LETTERS 
 
 OF 
 
 JOHN MINOR BOTTS, OF YIRCtINIA. 
 
 
 >T^'^ 
 
 THE NEBKASKA QUESTION 
 
 7^ 
 
 WASHINGTOiT: 
 
 JOHN T. AND LEM. TOWERS, PRINTERE 
 1853. 
 
e 
 
 
 >^^l 
 
MR. BOTTS' LETTERS. 
 
 To the Editors of the National hitelltgencer : 
 
 It is my inisCortuue once again to find myself 
 in a situation wliich obliges me to take part 
 against many of my best personal and political 
 friends, and upon a subject, and under circum- 
 stances that, feeling and believing as I do, it 
 would be criminal on mjr part to be silent; and, 
 however much I may regret the occasion and 
 the necessity, I must appeal to you, as national 
 men, and conductors of a truly national paper, 
 to allow me the privilege of addressing a few 
 reflections to the people of the South through 
 your columns on a subject of the gravest conse- 
 quence to their interests. I mean the Nebraska 
 bill, now pending before the Senate, wuicli, 
 from all we can now see, is likely to become a 
 law without a word against it from the South, 
 and by wliich it is proposed to repeal or declare 
 inoperative the Missouri Compromise of thirty- 
 four years' standing and acquiescence iu by all 
 parts and parties of the country. 
 
 It is true I have little now to do with politics, 
 and I am not in "position" to give influence and 
 currency to what I may ^ay. I have no Con- 
 gressional seat from Avhieh I can speak " by au- 
 tliority," but my interest in the settlement of 
 this question as a citizen, and my regard for the 
 welfare of the country is none the less on that 
 account. 
 
 After the most careful examination of this 
 portentous question, I am satisfied that it is the 
 most mischievous and pernicious measure that 
 has ever been iutroduged into the halls of Con- 
 gress. 
 
 With the institution of Slavei-y acknowledged- 
 ly in a sounder and better condition than it has 
 ever been; with the public mind calmly subsid- 
 ing and daily acquiescing in the peaceful and 
 healing measures of 1850; in the absence of an}- 
 public necessity or demand from any part or 
 section of the country ; with an application from 
 no human being outside of the political circles 
 iu Washington; without the question ever hav- 
 ing been pi esentcd to the consideration of the 
 people, wlio are tlie onlj' proper parties to be 
 consulted ; with solemn pledges from both 
 parties and both sections to resist all future 
 eff"orts at agitation, it is proposed to throw wide 
 open the whole question of Slavery, to unsettle 
 all that has been done to produce harmony be- 
 tween the North and the South for the last 
 thirty years, by those who were quite as wise 
 and patriotic as tiie men of the present day, and 
 to revive sectional animosities and feuds in the 
 most aggravated and embittered form, the end 
 whereof no man can foresee. Is it not legiti- 
 m.ate then for any citizen, however humble, 
 feeling an interest in his country's welfare, to 
 ask emphatically why is this to be done ? 
 
 Is this last and hopeless chance for recon- 
 structing the disordered and scattered frag- 
 ments of a divided party with any intelligent 
 mind held to be a sufficient reason for so much 
 mischief? Are the grasping and reckless aspi- 
 rations of ambitious men, who seek their own 
 advancement by a spirit of turbulence and dis- 
 cord tliroughout the land, a sufficient justifica- 
 tion for the wholesale scenes of riot and disor- 
 der that is to follow ? 
 
 If the Compromise which has stood the test of 
 one-third of a century is no longer available or 
 operative, how long can the Compromise of 
 three years' duration be expected to last? And 
 can it be possible that all the wisdom and patri- 
 otism that marked the struggles of 1820 and of 
 1850 are, within one short yeav after the decease 
 of the illustrious men who then hushed the storm 
 into silence and tranquilized the nation, to be 
 forgotten and laid aside, without necessity, 
 without notice, without cause, and without one 
 justifying or palliating circumstance? 
 
 As a Southern man, I raise my voice against 
 it. I oppose it because it involves a breach of 
 faith on the part of the South, who have for 
 thirt}" odd years enjoyed the advantages ob- 
 tained by them in the formation of the States of 
 Missouri and Arkansas. / oppose it, because it 
 necessarily and unavoidably begets another an- 
 gry sectional controvers}', which there are none 
 left among us strong enough in the confidence 
 of the people to allay. / oppose it, because it 
 uproots and destroys the Compromise measures 
 of 1850, to which the North is no more pledged 
 than the South to the Comj)romise now proposed 
 to be abrogated. I oppose it, because it would 
 be an act of infatuated madness on the part of 
 the South to accept it. / oppose it, because it 
 will be impossible ever again to obtain as favor- 
 able terms from the North, with their seven mil- 
 lions majority of while population, as we ob- 
 tained when that population more nearlj' ap- 
 proximated equality. / oppose it, upon the 
 ground that it places a barren privilege in the 
 hands of the Soutli, for which not only no equi- 
 valent is offered, but by which she must be an 
 ultimate and great loser. / oppose it, because 
 I do not like the source from which it comes, nor 
 the power by which it is supported. " Timeo 
 DanaoH et dona ferentes.'' It is proposed by a 
 Northern aspirant to the Presidency, and is sup- 
 ported by a Northern Administration, surround- 
 ed by the enemies of peace, harmony, and Union, 
 whose free-soil proclivities have been manifested 
 from the first moment they set their feet upon 
 the footstool of power. / oppose it, because I 
 see Tammany Hall, free-soil, and adamantine 
 political associatiouB and committees uniting in 
 its support. 
 
What can the South gain by opening the Ter- 
 ritory of Nebraska to Slavery, when by the 
 same act she opens the territory south of Ne- 
 braska to the Free States of the Union, and in- 
 vites them to come in ? Let us look at it calmly 
 and practically. What consideration or induce- 
 ment can be offered to the slaveholder of the 
 South to cany his slave property into that Tcr- 
 ritorv, where neither the climate nor the pro- 
 ductions of the soil are adapted to slave labor, 
 and where it would always be both unprofita- 
 ble and insecure, while such vast tracts of un- 
 cultivated lands in the finest cotton, susrar, and 
 tobacco regions of the world lie open before him 
 in tlie States of Texas, Arkansas, Missouri, Ala- 
 bama, etc., wliere the productions of labor are 
 more profitable, where the climate is more con- 
 genial, and the property better protected, and 
 where the lands can be obtained on as favorable 
 tenns as in Nebraska ? Nebraska and Kansas 
 will both then remain free territory, and ulti- 
 mately come in as Free States. "What do these 
 Northern gentlemen, Mr. Douglas, Mr. Piekce, 
 and their associates, a.sk in return for this una- 
 vailable boon to the South? Wh}-, that the 
 North may be equally free to settle territory 
 south of 36 deg. 30 miu. with their free popula- 
 tion, to be afterwards held as free territory, and 
 to be ultimately admitted as Free States. Now, 
 let us see what would be the prospects and ad- 
 vantages of each, all old lines and divisions be- 
 tween the Free and the Slave States being 
 broken down. 
 
 The first question is, which has the largest 
 surplus population to send abroad? The an- 
 swer is, the North has 18,310,302 whites, the 
 South 6,113,213 whites, which leaves the Nortli 
 with a majority of 7,iy6,2Sy, to .say nothing of 
 the free foreign floating population from every 
 quarter of the globe seeking a settlement and a 
 home in all newly settled Territories. 
 
 The next question is, b^- which section of the 
 country could this Territory be filled up with 
 the greatest facility? The slaveholder of the 
 South is geneially a landed proprietor, on a 
 larger or smaller scale ; he would necessarily 
 require time to sell out his lands, stock, and 
 chatties, while the free laborer of the North 
 packs his carpet-bag at night, buckles his belt 
 around his body in the morning, and is off at 
 the first whistle of the locomotive. Thus will 
 they settle the Territory (wherever inducements 
 are offered for settlement) and declare it free, 
 while the Southern planter is getting ready to 
 start; and thus will the Indian territory, lying 
 between the States of [Missouri and Texas, south 
 of 36 deg. 30 min., now secured to the South, 
 become a free territorj^ and ultimately a f'ee 
 State; while by the adjustment of 1820, (or Mis- 
 souri Compromise,) her admission as a Slave 
 State is already provided for without resistance, 
 if the people composing the State so desire it. 
 Break up this compromise, and you invite re- 
 sistance to the further admission of Slave States 
 anywhere south of 36 deg. 30 min., as well as 
 north of that line. And let it not be forgotten 
 that we now have acquired every inch of terri- 
 tory that can be obtained north of 36 deg. 30 
 
 min., unless Canada should at some far distant 
 day be annexed to us, (when and where the in- 
 troduction of slavery would never be attempt- 
 ed,) while every two years the South will con- 
 tinue to acquire more and more of the Mexican 
 territory, until we shall, in all probability, ab- 
 sorb the whole — every foot of which will, under 
 the Missouri Compromise, come in as Slave States 
 without resistonce or opposition, unless the peo- 
 ple of those States should otherwise determine. 
 There is Cuba, too, to which our people have 
 turned au anxious, longing eye. If we acquire 
 that, and the Missouri Comjiromise is broken 
 down, how can it obtain admission into the 
 Union as a Slave State, with the power so une- 
 qually distributed between the Free and Slave 
 States? The North may not attempt to destroy 
 or disturb slavery in Cuba ; she may permit U3 
 to hold it as a slave Territor}' without opposi- 
 tion ; but the question is, would she vote for its 
 admission as a Slave State, with its full repre- 
 sentation in the two branches of Congress, and 
 giving it its potential voice in presidential con- 
 tests? 
 
 But, again: By a joint resolution of Congress 
 admitting Texas into the Union, tiie South has 
 already secured to it the advantage of four 
 States, entitled to admission at a future day as 
 Slave States. Break down this Compromise of 
 1820, and the Comjn-omise of 1850 will follow 
 it; and what, then, becomes of this joint resolu- 
 tion. Avhieh was (not the result of compromise 
 between the North and South, but the result of 
 party strength and brute force,) in violation of 
 every principle of the Constitution, both in its 
 letter and spirit, and therefore more liable to 
 repeal — what, I say, becomes of this feature of 
 that resolution? The natural desire for power 
 on the part of the Nortli, and the excitement of 
 the moment will set its ingenuity to work to 
 seek some counterbalancing measure of retalia- 
 tion ; and how long would it be before we should 
 have a proposition to repeal that portion of the 
 joint resolution? Would any Northern man be 
 at liberty to vote against it if it should be pro- 
 posed? Could any Southern man consistently 
 oppose it ? The Missouri Compromise is to be 
 repealed on the ground that Congress had no 
 right to legislate at all on the subject of slavery; 
 and if the Congress of 185-1 has no right to legis- 
 late on that subject, how can we hereafter show 
 that the Congress of 1845 had the riglit to legis- 
 late for its future recognition in those States to 
 be formed out of Texas? If Congress cannot 
 legislate at all on this question of slavery north 
 of 36 deg. 30 min., how could the Congress of 
 1845 constitutionally legislate for it south of 
 this line? And are we of the South prepared to 
 surrender this right, now secured, by such a 
 declaration as is proposed by Mr. Douglas? If 
 all prohibitions are to be broken down on one 
 side, does it not necessarily follow that all legis- 
 lative privileges must be bi'oken down on the 
 other? 
 
