■ 
 
 
 
 i- < .mm 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 °o 
 
 
 ** v ** 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 V 
 
 lV«* 
 
 • 
 
 
 
 
 O 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 
 
 PC* * 
 
 >* 
 
 IBS': 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ^o 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 rP* 
 
 . C ,-C**v 
 

 Mat * v °^ * 
 
 •-ate v «v* :2ra # - ^ :««te v o>* 
 
 
 
 
 \^\/ %*^V V*<^V °°* 
 
 \V . o " a „ K 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 #%> 
 
 
 [ *.^t.°o /\>^\ cf>*.^Ji>o ^ 
 
 
MAINTAIN PLIGHTED FAITH 
 
 SPEECH 
 
 OF 
 
 
 HON. S. P, "CHASE, OF OHIO, 
 
 IN THE SENATE, FEBRUARY 3, 1854, 
 
 AGAINST THE REPEAL OF HIE MISSOURI PROHIBITION OF SLAVERY 
 NORTH OF 36° 30'. 
 
 
 
 S WASHINGTON : 
 
 PRINTED BY JOHN T. AND LEM, TOWERS, 
 1854, 
 
33 
 
SPEECH OF THE HON. S. P. CHASE, OF OHIO, 
 
 IN THE SENATE, FEB, 3, 1854, 
 
 MASNTAIN PLIGHTED FAITH. 
 
 The bill for the organization of the Territories of Ne* 
 braska and Kansas being under consideration — 
 Mr. CHASE submitted the following amendment: 
 
 Strike out from section 14 the words " was superseded by the principles of the 
 legislation of 1850, commonly called the Compromise Measures, and;" so that the 
 clause will read: 
 
 "That the Constitution, and all laws of the United States which are not locally 
 inapplicable, shall have the same force and effect within the said Territory of Ne- 
 braska as elsewhere within the United States, except the eighth section of the act 
 preparatory to the admission of Missouri into the Union, approved March 6, 1820, 
 which is hereby declared inoperative." 
 
 Mr. CHASE said : 
 
 Mr. President, I had occasion, a few days ago, to expose the utter 
 groundlessness of the personal charges made hy the Senator from 
 Illinois (Mr. Douglas) against myself and the other signers of the Inde- 
 pendent Democratic appeal. I now move to strike from this bill a state- 
 ment which I will to-day demonstrate to be without any foundation in fact 
 or history. I intend afterwards to move to strike out the whole clause an- 
 nulling the Missouri prohibition 
 
 I enter into this debate, Mr. President, in no spirit of personal unkindness. 
 The issue is too grave and too momentous for the indulgence of such feelings, 
 I see the great question before me, and that question only. 
 
 Sir, these crowded galleries, these thronged lobbies, this full attendance 
 of the Senate, prove the deep, transcendent interest of the theme. 
 
 A few days only have elapsed since the Congress of the United States 
 •assembled in this Capitol. Then no agitation seemed to disturb the political 
 elements. Two of the great political parties of the country, in their national 
 conventions, had announced that slavery agitation was at an end, and that 
 henceforth that subject was not to be discussed in Congress or out of Con- 
 gress, The President, in his annual message, had referred to this state of 
 opinion, and had declared his fixed purpose to maintain, as far as any re- 
 sponsibility attached to him, the quiet of the country. Let me read a brief 
 extract from that message : 
 
 "It is no part of my purpose to give prominence to any subject which may pro- 
 perly be regarded as set at rest by the deliberate judgment of the people. But 
 
is bright witb promise, and the future full of demand ami induce 
 Tin-tit for tin of active intelligence, the past can never be without useful 
 
 ■ if admonition and instruction. If its dangers serve n as, they will 
 
 • vidently f;ii] to fulfil the object of a wise design. vThen the grave shall bav< 
 over all ivho are now endeavoring to meet the obligations 01 duty, the year 1850 
 mil be recurred to as a period filled with anxious apprehension. A successful war 
 bad just terminated. Peace brought with it a vast augmentation of territory. 
 "ih'_ r questions arose, bearing upon the domestic institutions "t one portion of 
 the Confederacy, and involving the constitutional rights of the States. Bo 
 withstanding differences of opinion and sentiment, which then existed in relation to 
 
 details, and -| ific provisions, the acquiescence of distinguished citizens, whi 
 
 votion in the Union can never be doubted, bad given renewed vigor to mir iustitu- 
 : a Benseof repose and security to the public miim throughout the 
 Confederacy. That this repose i- 1>« Buffi r no shock during my official term, it* I have 
 power to avt rt it. those who placed me here may be assured. 
 
 The agreement of the two old political parties, thus referred to by the 
 Chief M uratry, was complete, i d a large majority of the 
 
 American ; med to acquiesce in the legislation of which he spoke. 
 
 A few of us, ind 1, doubted the accuracy of these statements, and the 
 
 •ermanency of this repose. We never believed that the acts of 1850 would 
 
 to be a permanent adjustment of the slavery question. We believed 
 
 > permanent adjustment of that question possible except by a return to 
 
 al policy of the fathers of the Republic, by which slavery was 
 
 ted within Stan- limits, and freedom, without exception or limitation, 
 
 (ras intended to be secured to every person outside of State limitd and uu- 
 
 the exclusive jurisdiction of the General Government. 
 
 But, sir, we only represented a small, though vigorous and growing, party 
 
 in the country. Our number was small in Congress. Bj - i were 
 
 r< garded as visionaries — by some as factionists; while almost all agreed in 
 
 pronouncing us mistaken. 
 
 And so, sir, the country was at peace. As the eye swept the • otii 
 cumference of the horizon and upward to mid-heaven not a cloud ap] 
 
 mfhon observation there was uo mist or stain upon the clearni ss of the 
 sky. 
 
