB of 
 States, withoiu the consent of ihc Siturs concerned, 
 as well as of the Congress." Now, thin iu either 
 an absolute prohibition upon the erection of any 
 new State within tlie limits of an existing Slate, or 
 il is a prohibition of sucli erection without th** con- 
 sent of Congress. Il ia, at least, certain, then, 
 that the resolutions themselves make the admission 
 of States, erected out of Texas, dependent on the 
 consent of the Congress in being at the time the 
 application may be made. Consent of Congress 
 is an important qualification of the asserted guar- 
 antee. 1 need say no more on this point. 
 
 I will add only thai, whatever may be the true 
 construction of the resolutions, or their obligatory 
 force under the Constitution, it is quite certain that 
 we are under no obligation to be active at this lime 
 in carving a new State out of Texas; and there is 
 no great reason for apprehension that Texas will 
 soon propose to divide her.self, if Congress does 
 not meddle in the matter. 
 
 As to the Texan debt, Mr. President, I am dis- 
 posed to leave that where the resolutions of annex- 
 ation left il— with Texas. Let Texas keep her 
 lands and her debt. That was the sense of Con- 
 gress then, and 1 see no reason for any change of 
 posiiion. If there are debts for which the United 
 Stales are lia'o"le, in uctault of payment Oy Texas, 
 let us wail till the default is established, and then 
 look into the amounts and grounds of liability , and 
 do what justice and good faith require. 
 
 The unadjusted boundary of Texas presents 
 other but not' very difficult questions. The reso- 
 lutions of annexation do not provide for the ad- 
 mission, as a State, of the entire Republic of 
 Texas with the boundaries claimed by her. This 
 is the language of the resolutions: " Congress doth 
 consent that the territory properly included within 
 and rightfully belonging to the Republic of Texas, 
 may be erected into a new State, to be called the 
 State of Texas." All questions of boundary are 
 reserved, subject lo adjustment by the Governmeni 
 of the United States. The simple question, thrn, 
 is: What territory was " properly included within 
 and rightfully belonging to" Texas, as an inde- 
 pendent republic, prior lo annexation ? Two 
 Eropositions respecting this matter seem lo me to 
 e clear. First, all the territory between the 
 Nueces and the Sabine, and extending north to 
 the Red River and the Ensenada, comprehending, 
 according to the report of the Commissioner of the 
 Land Office, 148,569 square miles, beins: four and 
 a half times as large as Ohio, was properly included 
 within and did rightfully btlong to Texas at the 
 date of annexation, and is therefore properly com- 
 prehended within the rew Slate; secondly, none of 
 that territory north of a line drawn from Paso del j 
 Norte to the Ensenada, and with that stream lo I 
 Red river, known as New Mexico or the Santa Fc I 
 
 country, was properly included within or did right- 
 fully belong lo Texas at ihul dale, and none of it 
 therefoit; was a iiarl of the Texas admitted into th* 
 Union. 
 
 Tlic territory between the Nuece* and ihe Rio 
 vjrrande.Hnd south of Paso and the Ensenada, may 
 be regarded as open to cuntrovertiy. Petitions 
 hnve bec!i presented in this Chamber, aince ihe 
 commencement of the HeH<iion, from a portion of 
 the inhabitants, declaring their conviction thai tiie 
 country ii not v/ithin the rightful limits of Texas, 
 and a. king for a territorial government. Another 
 portion recognize the juriidiclion of Texas. We 
 need take no action at present, but may await 
 further information and future eventJ*. 
 
 Some reliaiiCK has been placed on Diiillirnell'i> 
 map, a copy of wliich in annexed lo the treaty with 
 Mexico, as showing all the icrritorv cast of the 
 Rio Grande lo be within the limit.'. of'lVxas. That 
 map is now before me, and also an Earlier map, 
 iVom the s" le plate, publinhed in 1844, by While. 
 Gallagher, nri White. Upon this latter map tht 
 territory b*" ;en the Nuece:< and the Ilio Grande, 
 and north ol the Ensenada, is ri|>rc«enied as con- 
 stituting parts of Tamaulipas, Couhuila, and New 
 Mexico, or Santa Vi. DislurneU's map was pub- 
 lished in 1847. The plate was altertd in con- 
 formity with information obtained fioin the depart- 
 ments of the Government here. The line of the 
 Nueces is marked as the " original boundary of 
 Texas ill 1835." The Rio Grande, below the mouth 
 of the Pucrco, is marked as the " boundary claimed 
 by the United States. " Tamaulipas no longer ap- 
 pears lo extend across the lower Rio Grande to 
 the Nueces. Rut Coahuila still extends across 
 the river; and above Paso del Norte and the Ense- 
 nada, the whole country is desienate I " Nuevo 
 Mejico, 6 Santa Fe. " I see not what aid the 
 claim of Texas can derive fiorn this map, which 
 i certainly contains no language on iia tace whicVi 
 , will sustain it, and wliich is referred to m the 
 treaty only to fix the western and southern bound- 
 aries of New Mexico, wesl of the Rio Grande. 
 ! Il is said also that the Untied States, hnvine beci. 
 constituted the arbiter between Mexico and Texas 
 by the resolutions of annexation, and having be- 
 come possessed of the territory in dispute by con- 
 quest or purchase, is estopped from denying the 
 claim of Texas. Is this .so.' Lei me put a case. 
 Two neighbors dispute about their boundary, and 
 refer the question to nn arbiter. Pending thecon- 
 troversy, the arbiter buys the interest of one. Is 
 he, therefore, bound to concede the tract in dispute 
 to the other.' Clearly not. He has acquired the 
 title of one, and, with it, whatever rights bia 
 grantor possessed. And it is now his business lo 
 adjust the controversy fairly and pe-iceably, if he 
 can; if nol, lo refer it lo another arbiter. 
 
 In my judgment, therf-fore, our plain duty at 
 present is, to provide a territorial government for 
 New Mexico, which should embrace within its 
 juri.-^diction the whole country north of Paso and 
 the Ensenada. But it does nol seem to me indis- 
 pensably important ihat the precise Innii.s of iie 
 jurisdiction should be defined. The valley of the 
 Rio Grande is the only part which ia ii present 
 peopled, except by Indiai s, and the ( uly part, 
 therefore, which urgently requires an e&talilished 
 government. The territory between ihe Nuecee 
 and the Rio Grande, south of the line of New 
 Mexico, can belefiopen to future adjustment, uporJ 
 
16 
 
 iurlher iiifonaalicMi as to the views of the people 
 diid the rights of Texas. 
 
 Mr. President, the fifth, sixth, and eighth reso- 
 lutions of the Senator from Kentucky embrace j 
 three propositions, which I propose to consider to- 
 e;ether. 
 
 1. Thai slavery in this District should not be j 
 abolished, exceptwith the consent of the District 
 and of Maryland, 
 
 2. That the slave trade in this District ought to | 
 be abolished. 
 
 3. That Congress has no power to prohibit the 
 slave trade among the States. 
 
 I concur fuily in the second of these proposi- 
 tions, and thpnk the honorable Senators from Ken- 
 tucky [Mr. Clay] and from Alabama [IVIr. King] 
 for the I'avor they have shown to this measure. 
 