 Again: If the Missouri Compromise is to be 
 repealed on the ground that Congress has no 
 constitutional power to legislate on the subject 
 of slavery for the Territories, why does not Mr. 
 
Douglas propose to amend the two Territorial 
 bills of Utah and New Mexico, by which Con- 
 gress did legislate on slavery, by making it 
 obligatory on a future Congress to admit them 
 as States, with or without slavery, as tliey might 
 themselves determine, thus forcing the admis- 
 sion of Slave States on the North in one event, 
 andFreeStates on the South in the other? Tliose 
 two bills, then, are also unconstitutional; so like- 
 wise (if I understand correcth') are the piovi- 
 sions of the Nebraska and Kansas bills, for the 
 same reason. The Oregon Territorial bill must 
 also be modified or repealed, because that bill 
 contained legislative provisions on slavery, by 
 excluding it entirely from the Territory. 
 
 But this is not all. The chairman of the Com- 
 mittee on Territories, it is certain, has not been 
 holding converse with the spii'its of the dead ; 
 he has consulted none of the departed patriots 
 and sages to whom we are indebted for our great 
 birth-rigiit of freedom; for he rejects their teach- 
 ings and spurns their wisdom. Let me tell him 
 he Avill have to go still further back than 1820 
 to correct the legislation of his predecessors; he 
 must go back to the dixys of George Washing- 
 ton, and he will find that on the 7th da}' of Au- 
 gust, 1789, the first Congress that met under the 
 Constitution passed an act by which the power 
 of Congress to legislate on the subject of slavery 
 in the Territories A^as distinctlj^ recognised and 
 broadly asserted. The preamble to that law 
 reads thus: 
 
 "Wltcreas, The ordinance of the United States 
 in Congress assembled for the government of the 
 Territory northwest of the Ohio river may con- 
 tinue to have full effect, it is requisite that cer- 
 tain provisions should be made so as to adapt the 
 same to the present Constitution of the United 
 States — 
 
 "Be it enacted," <fec. 
 
 This act must also be repealed, and the judg- 
 ment of this enlightened age pronounced on the 
 unconstitutional legislation sanctioned by Gen. 
 Washington, Mr. Jefferson, Mr. Madison, Mr. 
 Monroe, Gen. Jackson, and Mr. Polk — all south- 
 ern Presidents, eaeh one of whom, in turn, recog- 
 nised the powei- of Congress to legislate on this 
 8ubje4.-t for the Territories. 
 
 1 believe the only part of the Northwestern 
 Territory that remains in a territorial condition 
 is Minnesota, and in tliat bill Congress also legis- 
 lated on slavery; that bill, then, should also 
 be repealed. Does the honorable gentleman, 
 (M)". Douglas,) and do his associates in the Sen- 
 ate, fail to perceive how, by the shining of new 
 lights, all things are made dark? Do the}' fail 
 to perceive that what tliev now propose un- 
 hinges and unsettles the legislation of the coun- 
 try for sixty-five years? 
 
 It is not the least strange chapter in this his- 
 tory that those who now denounce the uncon- 
 stitutionality of the Missouri Compromise should 
 all have waited until its most prominent advo- 
 cate had retired from their inidst and descended 
 to the tomb, before they could find the valor to 
 assail his work; it is a libel upon his memory 
 that from prudential considerations they did not 
 see fit to utter during his life; but, although he 
 
 was killed by the unkindness of friends he most 
 relied on, he has left those behind him who will 
 be prompt to protect his fame; for although he 
 was not the author or originator of the compro- 
 mise line of 36 deg. oO niin. in 1820, yet he not 
 only voted for it, but, by his untiring eff"orts in 
 1821, he secured the passage of the resolution 
 under which alone Slissouri was ultimately ad- 
 mitted, but by which that line was definitely 
 and finally settled. 
 
 By almost superhuman efforts, such as went 
 far to carry the most distinguished man of the 
 age to his grave, we have just extinguished a 
 conflagration that threatened the destruction of 
 the nobleat ship of State that was ever launched 
 upon the waters ; and we have scarcely had time 
 to realize the result, and exchange congratula- 
 tions on our safety, when one, more rash and 
 wild and frantic than the rest, seizes a blazing 
 torch in each hand, rushes madly into the maga- 
 zine of powder, flourishes his firebrands, aloft, 
 and, bidding defiance to all consequences, calls 
 upon us to imitate liis exanqile. Those may fol- 
 low him who choose ; but, for my own part, on 
 all such occasions, I prefer the hose to the flam- 
 bleau. I beg the South to listen and reflect 
 while the opportunity is offered. 
 
 I know that the champions of slavery in the 
 South have made every concession to freesoil- 
 ism since it came in conflict with Mr. Pierce and 
 the spoils. I know they have expressed, in pri- 
 vate, sympathy with those of the North who are 
 battling with Executive power in favor of a 
 great constitutional Southern right ; but I know 
 also that, before the public, tliey have every- 
 where, and on every trial, repudiated their na- 
 tural allies, and lent them neither "aid" nor 
 "comfort." But let them not venture to sacri- 
 fice the sacred and solemnly secured rights of the 
 South to promote the ambitious designs of selfish 
 apirants to power, nor yet with the vain hope 
 of building up the fallen fortunes of their party. 
 
 This measure of repeal is defended by some 
 on the ground that the Missouri Compromise was 
 unconstitutional, because it excluded slavery in 
 terms from the Territory "forever," and thereby 
 undertook to restrict the States that might be 
 formed out of that Territoi-y hereafter. I sub- 
 mit that those gentlemen who take this ground, 
 and make it a pretext for the repeal, are rather 
 late in making the discovery, especially those 
 who were active participants in the scenes of 
 that day, and who did not then, and have not 
 since, until now, raised a voice against it. But 
 I further respectfully submit that the word "for- 
 ever" is susceptilde of no such interpretation. 
 I'o suppose that it was intended to apjdy to the 
 Territory after it should have been formed into 
 States and passed from the authority and control 
 of Congress, would not only prove it to be un- 
 constitutional, but absurd, and the authors of it 
 as little less than idiots. Suppose the Union 
 should at any time hereafter (under such thought- 
 less legislation as is now proposed) be divided, 
 does any man in his senses suppose that the au- 
 tiiors of the Missouri Compromise intended to 
 apply its provisions to the Territory in that 
 condition, when their power should cease ? Or, 
 
suppose it became a conquered territory, how 
 could Congress then exercise jurisdiction over it? 
 Yet it might do so, in either case, with as much 
 proprietv as after it became an independent 
 State. \Vhat, then, is tlie true construction to 
 be given to this word "forever f Wliy surely 
 that limited and only sensible meaning that 
 would attach to it, or coiild have been intended 
 by the authors of the Compromise, to wit, that 
 slavery shall be prohibited ^'forever" while they. 
 Congress, had any power over it in its territorial 
 capacity; or, in other words, Congress guaran- 
 teed for itself and its successoi-s that they would 
 never attempt to legislate slavery into the Ter- 
 ritory. For illustration, it is to be interpreted 
 in the sense in whicli it is used in every deed: A 
 B conveys to C L> a certain tract or parcel of 
 land, to have and to hold to him, his heirs and 
 assigns, "forever." This does not oblige C D to 
 hold "forever," but simply transfers the title of 
 A B "forever." So Congress in this case re- 
 nounces "forever" all claim to establish slavery 
 north of 86 deg. 30 min. Give it this natural, 
 reasonable, common sense interj>retation, and the 
 argument against its constitutionality vanishes 
 into thin aii*. Yet it niay be said that the Con- 
 gress of 1820 had no right to legislate for its suc- 
 cessors. Strictly speaking, this is certainly true, 
 but the same argument would ajijdy to all com- 
 promises, and to every act of ordinary legisla- 
 tion. 
 
 As a Southern man and as a national man, I 
 should like to see this misshappen and ill-begot- 
 ten monster killed. I should rejoice to see this 
 Pandora's bo.K of evils forever buried, and I 
 would resort to any fair and legitimate means to 
 accomplish so desirable an end; and as 1 stand 
 in the presence of my ilaker, 1 will do what I 
 can to defeat it; and would say to my friends of 
 the South particularly, and to the people of the 
 country ever}- where, that their cr}' should be, 
 let the demon of discoid be strangled in its birth ! 
 Let it have no resting place for its disturbed re- 
 pose! Let it be hooted, scouted, and driven 
 from door to door like a woi-thless, pennyless, 
 beggorless thief! Let no man give it a shelter 
 from the pitiless storm! Let it die and rot upon 
 the duncrhill ! Let every lover of his country, 
 and of its peace and harmony, and good will 
 and honor, and good faith and durability, turn 
 from it with loathsome and shuddering disgust 
 as they avoid a pestilence or plague! Let him 
 treat it as a disturber of his country's peace, 
 honor, welfare, and perpetuity ! 
 
 Standing in the position that I do, asking 
 nothing, seeking nothing beyond the hope of ar- 
 resting a flood of mischief to the country, and 
 ready to encounter any and all personal sacrifices 
 to accomplish such an end, and as the best means 
 of bafifling the schemes and design of those who 
 thus rush in where "angels fear to tread," I sug- 
 gest that we should have no more patchwork le- 
 gislation, which require still further agitation 
 when this is settled ; but let it all come at once, 
 or let it all fall together. For the honor of the 
 South, to preserve her integrity and good faith, 
 I would hope that some Southern member would 
 
 ofl^er an amendment to the bill, as an additional 
 clause, to the following effect : 
 
 Be it further enacted. That so much of the 
 joint resolution of Congress as was passed on the 
 1st day of March, IS-l.'j, admitting Texas into 
 the Union, as provides for the admission of four 
 additional slave States hereafter, with the con- 
 sent of that State, to be formed out of the terri- 
 t«jry of Texas lying south of .36 d'eg. SO min., be 
 and the same is hereby repealed. 
 