 But suddenly all is changed. Rattling thunder breaks from the cloudless 
 firmament. The storm bursts forth in l'uiv% Waning winds rash into con- 
 flict 
 
 "Eurus, Notusque ruunt, creberque procellis, 
 
 A fi ; 
 
 STes, sir, " creber procellis A/ricus n — the Bouth wind thick with storm. 
 And iM>\s we find ourselves in th<- midst "t' an agitation, the end an I issue 
 of w lii<di uo man can fori 
 
 Now, sir, who is responsible for this renewal of stri 
 Not we, for we have introduced no question "t" territorial slavery into Con- 
 not we, who are denounced as agitators and factionists. V . Bir: the 
 quietists and the finalists have become agitators; they who told us thai all 
 agitation was quieted, an 1 that the resolutions of the political c 
 had | nit a tiaal period to the discussion of -lav., i \ . 
 
 -will not rvation of the country. It —■ i that 
 
 renews! again wants room. It is Slavery, with 
 
 .:•■ demands tor more slave territory and more slave S;at«'s. 
 \ ' ' . it demands that a 
 
honored and sacred compact shall be rescinded — a compact which has en- 
 dured through a whole generation — a compact which has been universally 
 regarded as inviolable, North and South — a compact, the constitutionality 
 of which few have doubted, and by which all have consented to abide. 
 
 It will not answer to violate such a compact without a pretext. Some 
 plausible ground must be discovered or invented for such an act ; and such 
 a ground is supposed to be found in the doctrine which was advanced the 
 other day by the Senator from Illinois, that the Compromise acts of 1850 
 "superseded" the prohibition of slavery north of 36° 30', in the act pre- 
 paratory for the admission of Missouri. Ay, sir, "superseded" is the 
 phrase : — the Missouri Prohibition, we are told, is " superseded by the prin- 
 ciples of the legislation of 1850, commonly called the Compromise measures." 
 
 It is against this statement, untrue in fact, and without foundation in 
 history, that the amendment which I have proposed is directed. 
 
 Sir, this is a novel idea. At the time when these measures were before 
 Congress in 1850, when the questions involved in them were discussed from 
 day to day, from week to week, and from month to month, in this Senate 
 Chamber, who ever heard that the Missouri prohibition was to be super- 
 seded ? What man, at what time, in what speech, ever suggested the idea 
 that the acts of that year .were to affect the Missouri Compromise ? The 
 Senator from Illinois, the other day, invoked the authority of Henry Clay — 
 that departed statesman, in respect to whom, whatever may be the differen- 
 ces of political opinion, none question that, among the great men of this 
 eountry, he stood proudly eminent. Did he, in the report made by him as 
 chairman of the Committee of Thirteen, or in any speech in support of the 
 Compromise acts, or in any conversation in the committee, or out of the com- 
 mittee, ever hint at this doctrine of supersedure ? Did any supporter, or 
 any opponent of the Compromise acts, ever vindicate or condemn them 
 upon the ground that the Missouri prohibition would be affected by them ? 
 Well, sir, the Compromise acts were passed. They were denounced North, 
 and they were denounced South. Did any defender of them at the South 
 ever justify his support of them upon the ground that the South had ob- 
 tained through them the repeal of the Missouri prohibition? Did any 
 objector to them at the North ever even suggest as a ground of condemna- 
 tion that that prohibition was swept away by them ? No, sir ! No man, 
 North or South, during the whole of the discussion of those acts here, or 
 in that other discussion which followed their enactment, throughout the 
 eountry, ever intimated any such opinion. 
 
 Now, sir, let us come to the last session of Congress. A Nebraska bill 
 passed the House and came to the Senate, and was reported from the Com- 
 mittee on Territories by the Senator from Illinois, as its chairman. Wa« 
 there any provision in it which even squinted towards this notion of repeal 
 by supersedure ? Why, sir, Southern gentlemen opposed it upon the ver 
 ground that it left the Territory under the operation of the Missouri pro- 
 hibition. The Senator from Illinois made a speech in defence of it. Did 
 he invoke southern support upon the ground that it superseded the Missouri 
 prohibition ? Not at all. Was it opposed or vindicated by anybody on 
 any such ground ? Every Senator knows the contrary. The Senator from 
 Missouri, (Mr. Atchison,) now the President of this -body, made a speech 
 upon the bill, in which he .distinctly declared that the Missouri prohibition 
 was not repealed, and could not be repealed- 
 
I irill send tt 3 tad ask him (oread the para- 
 
 graphs marked. 
 
 The Secretary follows : 
 
 "I will now state to the Senate the news which induced me to oppose this pro- 
 poeition in (he early part of the a — ion. 
 
 "I bad two obj One was thai the Indian title in that Territory had 
 
 ii<>t been extinguished, or, at least, a very small j .< >rt i< »n of it bad been, Another 
 was the Missouri Compromise, or, as ii is commonly called, the slavery restriction. 
 It was my opinion at that timi — and 1 am m>t now very clear on that Buhjeet — that 
 the law of Congress, when the State of Missouri was admitted into the Union, ex- 
 eluding slavery from the Territory of Louisiana north of 36 dee 80 min , would be 
 enforced in thai Territory onlesa i' was specially rescinded; and, whether thai law 
 was in accordance with the Constitution of the United States or not, it would do its 
 work, and that work would be to preclude slaveholders from going into thai Terri- 
 tory. Bui when I came to look into that question, 1 found thai there was no proe- 
 peci no hope, of a repeal of the Missourj Compromise, excluding slavery from that 
 Territory. Now, sir, I am free to admit, that at this moment, at this hour, and for 
 all time to come, 1 should oppose the organization or the settlement of that Terri- 
 tory unless] 'Merits, and the constituents of the whole South — of the -lave 
 States of the Union, could go into it upon the Bame footing, with equal rights and 
 equal privileges, carrying thai Bpecies of property with them as other- people of this 
 Dnion. Fes, sir, I acknowledge thai thai would hare governed me, but 1 have no 
 hope that the restriction will ever- be repealed 
 
 "J have alu ays been of opinion that the fira! great en ~> d in the politi- 
 
 cal history of this country was the ordinance ^f 1787, rendering the Northwest 
 Territory free territory. The next gr< al error was the Missouri Compromise. But 
 tlh\ are both irremediable. There is no remedy for them. We must submit to 
 them. [ am prepared to do it. It is eridenl thai the Missouri Compromise cannot 
 be repealed So far as that question is concerned, we might as well agree to the 
 admission of this Territory now as next year, or five or ten y< — Congns- 
 
 tional Globe, Second Session 'A'ld Cong., vol. '2>'<. j"ig' 111".. 
 