 I cannot concur in the first proposition. I have 
 aireadj' said that, in my judgment, the Constitu- 
 tion confers on Congress no power to enforce the 
 fibeolute subjection of one man to the disposal of 
 another man as property. It is my opinion that 
 all legislation adopted or enacted by Congress for 
 enforcing that condition ought to be repealed, 
 whether in this District or elsewhere. I listened 
 with great pleasure to the emphatic declaration of 
 ihe Senator from Kentucky, in respect to the ex- 
 tension of slavery by Congress, that he would give 
 '•' no vote to propagate wrongs r" What wrongs? 
 Why, sir, those wrongs, multiplied and compli- 
 cated, which are summed up in one word — Sla- 
 very. And where is the warrant for this compre- 
 hensive condemnation of slavery? It is found in 
 ihat LAW — to assert the supremacy of which here 
 seems to seme so censurable — that law of sublimer 
 origin and more awful sanction than any human 
 code, written in ineffaceable characters upon every 
 heart of marij which condemns all injustice and all 
 oppression as a violation of that injunction which 
 •.ommands us to do unto others as we would that 
 ^Uhers should do unto us. 
 
 If the Senator from Kentucky was right — and 
 ■who did not feel that he was right ? — in saying that 
 he would give no vote to propagate ivrongs, am I 
 fjot righ: in saying that 1 will give no vote to per- 
 pelVMte tcrongs '.' Sir, I will give no vote for the 
 perpetua'-ion oi* continuance of slavery in this Dis- 
 trict. 1 deny any implied obligation to the people 
 of Maryland to continue slavery here as long as 
 it is continued there. No evidence can be pro- 
 duced of any such an understanding. The state of 
 public sentiment in Maryland and in Virginia at 
 ».he time of the cession warrants the belief that the 
 understanding and expectation, if there was any, 
 was very different frotti that supposed. But, 
 whatever the understanding or expectation may 
 have been, our duty seems to me plain. The 
 power of exclusive legislation over this District is 
 confided to us. We are bound to use it so as to 
 establish justice and secure the blessings of liberty 
 for all within its reach. 
 
 I was surprised, Mr. President, by the propo- 
 eition that Congress has no power to prohibit the 
 slave trade between the States. Why, sir, that 
 trade is prohibited now, except upon certain con- 
 ditions. It is prohibited in vessels of less capacity 
 than forty tons. Not a slave can be shipped coast- 
 wise without a permit from an officer of the United 
 States; not a slave shipped can be landed without 
 such a permit. Any one who will take the trouble 
 
 to consult the act of 1807 will see how this matter 
 stands. I da not think that law unconstitutional. 
 The Constitution confers on Congress power " to 
 regulate comrnerce among (he several States." 
 Congress exercised this power in enacting that 
 law. If they miglit enact that, they may enact 
 others. If they can prohibit the trade in vessels 
 of less than forty tons, they can prohibit it in ves- 
 sels of one hundred, five hundred — altogether. 
 And why should not Congress prohibit this traffic? 
 We hear much of the cruelty of the African slave 
 trade. Our laws denounce against those engaged 
 ; in it the punishment of death. Is it less cruel, less 
 deserving of punishment, to tear fathers, mothers, 
 j children, from their homes and each oilier, in 
 j Maryland and Virginia, and transport them to the 
 1 markets of Louisiana or Mississippi ? If there be 
 I a difference in cruelty and wiong, is it not in favor 
 ! of the African and against the American slave 
 I trade? Why, then, should we be guilty of the 
 ! inconsistency of abolishing that by the sternest 
 i prohibition, and continuing this under the sanction 
 i of national law? 
 
 f The seventh proposition of the Senator from 
 I Kentucky contemplates more effectual provision 
 : for the extradition of fugitive slaves. 
 
 1 was sorry to hear the Senator from Massa- 
 
 I chusetts say, the other day, that he proposed to 
 support the bill on this subject, with the amend- 
 
 [! ments to it, reported from the Judiciary Commit- 
 
 II tee, " with all its provisions, to their fullest ex- 
 jtent." I ask Senators, who propose to support 
 |i that bill, where they find the power to legislate on 
 ,' this subject in the Constitution? I know to what 
 j clause 1 shall be referred, I know I shall be told 
 !' that the Constitution provides that " no person 
 il held to service or labor in one State, under the 
 i! laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in con- 
 ! sequence of any law or regulation therein, be dis- 
 
 ^ charged from such service or labor, but ahaii be 
 (I delivered up on claim of the party to whom such 
 j service or labor may be due." But this clause 
 ' contains no grant of legislative power to Congress. 
 :{ That power is conferred exclusively by special 
 1 1 clauses, granting legislative power in respect to 
 [particular subjects, and by the eighth section of 
 ; the first article, which, after enumerating the spe- 
 i cific powers of Congress, proceeds to declare that 
 I Congress shall have power " to make all laws 
 I which shall be necessary and proper for carrying 
 ji into execution the foregoing powers, and all other 
 j powers vested by this Constitution in the Govern- 
 
 I raent of the United States, or in any department 
 ij or officer thereof." 
 
 Nov/, sir, what power is vested, by the clause, 
 ;i in relation to fugitives from service, in theGovern- 
 '1 meiit, or in any department or officer of the Gov- 
 ji ernment? None at all; and if none, then the 
 Ij legislative power of Congress does not extend to 
 l! the subject. The clause is a clause of compact. 
 ji It has been so denominated by every Senator who 
 
 II has had occasion to speak of it. The honorable 
 1| Senator from Massachusetta told us that he 
 I' " always thought that the Constitution addressed 
 !j itself to tlie Legislatures of the States, or to the 
 ij States themselves; that he had always been of the 
 ii opinion that it was an injunction upon the States 
 Ij themselves." If this opinion be correct, the 
 il power of legislation and the duty of legislation 
 i| must be with the States, and not with Congress. 
 
 II Mr, BUTLER. I interrupt the Senator merely 
 
17 
 
 with a view to obtain what 1 regard as im- 
 portant to the consideration of this mutter. If ! 
 some of the States who are parlies to this com- [ 
 pact refuse to pass such laws as will fulfill tlieir 
 oi)liKalionB, where is the remedy ? 
 
 Mr. CHASE. I know of no remedy. None 
 has been provided by the Constitution. But let 
 me put a question to the Senator from South Caro- 
 lina. The Constitution provides amon;^ these 
 articles of compact, of which the stipulation in 
 res:ard lo fugitives from service is one, that " the 
 citizen."? of each State shall be entitled to all privi- 
 leges and immunities of cili.'.ens in the several 
 States.'' Now, I ask ilic Senator if he admit.", 
 that, under that clause. Congress has power to 
 provide penalties for the imprisonment of colored 
 citizens of Massachusetts in the ports and under 
 the Ir.ws of South Carolina ■ 
 
 Mr. BUTLKR. 1 lake ihc broad ground that 
 each State has a right to prescribe iia own qual- 
 ifications of citizenship. In all the old acts of 
 Congress the class of persons referred to by the ■ 
 Senator are spoken of as persona of color as con- 
 tra distinguished from citizens. I believe it is in the j 
 power of every Slate to make a full citizen of | 
 a black man, but not to make him a full citizen of 
 any other State. The definition of a citizen in 
 South Carolina is not governed by what may be 
 the detiniiion of a citizen in another State. I be- 
 lieve that each State can determine the quaiifica- ^ 
 tions of voters, and control as it pleases the rights 
 of different classes of persons. But the Senator 
 has not answered or met the question 1 have asked, 
 and that is, in case a State refuses to carry out the 
 provisions of the article in llie Constitution, where 
 is the power to compel it to do so- 
 
 Mr. CHASE. I certainly answered the Sena- 
 tor distinctly and candidly. 1 said 1 knew of no 
 
 its stipulations. The obligation of the compact, 
 and the extent of the compact are, as in every 
 other case of treaty stipulation, matters which ad- 
 dress themselves exclusively to the good faith and 
 sound judg'iient of the parties to it. But did the 
 Senator answer my question ' He has not told us 
 whetiier, in hisjudgment, the General Government 
 lias power to enforce that constitutional comf)act 
 which guaranties to the ciiizeiis of each State the 
 rights of citizens in all the States. He has told 
 us thai each State deiermine.s for itself who shall 
 be i'.j citizens. I grant it. He says one State 
 ranno: determine who shall be a citizen of another. 
 That may be so. But when a State has once de- 
 termined who its own citizens shall be, the com- 
 pact stipulates that they shall have the privileges 
 of citizens in every other State. Not that they 
 shall ht citizen.s — not that they shall he admitted 
 to the elective franchise, or be made eligible to 
 otfice: but that they shall have those rights and 
 immunities, that seciwity and that protection to 
 whicii citizens generally, male or female, minors 
 or aduits, are entitled. My question was, Has 
 the General Government, in the Judgment of the 
 Senator, power under the Constitution to enforce 
 the performance of this stipulation in South Caro- 
 lina: 
 
 But I have been drawn aside from the line of 
 argument I intended to pursue. 
 