 To tliis complexion it must come at last, and 
 the sooner the better, if the Jlissonri Compro- 
 mise is now to bo disturbed. No Noitliern man, 
 I presume, would vote against the amendment, 
 and with that provision in the bill I tliiiik its 
 defeat would be certain. 
 
 And then tlie question presented is this, shall 
 the flood-gates of wild fanaticism and ferocious 
 sectional antagonism be thrown wide open, or 
 shall tlioy be kept as they now are, closed against 
 all agitators, mischief-makers, and Presidential 
 combinations? 
 
 The country is tired of turmoil ; it seeks repose 
 and safety. Let us, then, all agree to let "well 
 enougli alone;" or, if the ]>reserit satisfactory and 
 peaceful relations of the different section-^ of the 
 country are to be disturbed, let the settlement, 
 whatever it may be, embrace every question of 
 sectional controversy, and leave nothing behind 
 upon which candidates for office can build up 
 their fortune at any future election. 
 
 1 am, respectful!}', yours, 
 
 JOHN M. Borre. 
 
 He.vrico, V.\., February 11, 1854. 
 
 [For the Richmond Mail.] 
 
 Letter from Mr. Botts in Befence of hi.i Position 
 
 on the Nebraska bill. 
 
 Mes.«irs. Editors: — The channels of misrepre- 
 sentation are so numerous, the instruments so 
 abundant, and the facilities open to me in thi.'» 
 citj' for correction, so limited, tliat I must ask 
 the privilege of your columns for the following 
 remarks: 
 
 A short time since, laboring under a solemn 
 conviction which has been more and more con- 
 firmed by subsequent reflection, that the pro- 
 posed repeal of the Missouri Compromise would 
 lead to the most disastrous results, especial!}- to 
 the Southern portion of the Union, by breaking 
 up all compromises and party lines, and reducing 
 the settlement of all future questions tliat might 
 arise, as well on slavery as all others, to the test 
 of sectional strength, with a majority of seven 
 millions white population against us; and that 
 tlie faith of the South was pledged to a'lliere to 
 the bargain it had made, not only in 1820, but 
 in 1852, when every congressional district of the 
 United States had been represented in two 
 national conventions, in each of which the de- 
 mand was ma le, by the unanimous voice of the 
 South, that the North should unite with us "in 
 regarding the settlement of 1850 ns final, and 
 that all attempts at renewing the agitation of 
 slavery should be discountenanced, ichercvcr, 
 
tphenever, and houxver it might be made ; whether 
 rx or OUT of Congress, and under vrnAnrsER 
 SHAPE OR COLOR it might be attempted; and that 
 this sentiment would be held essential to the 
 
 JfATIOMALITY of PARTIES and the INTEGRITY OF THE 
 
 Union ; " * and liolding this pledge as sacred and 
 inviolable, I addressed a temperate, and I hope 
 a dignified argument, to the people of the South 
 through the National Intelligencer, calling their 
 attention to the incalculable mischief that would 
 result from the violation of and departure from 
 those pledges — for which I have been assailed 
 in the most rude and violent and ferocious man- 
 ner, as if I had committed a criminal offence, 
 which merited the condemnation of every up- 
 right man. 
 
 I have been stigmatieed as "a traitor to the 
 South," as indulging in "demagogueism" and 
 "blackguardism," as manifesting "excessive im- 
 pudence and contempt of truth," as being "false 
 t» every principle,'' as having "never been true 
 to any obligation," as "a reckless adventurer 
 speculating in party, and trafficking with prin- 
 ciples," as a "tradition and not a living reality," 
 and with whatever else the wit, and ingenuity, 
 and refined taste of the editor of the Enquirer 
 could apply to me. 
 
 It will be seen by a correspondence published 
 in the columns of that paper this morning, that 
 the author of the above mentioned tirade has 
 disclaimed all intention to assail my personal 
 honor and integrity, but thinks my public course, 
 especially in opposing the Nebraska bill, with 
 its violations of all pledges, -s^i^af^^r sovereir/nty 
 and all, which was so indignantly repudiated, 
 but a short time since, by that editor and his 
 party, justified the severity of criticism in which 
 he had indulged — a sample of which I have 
 quoted above. The personal matter having 
 been satisfactorily settled between Mr. Botts and 
 Mr. Pryor privately, I have nothing to say to 
 Mr. Pryor of a personal nature — and I therefore 
 treat him, as he treated me, (though not so 
 coarsely) in \\\i, public character as conductor of 
 a public print. My public character is known 
 to the country, and I hope, somewhat more 
 highly appreciated by the public than it is by 
 the editor in question. His has yet to be formed 
 and established. Certain it is, there is great 
 room for improvement as far as it has been de- 
 veloped — and I hope he will not neglect the op- 
 portunity in his youth. 
 
 I have lived to little purpose for fifty odd 
 rears, if such terms as he has seen fit to apply 
 to me can atfect me in public esteem — even as 
 a public man, or impair the force of an argument, 
 which anj' orator or writer from the Five Points, 
 could rudely axsail, while perhaps there was not 
 one portion of it that he could ansicer. 
 
 When I ventured to lay my views on this all 
 important question before the countrj-, I was not 
 aware that what the editor of the Enquirer, 
 with his youth, inexperience, and want of 
 knowledge "had made his daily task, could be 
 construed into "vanity," "arrogance," "nrA- 
 
 'pre- 
 
 * The Whig and Democratic Tesolotions are embodied In 
 one. 
 
 sumption," and "impudence" on my part, while 
 I am fi'ee to acknowledge that if I had known as 
 little of the subject as the editor himselC and 
 was as regardless of the plighted faith of the 
 South, I would readily plead guilty to every ac- 
 cusation he has made against me. 
 
 I can the more readily, however, excuse the 
 ignorance of the editor, because I am not pre- 
 pared to say, that at his age, I knew 7nwh more 
 about public matters than he, or was much bet- 
 ter qualified to frame and lead the public mind 
 than he is now. But one thing is certain, that 
 I was willing to learn, and never had the bad 
 taste to assail a gentleman in coarse and indecent 
 languaere for his efforts to enlighten my under- 
 standing. 
 
 Having said this much, I dismiss the editor, 
 with whom I have neither the time, the taste, 
 nor inclination to bandy epithets, either in a 
 Pickwickian or other sense, with the suggestion, 
 that if my letter convicts me of treason to the 
 South, it would be more becoming, and far more 
 convincing, to prove it to the South, by publish- 
 ing the letter itself, which good policy, a sense 
 of justice, and fair dealing, as it seems to me, 
 alike demand. His readers might like to have 
 the opportunity of judging for themselves, 
 whether he or I best understand what cours* 
 it becomes their honor and their interests to 
 pursue : M)d as I do not want to ask favors, 1 
 will pay, at advertising prices, for the publica- 
 tion of 'that letter and of this in the columns ot 
 the Enquirer, and thus become the publisher ol 
 my own shame, if they convict me of want ol 
 loyalty to the South. "So much for the editoi 
 and his editorial. 
 
 I am not done with the Ntbraska bill, how 
 ever. "When I go to a fire, it is to help to ex- 
 tinguish the destructive element — and so, when 
 I present myself before the public, it is to endea- 
 vor to arrest an evil. Any body can float upon 
 a popular current, and there are few public men 
 who do not delight in the exercise, and it would 
 be more agreeable to me than to resist it. Bui 
 it requires a strong will, a high degree of patriot- 
 ism, a steady nerve, and moral courage, and a 
 self-sacrificing spirit, to throw one's self against it, 
 to breast the storm of prejudice or error; to bare 
 one's bosom to the shafts of calumny and misrep- 
 resentation, and make himself a target for hie 
 enemies, that he may protect his friends. It i« 
 not the first time that I have been condemned 
 for rashness, nor will this be the fii-st time that 
 the people will awake to the truth of what I 
 have told them. 
 
 In due time I will fortify every point I have 
 made. I will show by the record, that the Mis- 
 souri Compromise was a limitation or restriction 
 on slavery to the line of 36 deg. 30 min. imposed 
 by th^ South upon itself as the price of peace 
 and union ; that out of twenty-four Senators that 
 voted for it, twenty were from the South, and 
 four only from the North, while only two south- 
 ern Senators, with eighteen northern Senator^ 
 voted against it ; and that in the House, out of 
 seventy-seven southern Representatives, only- 
 thirty -seven voted against it. I will show that 
 the South, up to January, 1854, have pertina- 
 
ciouslj insisted on maintaining that line, and ex- 
 tending it to our western border; that every 
 Southern Senator — Atchinson, Badger, Bell, Ber- 
 rien, Borland, Butler, Calhoun, Davis of Missis- 
 sippi, Downs, Foote, Hunter, Johnson of Mai'y- 
 land, Johnson of Georgia, Johnson of Louisiana, 
 Lewis, Mangum, Mason, Metcalf^ Pearce, Rusk, 
 Sebastian, Turnej, Underwood, Westcott, and 
 Yulee — not only voted for, but struggled to 
 carry out that [novj unconstitutional) line as late 
 as 18-18. I will show that the Compromise of 
 1850 did not repeal or "render inoperative" 
 the Compromise of 1820, and that no man under- 
 stood it so. I will show that the people ratified 
 it in 1852, and I will show that Mr. Douglas, in 
 the early part of the present session of Congress, 
 reported from the same committee that brings in 
 this Nebraska bill, that the Compromise of 1850 
 did not touch the Compromise of 1820, and also 
 reported against a departure from the compro- 
 mise line of .36 deg. 80 min. now. 
 
 I will show that while there must of necessity 
 be both Slave and Free States as long a* the 
 Union lasts, that is better to have a straight 
 line, with all the Slave States on one side, and 
 the Free States on the other, than to have a 
 crooked line with the Free and the Slave States 
 intermixed, especially when that straight line 
 has been recognised by and familiarized to the 
 whole country for thirty odd years. I will 
 show that the South is contending for an ab- 
 straction, that if it did them no harm, can do 
 them no good, and is not worth the peace it has 
 already disturbed; and I will show that there 
 id neither necessity nor propriety in organizing 
 a Territorial government for Nebraska, which, 
 with about 31,500,000 acres, is inhabited exclu- 
 sively by about thirty tribes of Indians ; and I 
 will show by public documents, that in the 
 month of October last, there were but three 
 white men settled in all Nebraska, exce])t some 
 few who had intermarried with the Indians ; 
 and I will further show, upon the authority of 
 the President of the Senate, that by our treat}- 
 stipulations not one foot of Nebraska is open 
 for settlement by the white man ; and all this 
 will serve to show that there are other and con- 
 cealed objects at the foundation of this move- 
 ment. 
 