 That, sir, is the speech of the Senator from Missouri, (Mr. Atchison,) 
 whose authority, I think, must go for something upon this question. What 
 does he Bay? "When I came to look into thai question"- — of the possible 
 repeal of the Missouri Prohibition — that was the question he was looking 
 into — "I found that there was no prospect, no hope, of a repeal of the 
 M ouri Compromise excluding slavery from that Territory." And yet, 
 sir, at thai very moment, according to this new doctrine of the Senator 
 from Illinois, it had been repealed three years! 
 
 Well, the Senator from Missouri said further, that it' he thoughl it i 
 ble to oppose this restriction successfully, he nerer would consent to the 
 organization of the Territory until it was rescinded. But, said he, "I ac- 
 knowledge that I have no hope tliat the restriction will o\er be repealed." 
 Then he made Borne complaint, as other Southern gentlemen hare frequently 
 done, of the ordinance <>t' l 787, and the Missouri prohibition : but went on 
 to say, "they are both irremediable; there is do remedj for them; we 
 must submit to them ; [ am prepared to do it ; it is evident that the Mis- 
 souri Compromise cannot be repealed." 
 
 . sir, when was this said' It was on the morning of the 1th Match, 
 
 just before the close of the last session, when thai Nebraska bill, reported 
 
 by the Senator from Illinois, which proposed no repeal, and suggested no 
 
 Bupersedure, was under discussion. I think, sir. that all this shows pretty 
 
 dearly that up to the rerj close of the last session of Congress nobodj had 
 
 thought of a repeal bj supersedure. Then what took place at the 
 
commencement of the present session? The Senator from Iowa, early in 
 December, introduced a bill for the organization of the Territory of Nebras- 
 ka. I believe it was the same bill which was under discussion here at the 
 last session, line for line, and word for word. If I am wrong, the Senator 
 will correct me. 
 
 Did the Senator from Iowa, then, entertain the idea that the Missouri 
 prohibition had been superseded ? No, sir ; neither he nor any other man 
 here, so far as could be judged from any discussion, or statement, or remark, 
 had received this notion. 
 
 Well, on the 4th day of January, the Committee on Territories, through 
 their chairman, the Senator from Illinois, made a report on the territorial 
 organization of Nebraska; and that report was accompanied by a bill. 
 Now, sir, on that 4lh day of January, just thirty days ago, did the Com- 
 mittee on Territories entertain the opinion that the Compromise Acts of 1850 
 superseded the Missouri prohibition ? If they did, they were very careful 
 to keep it to themseh es. We will judge the committee by their own report. 
 What do they say in that? In the first place, they describe the character 
 of the controversy in respect to the Territories acquired from Mexico.^ They 
 say that some believed that a Mexican law prohibiting slavery was in force 
 there, while others claimed that the Mexican law became inoperative at the 
 moment of acquisition, and that slaveholders could take their slaves into 
 the territory, and hold them there under the provisions of the Constitution. 
 The territorial compromise acts, as the committee tell us, steered clear of 
 these questions. They simply provided that the States organized out of 
 these Territories might come in with or without slavery, as they should 
 elect, but did not affect the question whether slaves could or could not be 
 introduced before the organization of State governments. That question 
 was left entirely to judicial decision. 
 
 Well, sir, what did the committee propose to do with the Nebraska Ter- 
 ritory ? In respect to that, as in respect to the Mexican Territory, differences 
 of opinion exist in relation to the introduction of slaves. There are southern 
 gentlemen who contend that notwithstanding the Missouri prohibition, they 
 can take their slaves into the territory covered by it, and hold them there 
 by virtue of the Constitution. On the other hand, the great majority of the 
 American people, North and South, believe the Missouri prohibition to be 
 constitutional and effectual. Now what did the committee propose ? Did 
 they propose to repeal the prohibition ? Did they suggest that it had been 
 superseded? Did they advance any idea of that kind? No, sir. This is 
 their language: 
 
 "Under this section, as in the case of the Mexican law in New Mexico and Utah, 
 it is a disputed point whether slavery is prohibited in the Nebraska country by valid 
 enactment. The decision of 1 his question involves the constitutional power of Con- 
 gress to pass laws prescribing and regulating the domestic institutions of the various 
 Territories of the Union. In the opinion of those eminent statesmen who hold that 
 Congress is invested with no rightful authority to legislate upon the subject of slavery 
 in the Territories, the eighth section of the act preparatory to the admission of Mis- 
 souri is null and void, while the prevailing sentiment in a large portion of the Union 
 sustains the doctrine that the Constitution of the United States secures to every 
 citizen an inalienable right to move into any of the Territories with his property, of 
 whatever kind and description, and to hold and enjoy the same under the sanction 
 -of law. Your committee do not feel themselves called upon to enter into the dis- 
 
d questions. Theyun .mo <rrnve issues -which 
 
 • •■1 the agitation, the BectdonaJ strife, and the fearful Btruggle of 1850." 
 
 Tliis language will bear repetition: 
 
 " Your committee do not feel themselves called upon to tht discussion of 
 
 ■ • rted question*. They in\ hick produced the 
 
 agitation, tfu sectional strife, and the fearful struggle pj '• i 
 
 And they go on to say : 
 
 "Congri - deemed it wise and prudent to refrain from deciding the matters in 
 controversy then, either by affirming or repealing 1 1 » . - Mexican laws, or by an act 
 declarator} of the true intent "1' tin- Constitution and the extent of the protection 
 afforded by it to slave property in the Territories; so \.>ur committee are not i>n> 
 pared now to i' commend a departure from t!ie course pursued on that memorable 
 on, either by affirming or repealing the eighth section of the Missouri act, oi 
 by any act declaratory of the meaning of the Constitution in respect tu th<- legal 
 points in dispute." 
 