 I repeat, Mr. President, that this clause in rela- 
 tion !•• fugitives from service is a clause of com- 
 pact. For many years after the adoption of the 
 
 Constitution it was so regarded. It was not much 
 discussed, and the limits of the respcclivo powers 
 of the State and Federal Governments under il 
 were not very accurately settled. But nearly all 
 the Slates legiHlaled under it, and provided such 
 provisinn.H for the extradition of fugitives aa they 
 deemed roiisiMient with the security of the [ler- 
 sonal rights of their own inhabitants. At length, 
 however, the I'rigg decision was made, which 
 asserted the exclusive right and duty of Congress 
 to IcgiHiate on this subject, and denied that right 
 and duty to the States. The same decision sug- 
 gested, what every one here will admit, that Con- 
 giesfi could not require Statu officers to intervene 
 in the business of extradition. It need surprise 
 no one that after this the States ceased to enact 
 extradition laws, or that some of them repealed 
 those they had before enacted, and prohibited the 
 intervention of their oflicers. 
 
 But, sir, a decision of the Suprepie Court can- 
 not alter the Constitution. If Congress had no 
 power to lesislate on this subject before the de- 
 cision. Congress' has none now. The decision 
 determined the case before the court. It estab- 
 lished a precedent for the determination of such 
 cases. It must stand till overruled. But 1 do not 
 see how any Senator who finds himself unable, 
 after the fullest consideration, to concur in the 
 principle of the decision, can justify liimself in the 
 exercise of a power which he does not believe the 
 Constitution ha.? conferred. 
 
 What, sir, is the history of this clause and the 
 clauses of like character which stand with il in the 
 Constitution.- This clause was taken from the 
 ordinance of 1787. In the ordinance no one pre- 
 tends that it was anything more than an article of 
 compact. No power was derived from il to tte 
 Government. Three other clauses of the "ame 
 1iStuTe-'arrfcui7(niTlire's5iSTe'aiYA,fe o\ ' 
 tution: one stipulating for the extradii.' 
 lives from justice; another stipulating .'.v. :* 
 citizens of each State shall have the immunities c ' 
 citizens in all the ether States ; and a third stipula- 
 ting that full faith and credit shall be given in 
 each State to the public acts, records, and judicial 
 proceedin:;s of every otherStaie. All these clauses 
 are taken from the Articles of Confederation, where 
 they stood as articles of compact, binding the 
 good faith of the States, but conferring no power 
 on the Government. Can a good reason be given 
 by any one why they should have a different oper- 
 ation in the Constitution? It seems evident that 
 the framers of the«Constitution did not suppose 
 that the General Government could enforce the 
 execution of these clauses, or any of them, with- 
 out special provision. For, coupled with the 
 clause respecting records, we find a special power 
 I conferred on Congress to " prescribe, by general 
 ! laws, the manner in which the record shall be 
 ' proved, and the effect thereof." This grant of a 
 special power in respect to records, and this omis- 
 ' sion to grant any power in respect to the other 
 subjects", afford the strongest pos.sible implication 
 j that the Constitutional Convention did not design 
 ; to grant any such power. Had the grant of the 
 i special power as to records been omitted, that 
 I clause would have been a stipulation precisely like 
 1 the other clauses, and having the same effect; no 
 '■ more, no less; no narrower, no broader. It would 
 ' hove been binding on the States; but no power 
 ' could have been derived from it to Congress. To 
 
18 
 
 enable Congress to legislate, a special grant was 
 necessary. The omission of any special grant of 
 power to legislate upon the subject-matter of the 
 other clauses must, then, have been designed, 
 and must have been intended as a denial of such 
 power. 
 
 Are Senators prepared to adopt the broad prop- 
 osition upon which the Supreme Court rested and 
 were obliged to rest the assertion of the power to 
 legislate on the extradition of fugitives, namely, 
 that whei-ever the Constitution confers a right or 
 enjoins a duty, a power arises to the Federal Gov- 
 ernment to enforce the right or compel the per- 
 formance of the duty ? Are they prepared to 
 carry this doctrine into its practical results? Is it 
 not obvious that it will open a new and very 
 copious source of powers to the General Govern- 
 ment; and that it must tend to the subversion of 
 the rights of the States and the establishment of a 
 consolidated central pov/er, dangerous to their 
 independence and sovereignty? 
 
 [ have said, Mr. President, that the several 
 clauses providing for the extradition of fugitives 
 from justice, and fugitives from service, and for 
 the security in all the States of the rights of the 
 citizens of each State, are in the nature of treaty 
 stipulations, to be carried into eilect by the appro- 
 priate action of the State governments. What 
 that action should be is for the State govern- 
 ments to determine. It is for them to ascertain 
 the true import of the terms of the compact, and 
 to provide for its execution by such legislation as 
 will guard equally the just rights of all parties. 
 But, sir, those States who claim the perJormance 
 of the compact from their sister States must see lo 
 it that they perform it themselves. A State which 
 imprisons, without pretence of crime, the citizens , 
 of another State, cannot demand, with a good 
 
 grnS;,'ufe sQrfeUCtr'oi' lugilVvec;,'^ ■' "" "^ ■—■■ — 
 
 But, sir, if it be granted that Congress has the 
 power to legislate, are we bound to exercise it? 
 We have power, without question, to enact a 
 bankrupt law, but no one proposes such a law; 
 and, if proposed, no one would feel obliged to vote 
 for it, simply becau.se we have power to enact 
 it. We have power to declare war, but to de- 
 clare v/ar, without just cause, would be, not a 
 duty, but a crime. The power to provide by 
 law for the extradition of fugitives is not con- 
 ferred by any express grant. We have it, if we 
 have it at all, as an implied powe.r; and the implica- 
 tion which gives it to us, is, to say the least, remote 
 and doubtful. We are not tound to exercise it. 
 We are bound, indeed, not to exercise it, unless 
 with great caution, and with careful regard, not 
 merely to the alleged right sought to be secured, 
 but to every other right which may be affected by 
 it. Were the power as clear as the power to coin 
 money or regulate commerce, still it should not be 
 exercised to the prejudice of any right which the 
 Constitution guaranties. We are not prepared, I 
 hope, and I trust we never shall be prepared, to 
 give the sanction of the American Senate to the bill 
 and the amendments now upon our table — a bill 
 which authorizes and requires the appointment 
 of two hundred and sixty-one commissioners, and 
 an indefinite number of other officers, to catch run- 
 away slaves in the Stale of Ohio; which punishes 
 humanity as a crime; which authorizes seizure 
 without process, trial without a jury, and con- 
 signment to slavery beyond the limits of the State 
 
 without opportanity of defiance, and upon ex parit 
 testimony. Certainly no sach bill can receive my 
 vote. 
 