 The South professes to despise Mr. Seward as 
 its worst enemy. I tell the South, that every 
 man who helps to destroy the Compromise of 
 1820, is unwittingly engaged in the service of 
 Mr. Seward. He is uniting the North as one 
 man ou a sectional issue in which their pride 
 and principle is as much involved as ours, and 
 which will throw them all into the ranks of Mr. 
 Seward. You will have no more national whig- 
 gery ; no more national democracy ; no more 
 "hard shells," nor hunkers, nor adamantines. 
 You make them all frecsoilers, soft shells, and 
 barnburners; and he who cannot see this — he 
 who cannot see the dark spirit of disunion lurk- 
 ing around this bill — is not, in my judgment, a 
 far-sighted man. In my opinion, no sectional 
 strife we have ever had will begin to compare 
 with it, either in intensity or duration. 
 
 I call no man traitor to the South. I believe 
 
 the South has no traitors within her borders, 
 w-ho are Southern born. But there is a popular 
 delusion and a popular error, which will be seen 
 and felt whenever this Nebraska bill shall be- 
 come a law. The misfortune is, that the South- 
 ern press is all committed and closed against ar- 
 gument and reason ou this question. 
 
 An open field, a free press, and fair discussion, 
 is all 1 would ask to encounter any opposition, 
 and answer every argument that has been or 
 can be made in vindication of the pending 
 measure. 
 
 Respectfully, 
 
 JNO. M. BOTTB. 
 
 Henrico county, Va., Feb. 24, 1854. 
 
 [For the National Intelligpncer.J 
 Another Letter from Mr. Botts. 
 
 Messrs. Gales & Seaton : — Finding myself dif' 
 fering so widely from most of ray friends, em" 
 bracing, as we are told, every Whig Senator o^ 
 the South, I have been brought to j(/iuse upon 
 the position I have taken, and to examine, with 
 the best judgment I can command, the grounds 
 I have assumed, with a determination that, if I 
 was convinced I was wrong, no pride of opinion 
 or consistency should restrain me from making a 
 candid acknowledgment of my error, which I 
 take to be the rarest evidence of moral courage 
 that a public man can exhibit. But rertection 
 has only served to rivet my convictions; and the 
 more I examine the subject the more am I con- 
 firmed in tlie belief that the good faith, as well 
 as the interests of the South and the quiet and 
 peace of the country, requires that the Compro- 
 mise of 1820 should remain undisturbed, and I 
 think I can fortify every position I took in my 
 former letter, published in your paper of the 
 16th instant. 
 
 The misfortune Is that so large a portion of 
 the Southern press have followed the lead of 
 Southern Senators, that little opportunity is fur- 
 nished for a free discussion of the question, as 
 the columns of nearly all the Southern papers 
 are closed against the views of those who are 
 opposed-to disturbing the Compromise. 
 
 What is the nature of the Slissouri Compro- 
 mise? At the time of its adoption a bitter sec- 
 tional feeling sprung up between the North and 
 the South in relation to the admission of Mis- 
 souri as a State, the North insisting that slavery 
 should be prohibited, and the South contending 
 for its admission, with the right to hold slaves 
 recognised in their constitution. At that time 
 the House of Representatives was composed of 
 one hundred and eighty -two members, of which 
 one hundred and five were from the Free States, 
 andjseventy-seven from the Slave States; making 
 a majority of twenty-seven on the part of the 
 North. The contest between the two rival sec- 
 tions was so protracted, and determined, and 
 angry, that a dissolution of the Union seemed 
 almost inevitable, and every patriotic heart 
 throbbed with apprehension for the result. Mr. 
 Jefferson, in a letter dated February 'Zth, 1820, 
 which was read by a member of the House in 
 his place, said ; 
 
"I thank you for your infonnation on the pro- 
 gress and prospects of the Missouri question. It 
 is the most portentous one which ever yet 
 threatened our Union. In the gloomiest moment 
 of the revolutionary war I never had any appre- 
 hensions equal to that I feel from this source." 
 
 This was the condition of the public mind 
 evei-ywhere. The North had the numerical 
 strength, and seemed determined to exercise the 
 power of restricting the extension of shivery, 
 and of opposing the admission of any more Slave 
 States, when, on the 6th of March, it was finally 
 agreed that the North should surrender their 
 claim to the restriction of slavery' in the State, 
 and that Missouri should be admitted as a Slave 
 State, on condition that slaverj^ should there- 
 after be limited to the line of '36 deg. 30 min. 
 north latitude in all the territory then belonging 
 to the United States west of 'the Mississippi. 
 It was a limitation or restriction that the South 
 agreed to impose upon itself that it would never 
 ask to carry shivery beyond that line, it being 
 of course understood that all the territory south 
 of that line was open to slarery, out of which 
 Slave States might be formed. This bill was 
 carried in the Senate by a vote of 24 ayes to 20 
 noes, AmoniT the 24- affirmative votes were 
 
 1854-, that Compromise, now so much derided in 
 the South, and for upholding wJiich we are stig- 
 matized as traitors to the Soutli, and which, as 
 I have shown, was carried by Southern votes, 
 was held to carry with it a moral force and ob- 
 ligation, almost, if not quite, as sacred as the Con- 
 stitution itself. Matters rested in this way until 
 the year 1845, when the Texas question was be- 
 fore Congress. Numberless resolutions and pro- 
 positions were before the House. Among them 
 was one offered by Mr. Brown, of Tennessee, 
 which proposed to extend the Missouri Compro- 
 mise line of 36 deg. 30 min. to the State of Texas, 
 in the following words: 
 
 "And such States as may be formed out of 
 that portion of said territory lying south of 36 
 deg. 30 min. north latitude, commonly known as 
 the Missouri Compromise line, shall be admitted 
 into the Union with or without slaveiy, as the 
 people of each State asking admission may de- 
 cide." 
 
 Mr. Douglas (the present chairman of the 
 Committee on Territories in the Senate) asked 
 the gentleman from Tennessee to accept the fol- 
 lowing as a modification of llis amendment, to 
 come in after the last clause: 
 
 And in such States as shall be formed out of 
 
 Barbour and Pleasants, of Virginia, Brown and said territory north of said Missouri Compromise 
 Johnson, of Louisiana, Eaton and Williams, of line slavery or involuntary servitude, except for 
 Tennessee, Elliott and Walker, of Georgia, Gal- | crime, shall be prohibited." 
 
 liard, of South Carolina, Johnson and Logan, of 
 Kentuckj-, Lloyd and Piuckney, of Maryland, 
 King, (the late Wm. R.,) and Walker, o"f Ala- 
 bama, Leake and Williams, of Mississippi, Van 
 Dyke and Ilorser, of Delaware, and Stokes, of 
 North Carolina, making 20 Southern Senators 
 and 4 from the North. Mr. Macon, of North 
 Carolina, and ISIr. Smith, of South Carolina, 
 were the only two Southern Senators who voted 
 against that bill, while only four Northern Sen- 
 ators voted for it, and eighteen against it; and 
 when it went to the House of Representatives it 
 passed that body by a vote of 134 to 42 — 40 
 Soutliern Represensatives voting for it and 37 
 against it. Thus was the Compromise of 1820 
 brought about. And the history of that daj' 
 will show that it was not only regarded as a 
 Southern measure, but a great triumph for the 
 South, the most distinguished men of the Soutli 
 being its chief advocates, including Mr. Lowndes, 
 of South Carolina, and Mr. Piuckney, Mr. Wm. 
 Smith, Mr. Louis McLane, and others. But 
 when the constitution of Missouri was formed as 
 authorized by that act, and asked for admission 
 as a State, it was resisted by the Nortli, but not 
 on the ground of slavery, but because of a feature 
 in the constitution which related to the exclu- 
 sion of free negroes, who were in most of the Free 
 States regarded as citizens of the United States. 
 This led to another fiei'ce struggle, whicli was 
 ultimately settled by a joint resolution of Con- 
 gress, in substance making it obligatory on the 
 Legislature not to pass an^-law inconsistent with 
 the Constitution of the United States, which, as 
 lias been justly observed, Mr. Clay always 
 laughed at as serving to show how easily tiie 
 North was satisfied at last. 
 
 Mr. Brown accepted the modification. 
 
 The question being taken (in Committee of the 
 Whole) on Mr. Brown's resolution as modified, 
 it was passed. 
 
 The committee rose and repoi-ted the resolu- 
 tion to the House, where it was adopted: ayes 
 120, noes 98 — every Southern Democrat in the 
 House voting for it. The Whigs generally voted 
 against the entire resolution, being opposed to 
 annexation on any terms by joint resolution. 
 Thus was the Missouri Compi-omise line, after 
 the lapse of twenty-five years, again adopted by 
 the South, and by the motion of Mr. Douglas 
 made to apply not only to the Territories, but 
 to the States north of 36 deg. 30 min. 
 
 At a subsequent period — to wit, in 1848 — after 
 we had settled the Oregon difficult}', and ac- 
 quii'cd other possessions on the Pacific, (Califor- 
 nia,) the South made repeated efforts to extend 
 this line of 36 deg. 30 min. to our extreme west- 
 ei-n limits, as constituting the barrier between 
 the Free and the Slave States. The question 
 thus voted for in the Senate is in the following 
 words: 
 
 "That the line of 36 deg. 30 min. of north la- 
 titude, known as the Missouri Conqiromise line, 
 as defined by the eighth section of an act enti- 
 tled 'an act,' Ac, approved March 6, 1820, be 
 and tlie same is hereby declared to extend to the 
 Pacific ocean ; and the said eighth sectioil, toge- 
 ther with the compromise therein effected, is 
 hereby revived and declared to bo in full force 
 and binding for the further organization of the 
 Territories of the United States, in the same 
 sense and with the same understanding with 
 which it was originally adopted." 
 
 The vote stood, in the atiirmative: Atchison, 
 
 From that day down to the month of Januarj', I Badger, Bell, Berrien, Benton, Borland, Bright 
 
10 
 
 Butler, Calhoun, Cameron, Davis of Mississippi, 
 Dickinson, Douglas, Downs, Fitzgerald, Foot, 
 Hannegan, Houston-, Hunter, Johnson of Mary- 
 land, Johnson of Georgia, Johnson of Louisiana, 
 King, Lewis, Mangum, Mason, Metcalf, Pearce, 
 Sebastian, Sprnance, Sturgeon, Turneg, and Un- 
 derwood; every Southern Senator present voting 
 for it. It was passed and sent to the House, 
 ■where it was stricken out, every Soutliern mem- 
 ber voting to retaia it, and the North substitut 
 ing the Wihnot proviso in lieu of it. 
 