 Mr. President, these are very remarkable Pacts. The Committee on Ter- 
 ritories declared thai it was nol wise, thai it was not prudent, that it was 
 not right, to renew the old controversy, and to rouse agitation. They de- 
 clared that they would abstain from any recommendation of a repeal ot the 
 prohibition, or of any provision declaratory of the construction of the Con- 
 stitution in respect to the legal points in dispute. 
 
 Mr. President, I am not one of those who suppose that the qu< stion be 
 tween Mexican law and the Blaveholding claims was avoided in the Utah 
 and \.w Mexico a. is ; nor do T think that the introduction into the Nebraska 
 bill of the provisions of those acts in respect to slavery would leave the 
 question between the Missouri prohibition and the same Blaveholding claim 
 entirely unaffected. I am of a very different opinion. But I am dealing 
 now with the report of the Senator from Illinois, as chairman of the com- 
 mittee, and I show-, beyond all controversy, that that report gave no court 
 tenance whatev< r to the doctrine of repeal by supersedure. 
 
 Well, Bir, the bill reported by the committee was printed in the Wash- 
 ington Sentinel on Saturday, January 7. It contained twenty sections; no 
 more, no less. It contained no provisions in rospecl to slavery, except those 
 in the LTtah and New Mexico bills. It left those provisions to speak foi 
 themselves. This was in harmony with the report of the committee. On 
 the lOthof January — on Tuesday the act appeared again in the Sentinel; 
 but it had grown longer during the interval. It appeared now with twenty- 
 one sections. There was a statement in the paper that the twenty-first 
 section had been omitted by a clerical error. 
 
 But, sir, it is a singular fact that tins twenty-first section is entirely out 
 
 '•*' liar Dy with ili< mmittee's report It undertakes to determine the 
 
 effect of the provision in the Utah and New Mexico bills. It declares, 
 among other things, that all questions pertaining to slavery in the Territo- 
 ries, and in the new States to be formed therefrom, are to be left to the 
 decision of the people residing therein, through their appropriate represen 
 tatives. This provision, in effect, repealed the Missouri prohibition, which 
 
 the c mittee, in their n port, declared ought not to be 'lour. I- it poesi 
 
 ble, sir, that thiswasa mere clerical errorl Maj it not be that this twenty 
 first section was the fruit of some Sunday work, between Saturday the 7th 
 an. I Tuesday the 10th I 
 
But, sir, the addition of this section, it seems, did not help the hill. It 
 did not, I suppose, meet the approbation of Southern gentlemen, who con- 
 tend that they have a right to take their slaves into the Territories, notwith- 
 standing any prohibition, either by Congress or by a Territorial Legislature. 
 I dare say it was found that the votes of these gentlemen could not be had 
 for the bill with that clause in it. It was not enough that the committee 
 had abandoned their report, and added this twenty-first section, in direct 
 contravention of its reasonings and principles. The twenty-first section 
 itself must be abandoned, an<Tthe repeal of the Missouri prohibition placed 
 in a shape which would not deny the slaveholding claim. 
 
 The Senator from Kentucky, (Mr. Dixon,) on the 16th January, submit- 
 ted an amendment which came square up to repeal, and to the claim. That 
 amendment, probably, produced some fluttering and some consultation. It 
 met the views of Southern Senators, and probably determined the shape 
 which the bill has finally assumed. Of the various mutations which it has 
 undergone, I can hardly be mistaken in attributing the last to the amend- 
 ment of the Senator from Kentucky. That there is no effect without a . 
 cause, is among our earliest lessons in physical philosophy, and I know of 
 no cause which will account for the remarkable changes which the bill un- 
 derwent after the 16th of January, other than that amendment, and the 
 determination of Southern Senators to support it, and to vote against any 
 provision recognising the right of any Territorial Legislature to prohibit 
 the introduction of slavery. 
 
 It was just seven days, Mr. President, after the Senator from Kentucky 
 had offered his amendment, that a fresh amendment was reported from the 
 Committee on Territories, in the shape of a new bill, enlarged to forty sec- 
 tions. This new bill cuts off from the proposed Territory lialf a degree of 
 latitude on the south, and divides the residue into two Territories — the 
 southern Territory of Kansas, the northern Territory of Nebraska. It ap- 
 plies to each all the provisions of the Utah and New Mexico bills ; it rejects 
 entirely the twenty-first clerical-error section, and abrogates the Missouri 
 prohibition by the very singular provision, which I will read : 
 
 "The Constitution and all laws of the United States which are not locally inap- 
 plicable, shall have the same force and effect within the said Territory of Nebraska 
 as elsewhere within the United States, except the eighth section of the act prepa- 
 tory to the admission of Missouri into the Union, approved March 6, 1820, which 
 was superseded by the principles of the legislation of 1850, commonly called the 
 Compromise measures, and is therefore declared inoperative." 
 
 Doubtless, Mr. President, this provision operates as a repeal of the pro- 
 hibition. The Senator from Kentucky was right when he said it was in 
 effect the equivalent of his amendment. Those who are willing to break 
 up and destroy the old compact of 1820, can vote for this bill with full 
 assurance that such will be its effect. But I appeal to them not to vote for 
 this supersedure clause. I ask them not to incorporate into the legislation 
 of the country a declaration which every one knows to be wholly untrue. 
 I have said that this doctrine of supersedure is new. I have now proved 
 that it is a plant of but ten days' growth. It was never seen or heard of 
 until the 23d day of January, 1854. It was upon that day that this tree 
 of Upas was planted : we already see its poison fruits. 
 