 It is further i.rop'>se(i;, Mr. PresideiU, by tue 
 Senator from Kentucky, to establish governments 
 for the territories acquired from Mexico, withou: 
 any prohibition of slavery. He proposes also to 
 declare by resolution that slavery does not novif 
 exist in tliose territories, and is not likely to be 
 introduced into them. 
 
 Mr. President, nu question has been more dis- 
 cussed of late years than this of the territorial pro- 
 hibition of slavery. Upon the rostrum, in legisla- 
 tive halls, in the street, by the fireside, everywhere, 
 it has been a topic of debate, appeal, and conver- 
 sation. From the moment that it became evident 
 that the Mexican war must result in vast accessions 
 of domain, an earnest desire, which soon matured 
 into fixed determination, was manifested by r 
 large majority of the American people that slavery 
 should be forever excluded from the new acquisi- 
 tions. It was honorable to the northern Democracy 
 that the first proposition to impress forever, upon 
 the soil of the new territory, the signature and seat 
 of freedom, came from a northern Democrat, dis- 
 tinguished for fidelity to Democratic principles, 
 and was received with t'avor by the great body of 
 his political associates. It was equally honorable 
 to northern Whigs that they were not deterred by 
 its Democratic origin from giving to the Proviso of 
 Freedom a generous and general support. It was 
 a revival, after the lapse of sixty-two years, of the 
 territorial policy of Jefferson, and, however it may 
 now serve particular ends to depreciate or deride 
 it, the country wii! at last do justice to the measure 
 and its author. 
 
 During the last Presidential canvass, it was hard 
 
 Co iliiu in tZ»v^ »il:.c. .wvf**c»b \Xi:)^\^ I-' ^ v> . . .- • 1 1 ^. w.^*.v>t^ 
 
 prohibition. The people had considered the sub- 
 ject, and had made up ther minds. There was no 
 need, therefore, of acgument to establish the cor- 
 rectness of the principle or the necessity of the 
 measure. The only contest was upon the ques- 
 tion, whose election was most certain to secure the 
 exclusion of slavery from the territories. 
 
 On the Whig side, it was urged that the candi- 
 date of the Philadelphia Convention was, :f not 
 positively favorable to the proviso, at least pledged 
 to leave the matter to Congress, free from Execu- 
 tive influence, and ready to approve it when enacted 
 by that body. Great stress, therefore, was laid 
 upon the selection of Representatives and Senators 
 devoted to this great measure; and it was asserted 
 that if a majority of the members of the House 
 and a Vice President, holding tiie casting vote in 
 this body, could be elected favorable to the provi.so. 
 the freedom of the territories would be secure. 
 
 It happened that the distinguished statesman. 
 who received the nomination of the Baltimore Con- 
 vention for the Chief Magistracy, had writteii p. 
 letter shortly before that event, in which he avowed 
 a change of opinion in regard to the proviso, 
 which had resulted in a conviction that Congress 
 had no constitutional power to enact it. Notwith- 
 standing this letter, many of his friends in the free 
 States persisted in asserting that he would not, if 
 elected, veto the proviso; many also insisted that he 
 regarded slavery as excluded from the territories 
 by the Mexican laws still in force; while othere 
 maintained that ne regarded slavery as an uistitu- 
 
9' 
 
 19 
 
 tion of positive law, and Con^rrsH n.i constitution- 
 ally incompetent to enact such law, and held, 
 therefore, that it was imnossilile for slavery to gel 
 into the territories, whether Mexican law was in 
 force or not. It was claimed acooidin;;ly wiili 
 great confidence that, in the event of the elecrioii 
 of that eminent citizen, slavery would lie as efliect- 
 ually excluded from the territories by the action 
 of the Administration as it could possibly lie by 
 the proviso. 
 
 Not satisfied with the positions or the nomina- 
 tions of either of these candidates, a {rreatbody of 
 Independent Democrats, Progressive Whigs, and 
 Liberty men, united upon a platform of Demo- 
 cratic principles and meusurea, under the banner 
 of Free Democracy, in support of a Democratic 
 statesman who had already been honored with the 
 Chief Magistracy, and whose opposition lo the 
 extension of slavery, and cordial approval of the 
 great measure of prohibition which had received 
 a sanction so unanimous from the people, was 
 well known and undoubted. 
 
 Well, sir, professions of devotion lo Free-Soil 
 principles, liberally and even prodigally made by 
 the supporters of the Philadelphia and Baltimore 
 nominees, reinforced by party discipline and party 
 attachments, so far prevailed with the people that ' 
 the nominee of the Free Democracy received only 
 about three hundred thousand votes. 
 
 As between the other candidates, the argument 
 addressed to ihe jieople by the friends of the Phil- 
 adelphia nomination was in substance tliis: pro- < 
 hibition is essential to the certain exclusion of ' 
 slavery from the territories; if the Democratic can- 
 didateshall be elected, prohibition is impossible, for 
 the veto will be used, if the Whig condidate shall 
 be elected, prohibition is certain, provided you 
 elect n Congress who will carry oul your will; 
 s"vani"t6Tobk for lis exclusion trotii them Except ; 
 y positive law. It has been repeatedly stated by 
 gentlemen from the slave Stales, in the course of j! 
 this debate, that hothing prevented slave emigra- 
 tion to California except the anti-slavery agitation; 
 and the dread of the proviso. ! 
 
 Mr. President, there are some Senators who 
 place no reliance on configuration, or climate, or 
 other physical conditions for the exclusion of sla- 
 very, but Feem to rely with some degree of confi- 
 dence on the Mexican law to secure that object. 
 I do not concur in this reliance. The Mexican 
 law remaining in force in the territories, should i 
 secure, in my judgment, the freedom of all the in- 
 habitants at the date of acquisition. In my judg- 
 ment, also, neither the Government of the United 
 States, nor any territorial government is, or can 
 be constitutionally authorized to institute slavery, ' 
 any more than a monarchy, or a national religion, I 
 or the inquisition. But, sir, I know very well ; 
 that ?v1exican law can be changed as soon as a ter- 
 ritorial leirislature is established; and 1 know, 
 also, that my view of theconstitutioral limitations 
 upon the power of this Government and of terri- 
 torial governments, in respect to their competency \ 
 to establish and maintain slavery, is not acknowl- i 
 e'is'ed a."^ correct by the statesmen and jurists of 
 the slave States. Give me an administration of 
 this Government fully imbued with this view — 
 heartily favorable to the perpetuation and exten- 
 sion of human freedom, and heartily opposed to 
 the perpetuation and extension of human slavery, 
 and I would notask for any legis'ative prohibition. 
 
 [lolicy and the early preccdentB of the Govcrrmient, 
 and which onrt received the uiuinimouH sanciiop 
 of the enlire South, run now juMily be regarded as 
 oft'ensive by that pection of the cfiuntry. If it was 
 right and acceptable to abolish txiHtinET cliurry, 
 hik! (irohibit tuiure .slavery in the Northwestern 
 Territory in 17H7, the prohiiiition of the exienitiop. 
 of slavery into the territory acquired from Mexic", 
 where no slave now cxistH, ciinnol be just cause 
 of ollVnce in 1H;")0. .Vl all events, Hir, we must do 
 our duly. We .should not, we muHl not. be 
 moved from it Ijy any a|>|ieal addresfcd to sym- 
 pathy and not to judgment. 
 