 So likewise in 1850 every effort was made by 
 the South to extend the line of 36 deg. 30 niin. 
 to the Pacific. The North refused it. Why did 
 the South desire to exclude slavery north of that 
 line, but that by the restriction upon it up to 
 that line it was, hx the Compromise of 18'20, 
 secured to the territory south of that line? And 
 why did the North resist the extension of slavery 
 north of 36 deg. 30 min., but that it secured 
 slavery to all territory south of that line ? And 
 it is but a poor excuse for the position now as- 
 sumed by Southern Representatives, for declar- 
 ing inoperative the com))act of 1820, that Nortli- 
 ern gentlemen refused to extend the line hei/ond 
 the territory to which it in terms applied at the 
 time of its adoption. 
 
 But, coming down to a later period still, what 
 has been the action of the South that binds them 
 in honor and good faith promptly to reject the 
 proposition now pending? In 1852, the Demo- 
 cratic party of every Congressional district in 
 the United States was rej)resented in a National 
 Convention in Baltimore. What was the de- 
 mand then made by the South and adopted or 
 acquiesced in by the North? Let me refresh 
 the recollections of the forgetful. One of the 
 resolutions then adopted reads thus: 
 
 "Rtsolocd, That the Democratic pai-ty will resist 
 all attempts at renewing, in Congress or out of it, 
 the agitation of the slavery question, under what- 
 ever shape or color the attempt may be made." 
 
 Was this a pledge of faith and honor to each 
 other between the Democracy of the South and 
 the Democrac}- of the North? Are Southern 
 Democratic Representatives now found resisting 
 the agitation of this question, either in Congress 
 or oiit of it ? It is not enough to sav that it is 
 presented by the North ; for, in the fii-st place, 
 the North has not presented it. Mr. Douglas is 
 not the North ; and it is known that no one 
 Northern State is in favor of it. Why is Mr. 
 Douglas any more the North than Sir. Everett, 
 Mr. Seward, Mr. Fish, Mr. Sumner, or Mr. Chase? 
 He does not represent as large a constituency as 
 either of them, and, from the indications latel}' 
 furnished from public meetings is his own State, 
 he cannot be supposed to represent the views of 
 his own constituents. If one has a right to agi- 
 tate, so has every other ; but no matter by whom, 
 or from what quarter, or in what shape or color 
 it is presented, the Democracy of the nation stands 
 pledged to resist it. Are they now maintaining 
 their plighted faith and honor by the counte- 
 nance they are giving to the agitation in Congress 
 and throughout the country ? This, however, is 
 not 80 much a matter of surprise. But wliere 
 stands the Whig party; that great conservative, 
 
 national. Union party? What has become of its 
 pledges and its faith ? 
 
 Within a few weeks after the action of the 
 Democratic Convention just referred to, another 
 National Convention was held, in which the 
 Whigs of every Congressional district in the 
 Union were fully represented. What did they 
 do ? Need they be reminded that before the 
 Whigs of the South would consent to co-operate 
 with their fellow-Whigs of the North in making 
 a Presidential nomination they drew up a plat- 
 form, the acceptance of which they imperatively 
 demanded of the North, and which was voted 
 for by every Southern member of the body? 
 And need they be reminded that in that plat- 
 form is to be found the following declaration ? 
 
 "The series of acts of the 31st Congress, com- 
 monly known as the compromise or adjustment, 
 (the act for tlie recover}' of fugitives from labor 
 included,) are received and acquiesced in by the 
 Whigs of the United States as a. final settlement, 
 in principle and substance, of the subjects to 
 which they relate ; and, so far as these acts are 
 concerned, we will maintain them and insist on 
 their strict enforcement, until time and expe- 
 rience .shall demonstrate the necessity of further 
 legislation to guard against the evasion of the 
 laws on the one hand, and the abuse of their 
 powers on the other, not impairing their present 
 efficiency to carry out the requirements of the 
 Constitution ; and we deprecate all further agi- 
 tation of the questions thus settled as dangerous 
 to our peace, and will discountenance all efforts 
 to continue or renew such agitation (agitation of 
 what?) whenever, wherever, or however made; 
 and we will maintain this settlement as essential 
 to the nationalitj'' of the Whig party and the in- 
 tegrity of the Union." 
 
 And now we see the whole question of slavery 
 thrown open, in Congress and out of it, and gen- 
 tlemen who were in that Convention, not only 
 voting for that resolution, but requiring and de- 
 manding a similar vote from the North, are stig- 
 matizing those who do not aid in the agitation 
 as being unfaithful to party obligations and 
 Southern interests. Upon this point I am un- 
 willing to give utterance to what I think and 
 feel. The nationality of the Whig party is 
 overthrown, and the integrity of the Union is 
 surrendered. As a member of that Convention 
 I voted for that resolution, and before high 
 Heaven I will stand hj it and maintain it, if I 
 stand alone; and I feel that my honor and truth 
 might be called in question if I departed from it. 
 
 In the last Congress Mr. Sumner, of Massachu- 
 setts, (who was not a member of either Conven- 
 tion,) proposed a repeal of the fugitive slave law. 
 He had come under no obligations,and was bound 
 by no pledges. But has any body in Washing- 
 ton forgotten the feeling it excited in every 
 breast at the effort to revive the agitation of the 
 question of slavery ? Let us suppose such a pro- 
 position had been made by any member who had 
 been in either of the National Conventions, and 
 voting for the resolutions above and demanding 
 it of others, what would have then been said 
 and thought ? 
 
 But we are told that the Compromise of 1850 
 
11 
 
 repealed in effect and rendered inoperntive tlie 
 Crtiuin'Oinise of 1820. How and in wliat manner 
 was this done? Surely it cannot be contended 
 bj- any logical mind that the refusal of the North 
 in 1850 to do more than had been agreed on in 
 1820 released either party from the oblit^ation 
 entered into in lS-20. That the line of 36 dci;. 
 30 mill, had not been carried beyoTid the terri- 
 toi'3' then held by the United States, to wit: the 
 territory acquired from France in 1803, is mani- 
 fest from the efi'orts then and repeatedly before 
 made to extend it to the Pacific. But suppose 
 the Territorial bill for Utah, which lies north of 
 36 deg. 30 min., and whidi provided for the ad- 
 mission of Ulah as a Slave State, (if it should ask 
 for admi.ssion on such terms,) ?"asinconsistont with 
 or in violation of the principle of the Missouri 
 Comprojnise, the violation of a compact or biw 
 does not repeal the compact or the law, or ren- 
 der either inoperative, or null, or void. A great 
 fundamental principle had been established in 
 1820 that the entire country had regarded for 
 thirty years as a compact almost as binding as 
 the Constitution itself. Can it be seriously con- 
 tended by grave and sensible men that any sub- 
 sequent inconsiderate legislation on a different 
 subject (as Utah ■« as from Nebraska) inconsistent 
 with that great fundamental principle rendered 
 the principle itself or the compact inoperative 
 or void? Was it designed to repeal or render 
 inoperative the law of 1820? Has there been 
 found one solitary member of either body of 
 Congress in 1850 who has said he understood, at 
 the time be voted for or against those measures, 
 that they were intended to repeal or disturb the 
 Compromise of 1820? Not one, I believe, although 
 the question has been frequently put in debate. 
 
 When was the discovery first made? A bill 
 for "organizing a Territorial Goveininent for Ne- 
 braska was before the last Congress; no such 
 idea was then presented; and even at the pre- 
 sent session ISIr. Douglas, as chairman of the same 
 committee that presents the Nebraska bill now 
 pending, made a report to the Senate in refer- 
 ence to this verj" Nebraska Territory, in which 
 it is expressly declared that the Compromise of 
 1850 had not disturbed the Compromise of 1820, 
 and tliat it was not expedient to do so now. — 
 Here is the language of tliat report. Speaking 
 of the right to introduce alaverj- into the Terri- 
 tories it says : 
 
 "Your committee do not feel themselves called 
 upon to enter into the discussion of tliese contro- 
 verted (piestions. They involve the same grave 
 issues which produci;d the agitation, the sectional 
 strife, and the fearful struggle of 1850. As Con- 
 gress deemed it jmideid to refrain from deciding 
 Vie matter in controversi/ then, eitlier by repeal- 
 ing or affirniing the Mexican laAvs, or by an act 
 declaratory of the true intention of the Consti- 
 tution and the extent of protection afforded by 
 it to slave property in the Territories, so your 
 committee are not prepared now to recommend 
 a departure from the course pursued on that me- 
 morable occasion, cither by affirming or repealing 
 the eighth section of the Misscntri act, or by any 
 act declaratory of the meaning of the Constitution 
 in reitpeci to the legal points in dixpute." 
 
 Here, tli^n, in the early part of the present 
 session of Congress, iu the opinion of Mr. Doug- 
 las and his Committee, the Compromise of 1850 
 not only did not repeal or render inoperative 
 the Compromise of 1820, but Congress deemed it 
 prudent then to refrain from deciding the matter 
 in controversy, and the committee thought it 
 would be unwise to recommend a departure from 
 the course then pursued; and the country will 
 now, as at that time they did, concur in this 
 opinion. But now, forsootli ! it is gravely, bold- 
 ly, audaciously asserted by that same committee 
 that the acts of Comj)romise in 1850 did what 
 the Congress of 1850 not only deemed it inexpe- 
 dient to do, but actually refrained from doing, 
 to wit : repealed or rendered the Compromise of 
 1820 ino]>erative, null, and void. Now, suppose 
 by a strict construction this could be made to 
 appear, 1 claim to avail myself of the testimony 
 of Mr. Douglas and his five associates on that 
 committee, each One of whom was in Congress 
 in 1850, except Mr. Everett, (whose opinion, 
 however, we have on this point,) to prove that 
 there was no such purpose or design, and that it 
 was an unintentional and inconsiderate act, and 
 they did not so understand it at the time ; for, 
 when called on to testify in the month of Janua- 
 ry last, thej'^ all testified that Congress had re- 
 frained from doing what it is now testified Con- 
 gress did do. I will not impeach the credibility 
 of the witnesses, but I do impeach the validity 
 of the testimony. It was not then understood 
 to be an Administration measure, as it is now ; 
 and what 'inei.ghty arguments, what soporific or 
 stupifying influences may have been brought to 
 operate this extraordinary change in the views 
 of the committee I neither know nor care to 
 know ; but we have the right to demand of that 
 committee, (they are our agents, not our masters,) 
 we have the right to demand of them, when, where, 
 how was this extraordinary change produced ou 
 their minds in reference to the acts of 1850. 
 