 The provision I have quoted abrogates the Missouri prohibition. It as- 
 
10 
 
 > right in the Territorial Legislature to prohil 9 oator 
 
 from Illinois, in his B] ch, was very careful t" assert do right of legislation 
 
 in a Territorial Legislature, except subject t" the restrictions and limit: 
 of the Constitution. We know well enough what the understanding 
 claim of Southern gentlemen is in respect t" these limitations and restric- 
 They insist that by them every Territorial Legislature is absolutely 
 precluded from all power of legislation for the prohibition of slavery. I 
 warn gentlemen who propose to support this bill, that their votes t« >r tliis 
 provision will be regarded as admitting this claim. 
 
 I have thus given a brief a< unt of the mutations which this l>ill has 
 
 undergone I bave Bhown the recent origin and brief existence of the pre- 
 tence that the Missouri prohibition is superseded by the legislation of 1850. 
 I now a]i]»-al to the Senators who sit around me, and who with me partici- 
 
 in the dis if L850. I ask them to say whether any o 
 
 them imagined then, or believes now, that the Missouri prohibitioi 
 superseded by the legislation of that year. Here, sir, sits the Senator from 
 Virginia, (Mr. Mason) — will he say that any time before the 23d of Janu- 
 ary, ls.-)4 < he ever beard such a proposition stated or maintained anywhere, 
 by anybody! No, sir, he will not Bay it There is no evidence that the 
 assertion was ever made before that day, when it made its appearance in 
 the Senator's bill. It is a remarkable circumstance, that five thousand 
 
 copies of th<' committee's report have 1 o printed by the order of tin * 
 
 e, and I know not how many for individual subscribers, and circulated 
 through the country, sustaining the bill upon the ground that the Missouri 
 prohibition is neither repealed nor affirmed, while the bill itself as now 
 amended expressly abrogates that prohibition. The report as circulated 
 condemns the bill as amended, and the bill as amended contradicts the re- 
 port as circulated. AH this must necessarily mislead and confuse the pub- 
 lic judgment. 
 
 I have- now proved that the doctrine of Bupersedure is a novelty. T will 
 proceed to prove that it is as l^"i< '\iii«1!. — as it is novel. 
 
 The Senator from Illinois, in his 8] h the other day, made a general 
 
 charge of gross ignorance of the history and geography of the country 
 st the signers of the Independent Democratic Appeal, and singled out 
 Beveral paragraphs of that Appeal for special reprehension. It was rather 
 adroit.in the Senator to mix the defence ofiiis own bill with an attack upon 
 two Senators whose opinions on slavery questions are at variance with 
 most commonly received here. But this movement will not, 1 think, avail 
 him much. 1 have no fears that he can refute any statement, or overturn any 
 proposition "t' that address. Sir, he might as well attack Gibraltar. Tree 
 in all its statements, and irrefragable, as I believe, ,in all it> reasonings, it is 
 impregnable to any assault by him, <>r any man. 
 
 The first specification under his general charge of ignorance and misrep- 
 tation, denies the truth of a statement which I will now read: 
 
 "'I'll.-, acta were never supposed to abrogate or touch the existing exclusion of 
 sIbti i\ t r-« »t ii wli.it is now called Nebraska. They applied to the temton acquired 
 from Mexico, and to that only. They wan intended as a settlement of the • 
 \.i-\ growing out of that acquisition, and if thai controversy only. They must 
 stand or lull by their own merit-." 
 
 That the first sentence which I have read is absolutely true, 1 suppose no 
 
11 
 
 man now doubts. Senators who were here during the discussions of 1850, 
 must remember that the report of the Committee of Thirteen distinctly 
 stated that the compromise measures applied to the " newly acquired terri- 
 tory." The honorable and distinguished Senator from Michigan sits near 
 me, and can say whether any syllable was uttered in the Committee' of 
 Thirteen or elsewhere, to his knowledge, which indicated any purpose to 
 apply them to any other territory. If I am in error, I beg the Senator to 
 correct me. [Mr Cass remained silent.] I am right, then. 
 
 But the Senator from Illinois says that the territorial Compromise Acts 
 did in fact apply to other territory than that acquired from Mexico. How 
 does he prove that? He says that a part of the territory was acquired from 
 Texas. But this very territory which he says was acquired from Texas was 
 acquired first from Mexico. After Mexico ceded it to the United States, 
 Texas claimed that the cession inured to her benefit. That claim, only, 
 was relinquished to the United States. The case, then, stands thus : we 
 acquired the territory from Mexico; Texas claimed it, but gave up her claim. 
 This certainly does not disprove the assertion that the territory was acquired 
 from Mexico, and as certainly it does not sustain the Senator's assertion, 
 that it was acquired from Texas. 
 
 The Senator next tells the Senate and the country, that by the Utah act, 
 there was included in the Territory of Utah a portion of the old Louisiana 
 acquisition, covered by the Missouri prohibition, which prohibition was an- 
 nulled, as to that portion, by the provisions of that act. Every one at all 
 acquainted with our public history knows that the dividing line between 
 Spain and the United States extended due north from the source of the 
 Arkansas to the 42d parallel of north latitude. That arbitrary line left within 
 the Louisiana acquisition a little valley in the midst of rocky mountains, 
 where several branches of the Grand river, one of the affluents of the Colo- 
 rado, take their rise. Here is the map. Here spreads out the vast Territory 
 of Utah, more than one hundred and eighty-seven thousand square miles. 
 Here is the little spot, hardly a pin's point upon the map, which I cover 
 with the tip of my little finger, which, according to the boundary fixed by 
 the territorial bill, was cut off from the Louisiana acquisition and included 
 in Utah. The account given of it in the Senator's speech would lead one 
 to suppose that it was an important part of the Louisiana acquisition. It 
 is, in fact, not of the smallest consequence. There are no inhabitants there. 
 It is, as I have said, a secluded little valley in the Rocky Mountains, visited 
 once by Fremont, and penetrated occasionally by wandering bands of Ara- 
 pahoes and Utahs. The summit of the Rocky Mountains was assigned as 
 the eastern limit of Utah. That limit, in consequence of the curvature of 
 the mountain range, happened to include this v^^lley. Nobody here, at the 
 time of the passage of the Utah bill, adverted to that fact. It was known 
 that the Rocky Mountain range was Very near the arbitrary line fixed by the 
 treaty, and nobody ever dreamed that the adoption of that range as the 
 eastern boundary of Utah would abrogate the Missouri prohibition. The 
 Senator reported that boundary line. Did he tell the Senate or the country 
 that its establishment would have that effect? No, sir; never. The as- 
 sertion of the Senator that a " close examination of the Utah act clearly 
 establishes the fact that it was the intent, as well as the legal effect of the 
 compromise measures of 1850 to supersede the Missouri compromise, and 
 