 But we arc told, also, that the proviso m unne- 
 cessary; and this, too, by the honorable Senator 
 from MafisachusetlH, who, U-bh than two years 
 ago, without reservation or qualification, declared 
 his full adhesion to its " whole doctrine." Then 
 there was great danger, in hi.s judgment, that 
 slavery would find entrance into the territories, if 
 the Democratic candidate should be elected; for in 
 that event, prohibition would be out of the ques- 
 tion. Now it is discovere<l that prohibition is un- 
 necessary ! Slavery is excluded — so the Senator 
 informs us — from California and New Mexico 
 " by the law of n.nture, of |)hysical geography, the 
 law of the formation of the earth." And he tells 
 ua he would •' not take pains to reaffirm an ordi- 
 nance of Nature, nor to recnact the will of Gcd." 
 I wish, Mr. President, that the honorable Sena- 
 tor had told us that in 1848. I wish that the peo- 
 ple could then have heard something of this law 
 of nature, of physical geography, of the formation 
 of the earth, which makes the territories acuuired 
 from Mexico forever inaccessible to slavery. I 
 cannot help thinking that the result of the election 
 would have been somewhat different if these views 
 had been then understood to find favor with the 
 not see that he dilters widely, or at all, as to IhTs^ 
 matter, from the Senator from Georgia, [Mr. Beu- 
 RiEV,] or the Senator from Alabama, [Mr. King.] 
 1 need not say that I wholly dissent from it. 
 
 In the midst of this variety of opinion, and 
 under the circumstances which surround us, when 
 it is well known that nearly every Senator from 
 the slave States insists that slavery should be per- 
 mitted in the territories, and most of them expect 
 that, if [lermitted, slavery will be introduced there, 
 it seems to me worse than oitlinary folly for those 
 who really desire its exclusion to reject the sim- 
 ple, and obvious, and certain preventive of prohi- 
 bition. That we have the power to prohibit is 
 clear, if we have any power to legislate for the 
 territories at all. That we have the power to le- 
 gislate I shall not pause to argue, i know of but 
 one Senator who denies it; and even that distin- 
 guished gentleman, [Mr. Cass,] though he cannot 
 find power to establish territorial governments, 
 declares himself ready to assume it, on the ground 
 of necessity. If he is willing to assume that 
 power, it is diflicult to see why he should not be 
 willing, in exercising that power, to establish 
 governments upon principles which will secure 
 I to every individual under them the blessings of 
 personal liberty. For myself, I cannot doubt 
 upon the subject. The power to provide govern- 
 ments for the territories, and to prescribe just 
 limits to their action, is clearly given by the Con- 
 stitution. It has been exercised under every Ad- 
 ministration, and by nearly every Congress, since 
 the organization of the Government. Whatever 
 
20 
 
 Mexican law; and where there is compulsory 
 servitude for debt, lifelong and inevitable, chattel- 
 ^ slavery is not far off, if the law will permit it. 
 But if peoniam were not there to warn us what 
 may be expected if slavery be not prohibited, 
 could we, as rational legislators, find an excuse in 
 the physical circumstances of the country for 
 abandoning the proviso .- It is said to be "Asiatic 
 in formation and scenery." Are there no slaves 
 in Asia? But the soil is cultivated by " irriga- 
 tion." Well, sir, will the fact, if it be a fact, 
 that the sun shines from a cloudless sky, and 
 waters to refresh the earth must be drawn from 
 the streams which snow-capped hills supply: will 
 this exclude slavery ? But the lands are poor. 
 Sir, who knows that? Much of the vast region 
 over which we are to extend territorial govern- 
 ments is wholly unexplored. In other parts there 
 is, as everywhere else, good land and poor land. 
 Certainly there are mines, and in no employment 
 has slave labor been more commonly or more 
 profitably used. 
 
 Let us take care that we do not deceive our- 
 selves, or mislead others. Neither soil, nor cli- 
 mate, nor physical formation, nor degrees of lati- 
 tude, will exclude slavery from any country. Can 
 any gentleman name a degree of latitude beyond 
 which slavery has not gone ? or any description of 
 country to which it has not, at some time, found 
 access? It is acknowledged, and has been for 
 years acknowledged, to be unprofitable in several 
 of the existing States; and yet, no State, except 
 New York and New Jersey which obeyed the 
 impulse of the Revolution and of its doctrines, 
 has abolished slavery since the organization of 
 this" Government. The truth is, that so long as a 
 powerful and active political interest is concerned 
 in the extcnsj^^i of slavery into new territories, it 
 vote, tnerefore, lor the v>rhig~cahtlidate.~ 
 
 This argument, doubtless, had its weight. At 
 all events, the people acted upon the theory which 
 it suggested. They did their part. They elected 
 the Whig candidate. They instructed, through 
 the State Legislatures, one half the Senators to 
 vote for the great measure of prohibition; they 
 elected a Vice President recommended to them as 
 unequivocally and heartily in favor of it; and they 
 placed in the House of Representatives a decided 
 majority pledged to its support. 
 
 What then? We came here; and, sir, it does 
 seem to me that when we get here we are apt to 
 forget that there is a people, and that we have 
 coNsriTCENTs. We seem to be more desirous 
 to reach results which will satisfy controlling in- 
 fluences here, than to meet the just expectations 
 of those whose representatives we are. Why, sir, 
 every one knov.'s that at the commencement of this 
 session, there was a decided and apparently fixed ' 
 majority in the other branch of Congress, in favor 
 of the proviso; and that in this Chamber half or 
 nearly half of the members were instructed to vote 
 for it. And yet now we are told, and told by 
 Senators who but recently were foremost in zealous 
 advocacy of this measure, that it is unnecessary, 
 and offensive to the South, and should be aban- 
 doned. Plans of compromise and arrangement, 
 every one of which involves the surrender of this 
 great vital principle, are brought forward and ■ 
 urged upon us. \ 
 
 I do not understand, sir, how it is that a meas- ; 
 are which fully harmonizes with the original ' 
 
 The spirit of such an administration, the judicial 
 action which it would secure, and, above all, the 
 Constitution so interpreted and enforced, would be 
 proviso enough. 
 
 But we have no such administration. On the 
 contrary, we know that distinguished gentlemen, 
 who are among its most prominent supporters, 
 assert and insist that under the Constitution, and 
 in virtue of its provision, the Government of the 
 United States is as much bound to protect and 
 maintain, within national territories, every slave- 
 holding emigrant in the full possession, control, 
 and disposal of his slaves, as it is to protect and 
 maintain any other emigrant in the possession, 
 control, and disposal of any species of property 
 whatever. In this position leading gentlemen on 
 the other side of the Chamber agree with them. In 
 other words, they insist that, by the operation of 
 the Constitution itself, slavery becaine lawful in 
 the territories from the date of the acquisition. 
 There is a pretty general concurrence among Sen- 
 ators from the slave States of both political parties 
 in this position. I should be glad to be assured 
 that there are no Senators from the free States 
 who concur in it. I regret that the Senator from 
 Massachusetts, whom I am sorry not to see in his 
 seat to-day, did not see fit, when he addressed the 
 Senate lately, to state his views upon this subject. 
 If I recollect aright, that dis'inguished Senator, 
 when occupying another high position m the Gov- 
 || ernment, in^a diplomatic despatch of great ability, 
 I maintained the doctrine that, under the Constitu- 
 tion of the United States, men might be held as 
 I property in American vessels upon the high seas, 
 beyond the limits of any State, and this upon the 
 ground that such vessels were to be regarded in 
 i! the same light as national territory. If the hon- 
 1' orable member does in fact hold this opinion, I do 
 1 siSpporters of the PliTladelpTTiaTfommatiorv! 
 I Sir, this law of nature is not, I suppose, of re- 
 I cent origin. It existed in 1848, if it exists at all. 
 i The clear vision which can read it now, written 
 [ so plainly in the formation of the earth — descend- 
 j ing so visibly from the throne of God — discerned 
 it, doubtless, then. Why was it not then an- 
 nounced ? 
 