 vSuch is tlie difKcnlty and embarrassment sur- 
 rounding those who vindicate this bill that the 
 abilities of the soundest lawyer, and generally 
 the most logical reasoner of the Soiithci-n Whigs 
 in the Senate, (a gentleman for \\lu)m I have 
 great esteem and regard,) are enqdoyed to show 
 that it would be improjjer ("neither eoi'rect nor 
 just") to ^'repeal" the Missouri compromise, and 
 that the honorable chairman of the committee 
 had hit the nail precisely on the head when he 
 avoided the exjiression " is repealed," and sub- 
 stituted for it the words "declared inoperative 
 and void ;" and yet in the same sentence he pro- 
 ceeds to say that "in the courts below that pro- 
 vision effects a rej>eal, and it is just as legitimate 
 a mode of effecting a repeal of a law to declare 
 it void as to say it is hereby repeale<l." If this 
 is not tweedledee and tweetlieduin I do not know 
 what is. The same honorable gentleman (and 
 he will pardon me for the freedom of comment- 
 ing on his speech, as it is the only one that I 
 have seen in favor of the measure tliat presents 
 a claim to an argument of the question) has 
 taken infinite pains, in much the larger portion 
 of liis speech, to prove, what 1 have undertaken 
 to show here, that thcMissouri Compromise line 
 
12 
 
 has always been a favorite line with the South ; 
 that we have pertinaciously adhered to it and 
 sought to extend it; and that if he showed in- 
 consistency on the part of Mr. Suraner and Mr 
 Chase, and others of the North, in refusing to 
 extend it beyond its former limits, he much more 
 clearly showed his own inconsistency and the 
 inconsistency of the South in now endeavoring 
 to get rid of it witliin the limits to which it was 
 originalh' confined, when it is claimed by him 
 and all tlie South, and not denied bv any who 
 have spoken from the North, that tlie Compro- 
 mise iviplicdly admits slavery to all tl)e territory 
 south of 36 deg. 30 rain. 
 
 These are the principal points made in the 
 Bpeech to which I refer, until it conies 1o the 
 queSition of slavery as in institution. To all 
 that part of it I yield m}- hearty acquiescence. 
 It is the language of one who understands the 
 subject; it is the language of one who is carried 
 away by no u-ild fanaticism ; of one whose brain 
 has not been thrown off its balance and frenzied 
 by the mischievous interference of Northern 
 Abolitionists. He reasons with the North, with 
 a calm, deliberate philosophy and statesman- 
 sliip, on the peculiaritj^ of our condition, and on 
 a necessity wliich could not be avoided, even 
 were it desirable; wliich is calculated to do 
 much good in the Nortii, and is in that respect 
 so far different from the inflammatory declama- 
 tions of the young "Hotspurs" of the South, 
 that, for one, I take this occasion to thank him 
 for the good taste and good sense it displays. 
 
 There is but one passage in that portion of 
 the speech to which I would reply. He says: 
 "I have no more idea of a slave population in 
 either of tliem (Kansas and Nebraska) than I 
 have of seeing it in Massachusetts; not a whit." 
 Then let me ask Mr. Badger, " cui bono?" Why, 
 for what purpose, does he propose to stir up the 
 civil discord that by this time he must have 
 seen must ensue ? It is so unlike him and all 
 his antecedents that I confess my amazement 
 and regret at his present position. I praj- that 
 he may see the great mistake he has made, and 
 that the generosity and magnanimity of his na- 
 ture, and his love of peace and harmony, may yet 
 {prevail to change him from his purpose. When 
 le says, "I would to God that they would be 
 disposed to enfold me and mine, as I am the 
 whole of ni}' Nortiiern brethren, if they would 
 permit it, in the arms of a fraternal and per- 
 petual concord." I know he spoke the senti- 
 ment warm from his heart; he felt it then, he 
 feels it now, and has he not perceived that the 
 disturbance of the compact of 1820 is not the 
 way to accomplish his object? A wise man, a 
 good man, and a great man will always take 
 delight and pride in turning back when he finds 
 himself in error. How many are there now in 
 Congress who would turn back if they had the 
 moral courage to do so after committal? But 
 Mr. Badger gravely says : 
 
 " It is possible some gentlemen may go there 
 and take a few domestic servants with them ; 
 and I would say that if these domestic servants 
 were faithful and good ones, and the masters 
 did not take them with them, the masters would 
 
 deserve the reprobation of all good men. Would 
 you have me to take the servants who wait 
 upon me, and live with me, and to whom I have 
 as strong attachments as to any human being 
 on earth, out of my own immediate blood rela- 
 tions, and, because I want to move to Kansas, 
 put them in the slave market and sell them? 
 Sir, I would suffer my right arm to be cut off 
 before I would do it. Why, therefore, if some 
 Southern gentleman wishes to take the nurse 
 that takes charge of the little baby, or the old 
 woman tliat nursed him in childhood, and whom 
 he called "ilamray" until he returned from col- 
 lege, and perhaps afterwards too, and whom he 
 wishes to take with him in her old age, when 
 he is moving into one of these Territories for 
 the betterment of the fortunes of his whole 
 family, why, in the name of God, should any 
 body prevent it?" 
 
 This jiassage in Mr. Badger's speech is calcu- 
 lated to excite a good deal of angr}' prejudice in 
 the minds of many families in the Soutii, (most 
 of whom have such domestics as are here de- 
 scribed,) and between whom and the family i 
 strong attachments exist. But I would answer 
 it by saying, 1st, that such a case would be a 
 very insuflicient reason for disturbing an ancient 
 settlement of a sectiornil quarrel; 2d. That I 
 would nuich sooner see a master and his mammy 
 separated than the North and the South alie- 
 nated; 3d. That there could be no necessity for 
 such separation, and it would be the master's 
 choice if it was occasioned, as there were plenty 
 of other places for the master to carry his mam- 
 my and his nurse ; 4th. That nobody, not even, 
 the Missouri Compromise, imposes any such ne- 
 cessity, as you may now carry your mammy or 
 your nurse into any State or Territory of the 
 Union with perfect safety, if such attachment 
 exists, and they desire to livetogetlier, as I car- 
 ried the nurse of my children with them to New 
 York, and remained for several weeks last sum- 
 mer; and, lastly, tliat the master, his mammy, 
 and liis nurse might all go to the devil if they 
 could not find room enough elsewhere in tliis 
 broad land to satisfy them, without kicking up 
 a rumpus, and exciting all the angry passions of 
 our nature, and arraying one-half the country 
 in sectional strife against the other. 
 
 Now, to come back to the Compromise of 1850. 
 Suppose the authority extended to Utah (which 
 is north of 36° 30') to be admitted as a Slave 
 State is inconsistent with the principles of the 
 compromise of 1820, which excluded slavery from 
 all territory lying north of that line which we 
 then held ; why should the South complain of 
 this, and make it the pretext for repealing the 
 Compromise itself? The advantage was all on 
 our side ; tlie admission of Utah on such terms 
 was a Southern act ; we obtained a privilege, 
 which would have been denied by tlie Compro- 
 mise of 1820; the line of 36° 3o', which is the 
 dividing line between New Mexico and Utah, is 
 extended to the eastern border of California; 
 but the principle has been departed from by 
 authorizing slavery in New Mexico, which is 
 south, and extending the same princij)le to Utah, 
 which is north, of 36° 3u'; and now this advau- 
 
13 
 
 tage on the part of the So\ith is declared to be 
 a repeal of the Missouri Compromise, and is to 
 result in a breakinir up of all ctunpacts and com- 
 promises between the North and the South ! 
 
 It has becu a cherished idea with many South- 
 ern men that California was to l)e divided at 
 some future day by the line of 30° SO', and the 
 southern portion of it admitted as a Slave State. 
 Perhaps 3-ou will get the Korth to consent to 
 the division (which it must be recollected cannot 
 be done without the consent of Congress) after 
 this Compromise of 1820 is abrogated ; but, to 
 tise a familiar Xorthera expression, '^ you'd better 
 believe you cait't." 
 
 So likewise in regard to the admission of the 
 four Slave States out of the territory of Texas. 
 The South may say, aye, that is a compact be- 
 tween the United States and Texas. The North 
 answers, you had no constitutional power to 
 admit foreign States by a legislative act or joint 
 resolution; but, if you had, where did Congress 
 get the right to make a compact on a question 
 upon which you say Congress has no right to 
 legislate? The general power of legislation by 
 Congress is admitted ; the right of Congress to 
 admit foreign States into the Union is denied. 
 Tlie treaty-making power alone can acquire for- 
 eign territory', and then Congress may admit; 
 but can Congress accomplish that by compact 
 whieii by the Constitution Congress is prohibit- 
 ed from "(egislativg upon ? The South had better 
 be hunting up the lawj-er that is to answer this 
 pregnant question when it occurs: If Congress 
 cannot legislate, cau it trade upon slavery ? 
 
 But has any necessity been shown for organiz- 
 ing Territorial Governments for Nebraska and 
 Kansas at this time? Is there not a manifest 
 absence of authority and -want of propriety in 
 doing so I And are there any there to govern 
 or be governed if we had the authoritj' ? 
 
 I must call attention to the report made on 
 the 9th day of November last, 1853, by Mr. 
 George "VV. Manypennj', the Commissioner of 
 Indian Affairs, who was sent by the Govern- 
 ment expressly to explore the Nebraska Terri- 
 torj'-, and for'the purpose of procuring the as- 
 sent of the different tribes of Indians to the set- 
 tlement of the Territory by citizens of the Uni- 
 ted States, and for the purpose of extinguishing 
 the titles of the various Indian tribes, (amount- 
 ing to some thirty ir. number,) to whom the 
 fafth and honor and liumanity of the nation 
 stands pledged to protect in "their rights for 
 lands elsewhere surrendered by them. In speak- 
 ing of the feelings of the different tribes when he 
 reached Nebraska, he says: 
 
 "Many of them were contemplating the neces- 
 sity of defending themselves, and the proposition 
 was abroad among some of the Indians for a 
 grand c(uincil, at which tliey should (as one s.iid 
 to me) 'light up their fires after the old Indian 
 fashion' and confederate for defeiice. 
 
 "From the time the original Indian title to 
 the country was extinguished under the author- 
 ity of the act of 28th May, 1830, and the tribes 
 transplanted from the States and Territories east 
 of the Mississippi and located in it, until after 
 the adjournment of the last Congress, it had 
 
 always been considered a country set apart and 
 dedicated to Indian use and purposes ; and it 
 was equally well understood before tliat time 
 that no person other than an Indian could reside 
 there except hj permission of the Government 
 and for a specific purpose. 
 
 "The enunciation, therefore, of the opinion 
 that the country was open to occupation and 
 settlement at the time it was promulgated was 
 most unfortunate. 
 