12 
 
 3 phical and territorial lines," k little short of ] as. There 
 
 was ii" intenl a( all,excep1 to make a convenient eastern boundary to Utah, 
 and no legal effect at all upon the Louisiana acquisiti at off 
 
 from it the little valley of the Middle Park. 
 
 rod specification of the Senator denies the accuracy of the i*>l low- 
 statement of the address in relation to this pi supersedui 
 
 "The compromise acta themselves refute thi- p ret In tin.- third* article of 
 
 the second section of the joinl resolution for annexing Texas to the Unit 
 '- expi .-.1 that -in Bnch Stat.- or States a- Bhall I"- form< •! out of -aid terri- 
 
 tory north of said Missouri compromise line, slavery or involuntary servitude, 
 for crime, -liall be prohibited;' and in the net for organizing New Mexi 
 tling tli.- boundary of Texas, a proviso was incoporated, on the motion of Mr Mason, 
 
 inia, which distinctly preserves this prohibition, and flouts the ha' 
 tension that all the territory of the United States, whether north or south of the 
 i compromise line, is to be open to -la\ ery. It is as follows: 
 
 "'/'■• it nothing herein contained shall be constructed to impair or 
 
 qualify anything contained in the third article of the second section of the joint 
 resolution for annexing the I oited Stat.-, approved March 1, 1846, either 
 
 as regards the number of States that may hereafter be formed out of the State of 
 Texas, oB othi bv« i-i .' 
 
 "II' ire i- pro if, beyond controversy, that the principle of the Missouri a.-t, pro- 
 hibitinL' Blavery north of 36 deg. 30 mtn., far from being abrogated by the compro- 
 mise acts, is expressly affirmed; and that the proposed repeal of this prohibition, 
 instead of being an affirmation of the compromise acts, is a r< peal of a very import- 
 ant provision of the most important act of the series. I: is sol mnVj declared in the 
 ompromise acts 'that nothing herein contained shall bt construed (" uuj^iir or 
 qualify' the prohibition of slavery north of 36 d< _-. 30 min., and yet, in the face of 
 this declaration, that sacred prohibition is said to he overthrown. Can presumption 
 further go? To all who, in anyway, lean upon these compromises, we commend 
 this exposit ion." 
 
 This is what the Senator say< in his speech about the passagi - I have just 
 read from the address : 
 
 "They suppress the following material facts, which, if produced, would ha 
 
 an nt: They first suppress the fact that the same section of the net 
 cute ofl is, and cedes to the United States, all that part of Texas which lies 
 
 north of:;.; ,!,-._,. :;,, m i n . They tie u suppress the further fact that the Bame section 
 ot the law cuts off from Texas a large tract of country on the west, more than three 
 mgitude, and added it t.. the territory of the United Mat.-. They then 
 suppress the further fact that thi- territory thus cut oil' from Texas, and to which 
 the Missouri compromise line did apply, was incorporated into the Territory of New 
 Mexico. And then what was done.' It was incorporated int.. that territory with 
 this ela 
 
 " 'That when admits d a- a State, tie -aid Territory, or any portion of the Bame 
 
 shall he received int.. the Union with or without sla\ ery, a- their constitution may 
 
 ibe at the time of it- adoption.' 
 
 ■■ Fee, -ir. the very bill and section from which thej quote cuts off all that part of 
 
 Texas which was t.. I..- free by th.- Missouri Compromise, together with some on the 
 
 south Bide of the line, incorporates it into the Territory of New Mexico, and then 
 
 rritory, and every portion of the same, Bhall come into the 1 oion 
 
 with or w ithout - proper." 
 
 Tin- assertion here i-, that all the territory claimed bj Texas north of 86° 
 30' was cut off by the Texan bouudary ami New Mexico act 
 
 Mr. hi. i ..i \-. Read it. 
 
 Mr. i'm \-'. 1 havt read it; hut will read it again. 
 
 "Yes, sir, the very bill and section from which they quote cuts off all that part 
 of Texas which was to be free by the Missouri Compromise, together with some on 
 
13 
 
 the south side of the line, incorporates it with the Territory of New Mexico, and 
 then says that that Territory, and every portion of the same, shall come into the 
 Union with or without slavery, as it sees proper." 
 
 Mr. Douglas, (in his seat.) Most of it. 
 
 Mr. Chase. In his speech the Senator said all the territory claimed by- 
 Texas north of 36° 30'.was incorporated into New Mexico. Now he says, 
 most of it. These are very different statements, I will show the Senate 
 what was and what was not incorporated. The boundary line between 
 Spain and the United States — for I want to make this matter perfectly clear 
 and distinct — was this : 
 
 "The boundary line between the two countries west of the Mississippi, shall begin 
 on the Gulf of Mexico, at the mouth of the river Sabine, in the sea, continuing north 
 along the western bank of that river, to the 32d deg. of latitude; thence by a line 
 due north to the degree of latitude where it strikes the Rio Roxo of Natchitoches or 
 Eed river; then following the course of the Rio Roxo westward, to the degree of 
 longitude 100 deg. West from London, and 23 deg. from Washington; then crossing 
 the~said Red river, and running thence by a line due north to the river Arkansas; 
 thence following the course of the southern bank of the Arkansas to its source in 
 latitude 42 deg. north, and thence by that parallel of latitude to the South Sea." 
 