 I must be allowed to say, thai in my judgment, 
 there is a difference between the full and entire 
 commitment to the " whole doctrine" of the pro- 
 viso, which the Senator avowed in 1848, and his 
 recent declaration that, in a bill for the govern- 
 ment of New Mexico, a prohibition of slavery 
 would be "an entirely useless, and, in that con- 
 I nection, entirely senseless, proviso." Useless 
 and senseless, because it would be a reenactment 
 of the will of God ! Sir, I should like to know 
 what laws we are to enact, if we are not to reen- 
 act the will of God? There is another pov;et: are 
 j //is the laws which we should reenact? Sir, all 
 just legislation must be a reenactment of the Di- 
 vine v/ill. The rights of human nature are not 
 i derived from human law. Men are " created 
 equal;" " they are endowed by their Creator with 
 inalienable rights." Aggressions upon these 
 rights are crimes. It is the duty of every legisla- 
 ture to frame all law with paramount regard to 
 [ the prohibition of these aggressions, and the secu- 
 rity of these rights. 
 
 1 But, sir, is it quite true that any law of physi- 
 
 : cal geography will protect the new territories from 
 
 the curse of slaverv? Peonism was there under 
 
21 
 
 differences of opinion there may have been, as to 
 
 the existence or limits of other powers, there hns 
 been very little ns to thia. The power to prohibit 
 slavery in the territories is, in my judgment, cleur 
 and iniii-'i'Utable; mid the duty of exercising it is 
 imperaii.t anil sacred. 
 
 But we are lold that if Cony;rcsh: prohibit shi- 
 very in the territories, or ubolish shivery and the 
 slave trade in this District, or fail to provide ade- 
 quate securities for the return of runaway slaves, 
 the South will dissolve the Union '. This cry, 
 Mr. President, niiiher astonishes nor alarms me. 
 I have never thought, nor do i now think, that 
 any man should be deterred by it, from an iionest, 
 fearless dischar{;c of his duty here It is an old | 
 cry, not without profit to those who have used it. 
 It was first heard in the Contjrcss of 1774. The | 
 student of history who examines the Non-Impori- { 
 ation and Non-Exporlation A2;reemcnt of that , 
 Congress, will be struck by n singular exception 
 in the Non-Exportation Article. I have already 
 had occasion to remark that the Agreement itself 
 was designed to secure a redress of American 
 grievances from the Government of Great Britain 
 by a suspension of commercial intercourse. The 
 Non-Exportation Article bound the colonies and 
 the people not to export any American commodity 
 to Great Britain, Ireland, or the West Indies, with 
 this remarkable qualification, "except rice, to Eu- 
 rope." How came this exception there ? Why, 
 sir, the staple of South Carolina was rice, and the j 
 delegates of South Carolina in that first Congress, 
 when the struggle with Great Britain was impend- 
 ing, and union was all-important to its successful I 
 issue, threatened to withdraw from the Congress 1 
 and break up the Association, unless South Caro- 
 lina could be permitted to export rice and indigo. 1 
 Thia proceeding occasioned a suspension of the 
 '"^"^u^ uiBBU ' Oi ' t' l ie Ctiigreaa fc t 'c v ro ct Vn^ee iyy^. 
 
 Finally it was determined to complete the Asso- 
 ciation without conceding the South Carolina de- 
 mand, and thereupon her delegates, except one, 
 withdrew. They were invited to return, and a 
 compromise was proposed, to allow the exporta- 
 tion of rice, but not of indigo. I have consulted 
 Pitkin's Statistics, and 1 find that the export of 
 rice in 1770 was about one hundred and sixty 
 thousand barrels, valued at §1,530,000. 1 find ho 
 mention of indigo. Of course the compromise 
 was agreed to, and the words " except rice to 
 Europe" added to the Non-Exportation Article. 
 It was a model for all future compromises. South 
 Carolina got what was substantive, and surren- 
 dered what was unimportant. This was the fir.it 
 utterance of tlie disunion cry, and this was its first 
 result.'' 
 
 The Journals of the old Congress inform us that 
 in 1783 a resolution was adopted, establishing the 
 seat of Government at the Falls of the Delaware. 
 Much dissatisfaction was manifested by the South. 
 Some persons, it seems, became alarmed, and a 
 motion was made to reconsider, in order to fix on 
 some place more "favorable to the Union,'' and ap- 
 proaching " nearer to that justice which is due to 
 the southern States. "| All this termmated m 
 another compromise. It was agreed that two seats 
 of Government should be established— one on the 
 Delaware, and the other on the Potomac. The 
 
 * Am. Arch. 4th Ser., vol. 1, page 1111. 
 1 4 Jour. Cong. Coiifed., 288. 
 
 final result was the eBtabliahment, by the action of 
 Congress under the Constitution, of the seat of 
 Government in tliis District, and the abundonnient 
 of the location originally agreed on. 
 
 In the Convention which fronied the Constitution 
 the same cry wan heard. South Carolina and 
 Georgi.i declared they could not come inio the 
 Union unless they could have the privilege of im- 
 porting slaves." And, notwithstanding tiic tiense 
 of the Convention WHS strong and almost unani- 
 mous n^'ainst the traflic, for the sake of the Unioi. 
 another compromise was agreed on. Slavery 
 was-aJlowedall it demanded for twenty years; after 
 which, Congress might suppress the trade if it 
 should see fit. 
 
 In 18:i0 the Union was again menaced. The 
 cry now was, " admit Missouri as a slave Stale, 
 or we will dissolve the Union." Great alarm was 
 excited. Proposition.s for compromise were mul- 
 tiplied, and the contest finally terminated, as usual, 
 by conceding to slavery all it then demanded, with 
 aset-o(Tti. freedom in' the prohibition of slavery 
 in dll the nrritory acquired from France north of 
 36° 30', except that within the limits of the new 
 State. 
 
 The same play was enacted in 18.32 and 1833. 
 Then the ground of complaint was the tarilT. South 
 Carolina pushed her disunion remedy to nulli- 
 fication. General Jackson was at the head of 
 the Government, unterrified. But in Congress 
 great apprehension was manifested, and a desire to 
 concede almost everything rather than to risk the 
 consequences of a decided course. Another com- 
 promise was effected. The protective policy was 
 abandoned by its great champion, and a scale of 
 reduction of duties adopted, which in ten years 
 overthrew the tariff. For one, Mr. President, I 
 do not complain of the reduction of duties; but I 
 woultl prelcr to see a plan of reio'ciioh adiopied 
 calmly, considerately, not under the dictation of 
 any cry, but in conformity with a sound and liberal 
 • judgment. 
 
 I Well, sir, between 1830 and 1835, the anti- 
 ' slavery agitation commenced, and soon became 
 formidable. Then again we heard the cry of dis- 
 union. The demand now was the suppression of 
 ■ the freedom of speech and the press, and of the 
 right of petition; in brief, silence on the subject of 
 slavery, and forbearance of all action against it. 
 The alternative denounced was dissolution of the 
 Union. The agitation, however, was not sup- 
 pressed; anti-slavery societies increased and mul- 
 tiplied; they made themselves felt everywhere. 
 Well, was ihc Union dissolved.' Not at all. It 
 stands yet, and will stand, I trust, forever. The 
 menace was as earnest, as emphatic, as violent as 
 ever, but it came to nothing. It had the same 
 termination which would have attended all similar 
 preceding menaces, had they been calmly disre- 
 garded. 
 