 " Congress had just before, by net of the 3d of 
 March, directed the President to enter into nego- 
 tiations with the Indian tribes west of the States 
 of Missouri and Iowa, for the purpose of securing 
 the assent of said tribes to the settlement of the cit- 
 izens of the United States upon the lands claimed 
 by them, and for the purpose of extinguishing 
 their title to these lands in whole or in part. 
 
 "I found it very difHcult to quiet the Indians, 
 and was unable fully to restore some of these 
 people to the tranquil condition they were ia 
 before this discussion of the subject and explora- 
 tion of their country commenced. 
 
 " In many councils the effect of this enuncia- 
 tion was evident, and in some instances I was 
 unable, while in council, to obtain the calm con- 
 sideration of the Indians to the subject-matter 
 of my talk, owing to the excited state of their 
 minds, resulting from apprehensions tJiat their 
 country was about to be taken from them without 
 their consent and without any consideration being 
 paid them for it ; and some even supposed that the 
 object of my visit was toi"avor such a design. 
 
 "As I progressed in my journey, and the coun- 
 cils which I held with various tribes increased 
 in number, I was happy to perceive a better 
 state of feeling ; a willingness to listen, to be 
 advised, and an assurance of confidence and de- 
 pendanee on their Great Father, and a determi- 
 nation to receive favorably the message I bore 
 from him to them. 
 
 , " While in the Indian country I held councils 
 with the Omalias, Ottoes and Missourias, Sacs 
 and Foxes of Missouri, Kiekapoos, Dolawares, 
 Wyandotts, Shawnees, Pottawatomies, Sacs and 
 Foxes of the Mississippi, Chippewas of Swan 
 creek and Black river, Ottowas, Peorias and 
 KaSkaskias, Weas and Piankashaws, and Jliamis, 
 I ^was desirious of seeing and talking witli the 
 Pawnees, Kansas, Osages, Quapaws, Seiiecas, and 
 Shawnees and Senecas, but found it impossible to 
 do so without spending more time in the country 
 than was deemed consistent with my duties at 
 Washington, in view of the near approach of the 
 meeting of Congress. 
 
 "The aggregate population of the tribes with 
 whom I held council, according to the best data, 
 is 11,384 souls, and the aggregate (piantitv of 
 land held by them is estimated at 13,220,480 
 acres, or about 920 acres to each soul. 
 
 "The aggregate population of tiie Pawnees, 
 Kansas, Osages, Quapaws, Seneeas, and Shaw- 
 nees and Senecas, according to the same data, is 
 11,597 souls, and the aggregate quantity of land 
 held by them is estimated at 18,399,200 acres, or 
 about 1,58(5 acres to each soul. 
 
 "All the tribes that I visited and talked with, 
 except the Omahas, Ottoes, and Missourias, are 
 
14 
 
 Indians who were removed from Ohio and other 
 Western States to the Indian countrj', and loca- 
 ted there on specific grants of land, in pursuance 
 of treaty stipulations, and with the express un- 
 dei>tanding that their present were to be their 
 permanent homes so long as they existed as 
 tribes or nations. 
 
 " In some treaties it was provided that patents 
 should issue to them, hut in no case was the 
 power of alienation granted, or any provision 
 made by which the lands could be divided and 
 held in severalty. 
 
 "Every tribe with whom I held council, with 
 the exception of the Weas and Piankasliaws and 
 the Pcorias and Kaskaskias, who own onU* 
 256,000 acres, and the Sliawnees,* i'efused to dis- 
 pose of any portion of their land, as their first 
 response to my talk. Tlie small tribes above 
 named proposed at once to dispose of the most 
 of their land, and intimated that if they could 
 make satisfactory arrangements for a home they 
 would sell the wln)lc of it. 
 
 "As a general thing, the Indians who have 
 been transjilanted from their former abodes to 
 the Indian country seemed to have a vivid recol- 
 lection of tlie assurances made to them at the 
 time of their removal that their present loca- 
 tions should be their permanent homes, and that 
 the white race should never interfere with them 
 or their possessions. 
 
 "This ])<)int was prominently put forth by 
 their sj)eakers in almost every council, and was 
 earnestly, and sometimes eloquently, dwelt on 
 in their speeches." 
 
 The Connnissioner proceeds to say: "The state- 
 ments which appear in the press that a constant 
 curi-ent of inmiigration is flowing into the Indian 
 teri'itory are destitute of truth. On the lllh of 
 October, the day on which 'l left the frontier , there 
 was no mttlcment made in any part of Nebraska. 
 From all the information I coidd obtain there vxre 
 but three white men in the Territory, except such as ^ 
 were there by authority of law, and those adojited 
 by mariiage or otlierwise into Indian families." 
 
 Senator Atchison, the President of the United 
 States Senate, in a speech made on the 14th of No- 
 vember last, at Fayette, Missouri, spoke as follows: 
 
 Si/nopsi.i of Senator Atchison s Speech, delivered 
 at layette on Monday, November 14, 1853. 
 
 FROM THE GLASGOW (mO.) TIMES. 
 
 "Senator Atchison commenced bj' remarking 
 that topics of vital importance had arisen within 
 the lasl few years. Among them were Nebraska 
 Territory and the Pacific railroad. These sub- 
 jects, vast in themselves, and of stupendous im- 
 portance in the relations they sustain to present 
 conditions, were now absorbing a large portion 
 of public attention, and therefore deserved his 
 careful consideration. What, he would ask, is 
 Nebraska, and where is it? The Territory of 
 Nebraska, as important as it may now appear, 
 has been known but a short time. Ten years 
 ago the name was unknown, and was first ap- 
 plied by Douglas, a talented Democratic Senator 
 from Illinois, and now a prominent candidate 
 for the Presidency, in his bill for a road to Ore- 
 gon and the oi'ganization of tlie territory for- 
 
 merly known as the Indian or Northwestern 
 Territory. In this bill, which was before the 
 House for tliree or four years, it was named 
 Nebraska, and extends from thirty-six degrees 
 south to forty-three degrees north latitude; 
 some three hundred miles wide and six hundred 
 miles long. Jlr. Ilall consulted with him previ- 
 ous to presenting his bill for the organization of 
 this Territory, lie opposed it then for the same 
 reasons that govern him now ; but, before dis- 
 cussing this, there was a previous question 
 growing out of it, and first raised by Colonel 
 Benton in his St. Joseph speech, as to the right 
 of white men to settle in Nebraska, to which he 
 wislied to call attention. This question, which 
 Colonel Benton, with his unenviable facility for 
 riding hobbies, had magnified into undue im- 
 pcrtance, he (Atchison) thought of such small 
 moment that in his Platte City speech he did 
 n<it notice it, and would not liave done so in his 
 Western speech had not his attention been 
 called to it by a Whig Editor of tliat place, and 
 when he wrote out his speech he forgot it, and 
 added his views in a note. The question he con- 
 sidered a mere legal one ; but as he had been 
 accused bv Colonel Benton of gross ignorance in 
 not knowing that three-fourths of Nebraska was 
 open to Settlement, which Benton asserts to be 
 the case, and as all his views and actions are 
 public, he had no hesitancy and felt it his duty 
 to give his sentiments to a candid public ; and he 
 here asserted, as he added in other iilaces, tliat 
 Benton was wrong ; not one foot of Nebraska 
 loas open for scttUment to the whites; none could 
 go there except for laioful trade. ***** 
 "He here showed Benton's map of Nebraska, 
 which he denounced as a fraud, gotten up for 
 fraudulent purposes. Its very title was a lie, 
 and the crime was a penitentiary one, and he 
 could convict him before any jury of twelve 
 honest men. Immediately upon the appearance 
 of the map he (Atchison) wrote to the Secretary 
 of the Interior, whose letter, together witii Ben- 
 ton's, he here read. Mr. A. believed that the 
 map, as far as related to the metes and bounds 
 of the Indian reservations, was correct; but all 
 this any school-boy might have known before. 
 It gives the lie to Mr. Benton's assertion that 
 three-fourths of Nebraska is open for settlement., 
 as it shows that the whole region of tlie Kansas, 
 together with every other section of any im- 
 portance, is in possession of the Indians, the un- 
 occupied portion being entirely worthless, except 
 for an occasional stock farm, there not being 
 more timber beyond the Council Bluffs thai-i 
 will support a farm every twenty or thirty 
 miles; yet Benton tells you this is a paradise, 
 and calls upon all men to hasten to its delight- 
 ful groves; and tliis too in contradicfion to his 
 own map and the well known stipulations of 
 existing treaties, which give to the Pawnees the 
 right to hunt upon the entire countiy, until the 
 President of the United States should notify 
 them to the contrary. Some tribes, located here 
 in 1828 and 1833 by President Jackson, were 
 induced to leave the graves of their fathers and 
 settle here by the assurance that this was to be 
 the future home of the red man; and here no 
 
15 
 
 ■white man should ever come to contaminate 
 them by their baleful influence, or render deso- 
 late by their avarice the homes of their children. 
 They were promised that no Territorial Govern- 
 ment should be organized over them -without 
 their consent. These arguments, which are sub- 
 stantially those in Mr. Manypenny's letter, he 
 gave to Mr. Manypenny before he saw his letter, 
 thus disproving Mr. Benton's charge of igno- 
 rance. Air. Atchi,son asserts that Maruipennifs 
 letter was sfioum to the Cabinet, and contairis the 
 views of the Administration, and was deemed of 
 such importance, lest the false vie^vs of Benton 
 thould have a deleterious influence, that it ivas 
 published in the organ of the Administration on 
 the evening of the same day upo7i which it icas 
 written." *********** 
 Thus it appears that the whole territory of 
 Nebra-ska is held by the Indians for considera- 
 tions surrendered, and which is not open to the 
 settlement of the white man ; but the Indian 
 tribes are likely to be as much excited as the 
 North ; and that on the 11th day of October last 
 
 THERE WERE HUT THREE WHITE MEN SETTLED IN THE 
 
 KjJTiRE TERRITORY, except such as were there by 
 authority of law, (temporarily employed around 
 Fort Leavenworth.) And as the Indians are ex- 
 empt from the provision.? of the Territorial Gov- 
 ernment, there are but three men to constitute 
 the population of two Territorial Governments, 
 one man and a half to each ; and this is the ter- 
 ritorj- for the government of which this happ}', 
 
 Erosperous, and enlightened nation is again to 
 e shaken to its foundation, and perhaps over- 
 turned ! And, according to the squatter sover- 
 eignty provided for in the bill, the South is to 
 be entrapped by giving to those three original 
 settlers. 1 suppose, the power to admit or exclude 
 slavery from the Territory — under the Cass doc- 
 trine contained in the celebrated Nicholson letter 
 of 1848, which was repudiated by the entire 
 Democracy of the South, who denied that Gen. 
 Cass's letter was susceptible of any such con- 
 struction ; for which good service he afterwards 
 paid them the compliment to say in the Senate 
 that none but a fool could have doubted that 
 he did mean what they said he did not mean. 
 