 Now look at this boundary upon the map. Here it is. [Exhibiting the 
 map.] Here we go up the Sabine to the 32d parallel ; then straight north 
 to the Red river ; then along the Red river to the 100° of longitude ; then 
 straight north again to the Arkansas ; then up the Arkansas to its source ; 
 then straight north once more to the 42° of north latitude. There you see the 
 boundary between the United States and the Spanish possessions, as defined 
 by the treaty of 1820. 
 
 Now, what did Texas claim ? Here is the most authentic evidence of it 
 in her own act, approved December 19, 1836, by Sam Houston. I will 
 read it : 
 
 "Beginning at the mouth of the Sabine river, running west along the Gulf of 
 Mexico, three leagues from land, to the mouth of the Rio Grande ; thence up the 
 principal stream of the said river to its source; then due north to the 42d deg. of 
 north latitude; thence along the boundary line as defined in the treaty between the 
 United States and Spain to the beginning." 
 
 That, sir, is the boundary claimed by Texas. After her annexation to the 
 United' States, and after the treaty with Mexico of Guadalupe Hidalgo, 
 Texas asserted her claim to the whole territory included within these limits. 
 The Senator from Virginia (Mr. Mason) was among those who regarded 
 this claim of Texas as just — not because of any valid original title to the 
 territory, but because of the implied recognition of her title by the United 
 States. I need not say that I, in common with very many others, dissented 
 from that view. But the Senator from Virginia, and other Senators, main- 
 tained it. That Senator, on the 30th July, 1850, moved a joint resolution 
 recognizing this claim, which I will read ; "\ 
 
 "Resolved, &c, That by the joint resobition, approved March 1st, 1845, for annex- 
 ing Texas to the United States, it being ordained that 'the territory properly in- 
 cluded within and rightfully belonging to the Republic of Texas, may be erected into 
 a new State,' &c, it is the opinion and judgment of Congress, that the admission of 
 Texas into the Union, with the boundaries described by the laws thereof, not objected 
 to l>v the United States, at the time of such annexation, is conclusive, as against the 
 United States, of the right of Texas to the territory included within such boundaries.'' 
 
14 
 
 The recognition proposed by this resolution would give to Texas all the 
 laud east of the Bio Grande and a line drawn from its Bonrce to the forty- 
 Becond parallel, and west of the line between the United States and the 
 Spanish possessions already described. 
 
 Now, Bir, of the territory within this claim of Texas, that part between 
 the 32° and 38° of north latitude, and vest <4' 103° of longitude, 
 porated into the Territory of Ne\i Mexico. That part between the 38th 
 parallel and tin- Arkansas river, stretching north toward the 42d parallel in 
 a long narrow strip, and that Other part included within 10U° and 103° of 
 longitude, and 36 30' north latitude, and the Arkansas river, were not in- 
 corporated into New Mexico, nor relinquished to Texas, hut became a part 
 of the territory of the United Mat.-. Here arc these two tracts of country, 
 which the Senator ^avs were cut off from Texas, and incorporated into \. g 
 Mexico. If th«- claim of Texas was valid, tiny wire cut off from her t.rri- 
 ritory, hut they were not incorporated into N.w Mexico. The Senator is 
 totally mistaken as to that; and it i> not a trifling mistake. The tract west. 
 of New Mexico, hetween 36° 30' and the Arkansas river, contains over 
 twenty thousand square miles. It is not easy to .Miniate the contents 
 of the other tract. The first i> as large as Connecticut, Rhode bland, 
 Massachusetts, and New Eampshire put together. The two tract- probably 
 an- nearly equal in extent to the whole of New England, excluding Maine. 
 There aie seven Stated in the Union neither of which equals in extent the 
 
 larger of these tracts, nor probably the smaller. Nbl one fool of this terri- 
 torj was incorporated into New Mexico, and v.-t the Senator asserted that 
 
 it all was. I repeat, Bir, that here was a great error. 1 show the Senator 
 
 that he was wrong in a very material Btatement But do l accuse him, 
 therefore, of falsifying the public history of the country.' of wilful misrepre- 
 sentation i ,,(' falsehood I Nut at all. The Senator, like other men. is liable 
 to error. If he falls into error upon a point material to any controversy 
 which 1 may happen to have with him, 1 will correct the error, hut 1 will 
 not reproach the man. I will not charge him with violating truth, or witb 
 intentional misrepresentation. 
 
 I said the other daj to that Senator, when he proposed to deny to mc a 
 I inemenl warranted by the usages of the Senate, that 1 thought him 
 incapable of understanding the obligations of courtesy. I prefer oow to re 
 Jtricl thai statement, and sav that the Senator, on that occasion, under some 
 
 excitement, perhaps, and perhaps influenced also bj an over-anxious desire 
 to hasten the vote upon his bill, disregarded the obligations which con 
 imposes. I make this remark because I am unwilling, under any pr< 
 
 to do any injustice to a political or personal opponent. \\ bile 1 say 
 this, however, I ought, perhaps, to add in reference to a remark which fell 
 from the Senator on that occasion, that at no time did I ever approach him 
 with a Btniling face, or an angry face, or any face at all, to . 
 from him a postponement of his hill, in order to gain time for the eir 
 oulation of attacks upon it. I have condemned his hill Btrongly, and 
 have condemned his action in bringing forward this repeal of the M 
 
 bition. Bui I have done n.. injustice to the Senator. All that I bave 
 don.' at all I have done opdnly. I have not waged, nor will 1 wage a war 
 
 of epithets. It neither accords with my principles, nor with mj ' 
 
 Bui while 1 wage no Buchrwar, I dread Done. Neither vituperation, no* 
 
15 
 
 denunciation, will move me, while I have the approval of my own judgment 
 and conscience. But I did not intend to recur to this matter, and willingly 
 dismiss it. 
 
 If the Senator is wrong, as I have shown he is, in respect to the incorpo- 
 ration of all the territory cut off from Texas into New Mexico, then he is 
 also wrong in his declaration that the Compromise act of 1850 does not 
 preserve and reassert the principle of the Missouri prohibition. 
 
 The facts are few and simple, and the inference from them obvious and 
 irresistible. 
 