 In 1844 the annexation of Texas was demanded 
 by the slave States. It had been a favorite object 
 for many years, and it seemed brought within 
 their grasp. They became, accordingly, extremely 
 urgent, and resorted to the South Carolina specific. 
 They raised the cry " Texas or disunion.' The 
 distinguished Sena'tor t'rom Missouri, always de- 
 voted to the Union, took tiie trouble to direct pub- 
 lic attention, in an appendix to a speech of his on 
 
 * 3 Mad. Pap., 1389. 
 
22 
 
 tne subject of Texas, delivered in that year, to : 
 some samples of these threats. They are worth 
 looking at now. Well, sir, under these influences, 
 in ps.i"f, Texas was brought into the Union. I 
 say " ii'. part," becau.'e I am well aAare that other 
 iiiflae.ices contiibuted largely to the result; and 
 amon^ these influences not the least powerful was 
 a generous sentiment of the Democracy of the 
 oountry in favor of the extension of the American 
 jJnion — a sentiment which made them willing: to 
 accept Texas with slavery, and tri\sl to the future 
 for her deliverance from that evil and reproach. 
 
 And now, sir, we have the last republicatioa of 
 tliis old story. Now we are threatened with dis- : 
 solution of the Union unless we will consent to 
 what no republican Government ever did consent 
 to; what is indirect opposition to the principles 
 and spirit of our institutions, and is condemned 
 by the earlie.'it and best precedents of our history, 
 namely, the extension of slavery into territories 
 now free! Shall we yield to this outcry? For , 
 oo.e, I f:ay, never! In my judgment, it is time to 
 pause VVe have yielded point after point; we 
 have crowded concession on concession, until ; 
 duty, honor, patriotism, shame, demands that we 
 should stop. 
 
 But we are told, almost with the tone of taunt, 
 that the free States have had the rfiajority all this ; 
 time in one branch of Congress at least, and in the 
 electoral college, and, therefore, that whatever re- 
 .sponsibility there may have been in making these 
 concessions to slavery, it is ;opon them. It is well 
 to remind us of this. The f4-ee States have had the 
 majority: and the victories of slavery have been 
 won by their divisions. .Tohn Randolph said, long 
 ago, '• We of the South are always united andean 
 afways unite; while you of the North divide. We 
 'lave conquered you once, and we can and we will 
 .^sJiTcjlW fiSii Sgsiii.' - jLTi€sS^TiC-& s€civcaCsS~fttSiC€ 
 a history. 
 
 I do not say, and I do not mean to say, that there 
 has been but one political party in the slave States; 
 but that, in these States, fidelity to the interests of 
 Slavery has always been, in both parties, an indis- 
 oensibie condition of support for high public sta- 
 tion; and that great numbers, in either party, have 
 always been ready io support a candidate of oppo- 
 site general politics, if undoubted on this question, 
 rather than a candidate of like general politics at 
 all suspected of disfavor to slavery. No candidate 
 known to be in favor of placing the legitimate in- 
 iluence of this Government actively and decidedly 
 on the side of freedom, could receive the support 
 of either party. It is by thi.s unity of sentiment 
 and purpose, aided by appeals to groundless fears 
 for the safety of the Union, and by a disposition 
 growing out of these fears and party alliances to 
 submilto the tests imposed by the slaveholding sec- 
 tions of each political party, that the slave States 
 have " conquered." 
 
 Mr. DAWSON. While tiie Senator is writing 
 the history of the times, I trust he will do it cor- 
 rectly. The South has never opposed any man 
 because he was in favor of freedom. The South 
 has selected between gentlemen, and those who 
 were against interfering with the constitutional 
 rishts of the South have always been supported 
 by thera. They have never opposed any man on 
 the ground merely that he was in favor of freedom. 
 Not so. They are opposed to interference with 
 their constitutional rights only; and the Senator is 
 
 wrong to say that they opposed any one because 
 he belongs to the free States, or is in favor of free- 
 dom. 
 
 Mr. CHASE. I shall always be ready to ac- 
 cept any correction, from any Senator, of any 
 erroneous statement I may make. But, sir, what 
 is meant by the "constitutional rights of the 
 South r" Who refuses to support " the constitu- 
 tional rights of the South r" Nobody here, cer- 
 tainly. But what are they ? Sir, when gentlemen 
 from' the slave States ask us to support the Con- 
 stitution, I fear they mean only their construction 
 of the Constitution. Every concession which has 
 ever been made to slavery, every concession now 
 demanded, is claimed under this same plea of 
 " constitutional rights." I will ask the Senator 
 from Georgia whether he does not hold that it i.s 
 the " constitutional right'' of every citizen of the 
 slave States to take his slaves into the territories, 
 and to be protected in holding them there by the 
 laws of this Government? 
 Mr. DAWSON. I do. 
 
 Mr. CHASE. So I supposed. Such, also, 1 
 understand to be the opinion of the Serator from 
 : Alabama, [Mr. King,] whose abilities and virtues 
 command such general respect. He holds, if I 
 understand aright some recent remarks of his, that 
 the General Government is bound by the Consti- 
 tution to recognize and protect the rights of mas- 
 ters in slaves to the same extent and in the same 
 manner r.3 the rights of owners in any description 
 of property whatever. I would inquire of the 
 Senator if I understood him correctly? 
 
 Mr. KING. I was not paying particular atten- 
 tion to the Senator, and therefore do not precisely 
 understand, even now, the question. I will en- 
 deavor to answer it if he will repeat it. 
 
 Mr. CHASE. I inquired of the Senator from 
 ' ■0€^fgiSriMir'D'tWff6'!^'Yw%6ini't','iu hits juuguieiVi, 
 a citizen of a slave State, taking slaves with him 
 and emigrating into the territories acquired from 
 Mexico, would be entitled, under the Constitu- 
 tion, to the recognition and protection of his claim 
 of property in slaves by the legislation of this 
 Government, precisely as he would be to the re- 
 cognition and protection of his rights as owner of 
 property of any description r The Senator replied 
 ' in the affirmative. I then added that 1 believed 
 the Senator from Alabama entertained the same 
 opinion, 
 i Mr. KING. The opinion I entertain is this: 
 '<'' that in every territory acquired by the United 
 States, either by conquest or by purchase, every 
 citizen of every State in the Union is entitled to 
 participate. With regard to taking slaves there, 
 they can be protected under any government that 
 may be formed for the territories by the United 
 States. The power to form such governments is 
 supposed coexist under the Constitution. Whether 
 i it does or not, such has been the practice and the 
 ; construction given to it. When a territorial gov- 
 ernment is established, it is only for the protection 
 i of persons and property and the preservation of 
 ; order, ana it has no power whatever to legislate 
 for the destruction of property. That is my opin- 
 ion. I believe that whenever a territorial govern- 
 I ment is established, if persons holding slaves 
 ': think proper to go there with them, this Govern- 
 ' ment is bound to protect them until the period 
 1; arrives when the population is sufficient for the 
 I' formation of a State constitution. Then, we of 
 
23 
 
 .i Souih hold, I believe without exception, that 
 (je people thus forming a State constitution, have 
 
 right to prohibit or to permit ■slavery at their 
 ^•leasure, and that Congress iia.s mo right to pre- 
 f.-ent the new State from cominsfiiito the Union on 
 /that ground, but can only look at its constitution 
 to ascertain whether it is republican in its character. 
 Am I understood ? 
 