 But 1 am in favor of adhering to the Compro- 
 mise line of 1820, which says up to the line of 
 36 deg. 30 min. slavery may go, and no further, 
 not only because we bargained for it, and have 
 received our share of the equivalent, but be- 
 cause, as an original proposition, 1 believe it was 
 the best tiiat could be done, and /ar better than 
 we could do now, if it was an open question. 
 As long as the Union exists, tliere must be both 
 Free and Slave States, and there must be a line 
 of division, either crooked or straight; and I 
 submit to the intelligence and good sense of the 
 country whether, if it could be treated now with 
 propriet}' as an original question, it would not 
 be far better to have a line which operates as a 
 wall between the two, leaving all the Free States 
 on one side and all the Slave States on the other, 
 than to have a crooked line by which a few 
 Slave States would be intermixed with the Free, 
 sod a few Free States intermixed with the Slave 
 States ? Is there a man in the South who would 
 
 agree that North Carolina, bordering on the three 
 Slave States of South Carolina, Tennessee, and 
 Virginia, should become a Free State for the pri- 
 vilege of introducing slavery' into New Jersey, 
 Connecticut, and Massachusetts, or indeed all 
 New England? If not, why should we invite 
 the formation of Free States among the Slave 
 States south of 36 deg. 30 min. for the mere pri- 
 vilege of taking slaves to Nebraska, where all 
 admit they will never go? Let us recollect that 
 there will and must be a dividing line some- 
 where; we have had one established with which 
 the country has been satisfied and familiarized 
 to for thirty-four years. Even if it had been 
 wrong at the beginning, and could now be reme- 
 died without excitement, is there any necessity 
 for, or propriety mi, breaking it up now, to es- 
 tablish a new and a crooked line, by having, if 
 you could, two Slave States north of ;;6 deg. 30 
 min., and as many Free States south of that line? 
 
 For my own part, I never want to see a pre- 
 ponderance of Slave States in this Union, nor do 
 I want to see a preponderance of Free States. 
 There is only one other compromise I desire in 
 respect to slavery and freedom as connected with 
 our institutions, and that is, to make them equal 
 in number at the earliest practicable moment, 
 and then forever after keep them so, until the 
 State or States in which slavery' shall exist shall 
 choose to discontinue it. But, as far as the ac- 
 tion of Congress is concei'ued, I would have the 
 power of each equal in the Senate, in so far that, 
 once being equal, whenever a Free State was ad- 
 mitted there should be a Slave State admitted 
 also; and that equilibrium preserved as nearly 
 as possible for all time to come. But if there is 
 to be a difference, I should prefer that it should 
 be in favor of the South, to counterbalance the 
 already immense and constantl}^ increasing ma- 
 jority of the Noz-ih in the House. 
 
 No man can look abroad upon the political 
 horizon but must see the gathering of a dai-k 
 and portentious cloud in the North. A storm is 
 approaching the violence and fury of which 
 threatens to sweep over the face of the country, 
 destructive in its course, annihilating in its con- 
 sequences. All confidence, all fraternity, aU 
 harmony is to be obliterated; party lines will 
 be extinguished, there will no longer be men of 
 the North and the.Snith, the Ea.st and the West, 
 meeting in National Councils, under the style of 
 a National Democracy or a National Whiggerj'; 
 but it will be a meeting of the Free States against 
 the Slave, and the Slave States against the Free; 
 the North against the South, and the South 
 against the North. It needs no ghost from the 
 grave, nor does it need much of a philosopher 
 or statesman, to calculate the duration of the 
 Union, when that happens, as happen it will, or 
 happen it may, as theie is too much reason to 
 fear. Its days will have been nundjered, and 
 the prophetic language of ilr. Jefferson, as ex- 
 pressed in a letter written in April, 1820, after 
 the settlement of the Missouri Comj)romise, to 
 Mr. Holmes, who was a warm supporter of the 
 line of division agreed on of 3G deg. 30 min., 
 will ring in our ears, as it should now ring in 
 the ears of every Southern patriot. He wrote: 
 
LIBRARY OF COSSm 
 
 16 
 
 "I regret that I am now to die in the belief 
 that the useless sacrifice of themselves by the 
 generation of 17*76 to acqiiire self-government 
 and happiness to their country is to be thrown 
 away by the tinwise and unworthy passions of 
 their sons, and that my only consolation is to be 
 that I live not to weep over it. If they would 
 but dispassiouatel}' weigh the blessings they will 
 throw away against an abstract principle more 
 likely to be elJ'ected by union than by secession, 
 they would paiise before they would perpetrate 
 this act of suicide upon themselves, and of 
 treason against the hopes of the world. To your- 
 self, as the faithful advocate of the Union, I tender 
 the offering of mj^ high esteem and respect." 
 
 These are solemn words, Messrs. Editors, and 
 from a source which the South has ever profes- 
 sed to venerate. Let them sink deep into the 
 hearts of every Southern Senator. Oh, that the 
 Southern press would only act patriotically and 
 fairly, and not withhold from the people of the 
 Soiith the daily scenes of excitement that arc 
 transpiring through the countrj' at the alleged 
 treachery and bad faith of Southern representa- 
 tives! And for an honest endeavor on my part 
 to arrest this \inmixed evil for an idle abstraction 
 I am deno\inced as a traitor to the South. If a 
 sacrifice of my personal j)rosperity, neglect of 
 my private interests, and an ardent devotion to 
 my country's welfare, that has at times embit- 
 tered my happiness, disturbed my rest, and im- 
 poverished my means, constitutes a traitor, then 
 I plead that I am one, and glory in the martyr- 
 dom that awaits me. And I am told that you, Mr. 
 Gales, the Cato of America, and the Aristides of 
 the Whig party, have been excommunicated' from 
 the Whig church ; this may pass for current co;n 
 in Washington but it will be laughed at in the 
 country. Well be it so. The "just" man of 
 Athens was banislied from his home, but he did 
 not serve out the term of his banishment before 
 he was recalled by the people. I do not know 
 who acted the part of Themistocles in this act 
 of banishment towards you, but I suppose I will 
 be the next victim on the list for his displeasure; 
 for in this matter your cause is my cause, and 
 my cause is yours; and then we will make the 
 farce a broad one. We will read some of those out 
 of the church who are following in the lead of Mr. 
 Pierce and Mr. Douglas; and this will bring us 
 to an examination of dates for our patents and 
 land warrants ; and it is not improbable that it 
 may be found that we have some pre-emption 
 right on the ground in this Whig camp, of which 
 no squatter sovereignly of yesterday can deprive 
 us; and in the mean time console yourself with 
 the reflection that — 
 
 "Truth, crushed to earth, will rise again, 
 
 The eternal j^ears of God are hers; 
 
 But error, wounded, writhes in pain, 
 
 And dies amid her worshippers." 
 And, in the fullness of an upright and conscien- 
 tious heart, you may exclaim — 
 " Marcellus exiled, more true joy feels 
 Than Ca?sar with a servile Senate at his heels." 
 I am, respectfully, yours, 
 
 JOHN M. BOTTS. 
 Henrico, Ya. February 26, 1854. 
 
 Note. — Since t w —■ — ...mju a new 
 ground has been assumed, and two distinguished 
 Senators (Messrs. Clayton and Belt.) have ar- 
 gued that the Missouri Compromise line was un- 
 constitutional, because it confiicted with the 
 treaty of 1803, by which we acquired title to 
 the Louisiana territory, in as much as slavery 
 was recognized in the Territory at that time, 
 and we had stipulated to protect the subjects of 
 France, and their property, as transferred by 
 that treaty. This strikes mo as being a most ex- 
 traordinary and untenable position. True, we 
 guarantec<l the protection to both subjects and 
 property, and it has been faithfully fulfilled; but 
 did we stipulate to continue the laws of the 
 French government or of the Territory of Lou- 
 isiana as perpetual, and irrepealable, in that part 
 of the teri'itory in which there was neither po- 
 pulation nor property, and on which at that day, 
 as far as we know, the foot print of a wild In- 
 dian had never been seen? If this be so, Ave 
 cannot too soon make an application to Louis 
 Napoleon to grant us leave to regulate affairs in 
 our own territory in our own way. 
 
 Mr. Adams' speech in 18.S6, on the admission 
 of Arkansas, has been referred to as sustaining 
 this opinion, and Mr. Clayton congratulated him- 
 self on having such high aiithority for his posi- 
 tion; if Mr. Claj'ton had read a little further 
 from Mr. Adams' speech he would have found 
 that he put the right of Arkansas to admission 
 as a slave State, expressly, and in words, on the 
 ground that slavery existed in that part of the 
 territory at the time of the acquisition. 
 
 But if the "high authority" of Mr. Adams is 
 to settle the constitutionality of the Missouri 
 Compromise, I beg to refer Mr. Clayton to a 
 speech made in the House of Rejiresentatives 
 about the year 1842, in which he stated, that 
 when the bill authoi'izing Missouri to form a 
 Constitution preparatory to her admission as a 
 State was presented to Mr. Monroe for liis signa- 
 tiu'e, he submitted the question as to the consti- 
 tutional power of Congress to prohibit slavery 
 in the territory lying north of 36 deg. 30 min. 
 to each member of his Cabinet, composed of Mr. 
 Adams, ]\Ir. Crawfoid, Mr. Calhoun, Mr. Wirt, 
 Judge McLean, and the then Secretary of the Na- 
 v}', and requested a written opinion from each, 
 and that every member of the Cabinet g,ave his 
 urittni opinion that the power was constitution- 
 ally exercised; and that those opinions were all 
 on file in the State Department when he left it. 
 
 But it is a bad rule that dont work both ways. 
 Now, I ask Mr. Clayton and Mr. Bell, if similar 
 stipulations are not also to be found in our trea- 
 ty with Mexico; and if it be claimed by the 
 South that because slavery existed in a part of 
 Louisiana, at the time of its acquisition, we can 
 never exclude it from any part of the territory, 
 whether it does not follow, and must not be con- 
 ceded, that as slavery was prohibited by Mexi- 
 can laws in the territory acquired from Mexico, 
 a.n(l freedom gunranteed, that we can never author- 
 ize slavery in any part of that territory' likewise? 
 It is quite well to look to both sides of a ques- 
 tion, and ascertain the consequences before we 
 jump to conclusions. J. M. B,