 Mr. CHASE. Fully. The doctrine of the 
 Senator i.s precisely that of the Senator from 
 Georgii. We understand now, from both sides 
 of this Chamber, what is meant when we are called 
 on to maintain " the constitutional rights of tlie 
 South." So far as the matters now under di.scus- 
 aion are concerned, it means that we must recog- 
 nize and maintain by legislation the claim of cili- 
 lens of the slave States to take slaves into the 
 cerritorief; and hold them there, a.s property, under 
 ;:ationai government and territorial government, 
 until the territory becomesaState, and then we are 
 bound to admit the State into the Union with a con- 
 .ititution establishing slavery, if such should be the 
 constitution adopted. And no citizen who refuses 
 ;ms assen I to this doctrine; who believes that this 
 Governmentofours cannot, under the Constitution, 
 sustain any claim of property in slave.s beyond 
 
 from endeavoring to agree in the support of the 
 same candidate upon opposite grounds. Let us 
 have political plaiform.s, which will have the same 
 meaning in Georgia as in Maine, and candidale.s 
 who cannot be represented in the North as ir^ favor 
 of freedom, and in the South as supporters iif 
 slavery. The policy of silence with reference to 
 important measures and principles, and the poli'-y 
 of ambiguous expressions, are ec|ualty obnoxioii.-*. 
 Both mislead public judgment; and whether the 
 party which adopts the former, or the party which 
 adopts the latter, succeeds, one or the other 
 section of the country must be disappointed. 
 
 Mr. President, honesty is the best policy, jus- 
 tice, the highest expediency; and principle, the 
 oidy proper basis of union in a political organiza- 
 tion. Holding fast as 1 do to Democratic jirinci- 
 pies; believing firmly that all men are created 
 equal, and are endowed by their Creator with in- 
 alienable rights to life and liberty, I desire to s«e 
 those principles carried out boldly, earnestly, res- 
 olutely, in the practical administration of affairs. 
 I wish to see the powers of this Government ex- 
 ercised for the great objects which the Constitution 
 i indicates; for the perfection of our Union; for the 
 establishment of justice; for the common defence; 
 
 State limits; who opposes, openly and decidedly, for the security of liberty. At the same time 1 do 
 the extension of slavery into the territories, can 'not desire to sec this Govcrnnient, under the influ- 
 receive the support of either political party in the ence of any zeal, however honorable, for freedom, 
 .slave States. Both parties agree in establishing i transcend at all the sphere of its constitutional 
 this test. Ii powers and duties. While, therefore, I shall 
 
 Mr. BUTLER. I would ask the Senator if he ; steadily support ail proper legislation for the es- 
 repudiates or adopts the doctrine laid down by Mr. , tablishment and .-ecurity of freedom in the territc- 
 Webster in his celebrated letter to Lord Ashbur- , ries and elsewhere within the sphere of exclusive 
 ton, in vi'hich he said that slave property in vessels | national juri.sdiction, I shall, as steadily, refuse my 
 assimilated to that property in territories, and that ; support to all legislation on the subject of slavery 
 :he Government was equally bound to protect it ? within the States. In this line of action I shall feel 
 
 Mr. CHASE. I have already said, Mr. Presi- | myself supported by the precepts of the sages cf 
 ' '^"/,'^" "'"•' *" '^'l <'f'"f-ni' in that df^ctrine. : the revolutionary era, by the example of the found- 
 Mr. DAWSON. The Senator has made an iTrTofThe'llepublic, by iiic origli. 
 
 'Xposition of the mode and manner in which the 
 
 ►South vote. I wish to ask him if, with one or 
 
 two exceptions, every southern State did not stand 
 
 >•.■ Mr. Van Buren for the Presidency — the very 
 
 andidate for whom the Senator voted at the last 
 
 esidcatial election ? So that history is against 
 
 Government, and by the principles of the Consti- 
 tution. 
 
 I cannot believe that there a danger in such a 
 course. Least of all does the stale cry of disunion 
 alarm me. Men, generally, adapt remedies to 
 evils. But what evil that the slave States com- 
 
 e position which the Senator occupies, and the i plain of v/ili disunion cure .' Will it establish sKi 
 
 :^outh has only done that whicli tiie Senator hiui 
 ^-rlf ha/jdone. 
 
 Mr. CHASE. " CircuListances,'" it is said, 
 ■alter cases." [Laughter.] 1 rather think thai 
 .Mr. Van Buren, occupying the position and avow- 
 ■'g the sentiments he did in 1848, would not have 
 een a very acceptable candidate to our southern 
 ■-.iends, however nominated. At any rate I be- 
 .eve it so happened that he received not more 
 • '.an five hundred votes, if so many, in all the slave 
 -states. 
 
 Mr. DAWSON. The jiarty had another can- 
 ^'•date. 
 
 ?4r. CHASE. And another pirttform. And, I 
 ?.m inclined to think, the objection of the slave 
 states v/as quite as much to our platform as our 
 candidate. 
 
 Mr. President, disguise is vain. We cannot 
 ■>imt our eyes to the fact that the test I have referred 
 ;o is made. It is stamped upon every page of our 
 political history for fifty years. Let the test be 
 Inade, if getitlemen desire. I only say, for one, 
 t'.'.at 1 will not submit to it. 
 
 Let us understand each other. Let us cease 
 
 very iii the territories .' Will it procure the return 
 of fugitives .' Will it sunpreps discussion? Will 
 it .secure slavery where it is : Sir, all men must 
 see that disunion is no remedy for the slave State.-. 
 Why then the cry, if not to alarm the timid, the 
 sensitive, the unreflecting — to aftoid excuses for 
 concession — and thus secure advantages which the 
 sober judgment and enliglitcned (Conscience of the 
 country would never yield.' 
 
 Mr. President, I have never calculated the value 
 of the Union, i know no arithmetic by which 
 the computation can be made. We of the West 
 are in the habit of looking upon the Union as we 
 look upon the arch of heaven, without ;i thought 
 that it can ever de.:ay or fall. With equal rever- 
 ence we regard the jireat Ordinance of Freedom, 
 under whose benign influence, within little more 
 than half a century, a wilderness has been con- 
 verted into an empire. Ohio, the eldest born of 
 the Constitution and the Ordinance, cleaves and 
 will cleave faithfully to both. And now that the 
 time has come when vast accessions of free terri- 
 tory demand the application of those principles of 
 the Ordinance, to which she is indebte<l for her 
 
24 
 
 prosperity and power, to guard them against the 
 blighting influence of slavery, she will insist that 
 the same protection shall be extended to the terri- 
 tories which was extended to her. 
 
 Nor are these the sentiments of Ohio alone. 
 They are the sentiments of the people throughout 
 the free States. Here and there the arts or the 
 fears of politicians or capitalists may suppress 
 their utterance; but they live, and will live, in the 
 hearts of the masses. There is no great and real 
 change in those opinions and convictions which 
 placed a majority pledged to free soil in the other 
 wing of the Capitol. It may be, however, that 
 you will succeed here in sacrificing the claims of 
 
 freedom by some settlement carried through thtl 
 forms of legislation. But the people will «nt;ettle\ 
 your settlement. It may be that you will deter-j 
 mine that the territories shall not be secured by 
 law against the ingress of slavery. The people 
 will reverse your determination. It may be chat 
 you will succeed in burying the Ordinance of 
 Freedom. But the people will write upon its 
 tomb, Resurgam;* and the same history which re- 
 cords its resurrection may also inform posterity 
 that they who fancied they had killed the proviso. 
 only committed political suicide. 
 
 * " I shall rise again. '• 
 
 Printed a: the Congressional Globe Office. 
 
 LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 
 
 011 898 043 8 
 
LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 
 
 011 898 043 8