 The third article of the joint resolution for the annexation of Texas reads 
 thus : 
 
 "New States, of convenient size, not exceeding four in number, in addition to said 
 State of Texas, having sufficient population, may hereafter, by the consent of said 
 State, be formed out of the Territory thereof, which shall be entitled to admission 
 under the provisions of the Federal Constitution. And such States as may be form- 
 ed 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 slavery, as the people of each State asking admission may desire. 
 And in such State or States as shall be formed out of said territory north of said 
 Missouri Compromise line, slavery or involuntary servitude (except for crime) shall 
 be prohibited." 
 
 Here is an express stipulation that slavery shall be prohibited in any 
 State formed out of the territory of Texas north of 36° 30'. This was a 
 valuable, stipulation for freedom, in case the claim of Texas was a valid one 
 to the whole territory within her boundaries. The Senator from Virginia 
 regarded that claim as valid ; and it was upon his motion that the proviso 
 which I now proceed to quote was incorporated into the Texas boundary 
 bill: 
 
 "Provided, That nothing herein contained shall be construed to impair or qualify 
 anything contained in the third article of the second section of the joint resolution 
 for annexing Texas to the United States, approved March 1, 1845, either as regards 
 the number of States that may hereafter be formed out of the iState of Texas or 
 
 OTHERWISE." 
 
 Here was a compact between two States. So far as the parties were 
 competent to enter into it, it was obligatory and permanent. That com- 
 pact covered all the territory rightfully within the limits of Texas, until 
 rescinded. It could make no difference if a portion of that territory should 
 be subsequently relinquished to the United States. That would not disturb 
 the effect of the compact. But this matter was not left to inference or con- 
 jecture. At the very moment of relinquishment, the United States and 
 Texas, by agreeing to the proviso I have quoted, saved the compact, and 
 continued it in full force in all its provisions. 
 
 Nothing can be clearer, then, than that, if the two tracts of country of 
 which I have spoken were within the rightful claim of Texas, the compact 
 applied to them, and the prohibition of slavery in the States to be created 
 out of them, is still in force. And it is, perhaps, at this day the only pro- 
 hibition which is in force there; for the Missouri prohibition, enacted in 
 1820, may be regarded as restricted to the limits of the Louisiana acquisi- 
 tion as defined by the treaty with Spain, which was concluded in that year. 
 
 But the Senator from Illinois says that the prohibition in the annexation 
 resolution was of no practical effect, except to preserve the principle of the 
 
16 
 
 lii.-it was true, it* T< had any ju-t claim 
 
 north of 30° 3u'. Upon that supposition, also, the Mason proviso bad no 
 effecl as preserving .- » 1 1 < 1 reaffirming an actual prohibition north of 86° 30', 
 but still Berved to preserve the principle. It is impossible to maintain, as 
 
 the Senator does, that the third article of th -iginal joint resolution, 
 
 though of ii" practical effect, preserved the principle of the Missouri Com- 
 promise, and yet deny that the Mas >n proviso, which reaffirms and reestab- 
 lishes, as part of a ne^ compact, every provision of that third article pre- 
 serves that principle. It' the principle was preserved by one, it must be by 
 the other. 
 
 I have now, I think, demonstrated that the Senator from DHnou 
 clearly wrong in asserting the incorporation of all the territory cut off from 
 into Ne* Mexiao; and justly as clearly wrong in denying the re- 
 affirmance of the principle of the Missouri Compromise by one of those 
 ven Compromise A.cts which, as he would have us say, superseded it. — 
 Certainly the Senate, when it adopted the Mason proviso, without adii 
 and the House, when it agreed to the bill of which it was a part, must have 
 intended to keep alive and affirm every provision of the third article of the 
 annexation resolution. One of these provisions prohibited slavery north <>t 
 36° 30'. That provision preserved the principle of the Missouri Compro- 
 mise. The proviso, taken in connection with that provision, makes it clear 
 beyond all question that the Compromise A.cta preserved that principle, and 
 • I the consequence which it is n«>\s sought to force upon them. 
 
 i submit to the Senate it' I have not completely vindicated this part i>t 
 the Appeal against the speech of the Senator? The errors, mi-take-, mis- 
 representations, are all his own. None are found in the Appeal. 
 
 The third specification of the Senator charges the signers of the Appeal 
 with misrepresentation of the original policy >>t' the country in respect to 
 ry. The Senator says : 
 
 "'I'll, argument of this manifesto i* predicate .1 upon the assumption that the policy 
 of the fathers of the Republic was to prohibit slavery in all the territories ceded by 
 the old Mat.- telle i aion, and made United States territory for the purpose of 
 being organized into new States. 1 take issue upon that statement." 
 
 The Senator then proceeds to attempt to show that the original policy of 
 the country was one of indifferentism between slavery and freedom; and 
 that, in pursuance of it. a geographical line was established reaching from 
 the eastern to the western limit of the original States — that is to say, to the 
 Mississippi river. Sir. it" anything is susceptible of absolute historical de- 
 monstration, 1 think it is the proposition that the founders of this republic 
 never contemplated any extension of slavery. Let us forafew moments 
 
 retrace the past. 
 
 What was the general Bentiment of the country when the Declaration of 
 Independence was promulgated ! I invoke Jefferson as a witness. Lei him 
 speak to us from bis grave, in the language of his memorable exposition of 
 the rights of British America, laid before the Virginia Convention, in August, 
 1 7 7 1. 'I h. -e are his words : 
 
 "The abolitioi I object of desire in tbi 
 
 wlurc it \sa> unhappily introduced in their in 
 
 In the spirit which animate 1 J< fferson, the First Congr* as— the old I 
 
17 
 
 grass of 1774 — among their first acts, entered into a solemn covenant against 
 the slave traffic. 
 
 In 1776, the Declaration of Independence, drafted by Jefferson, announced 
 no such low and narrow principles as seem to be in fashion now. That 
 immortal document asserted no right of the strong to oppress the weak, of 
 the majority to enslave the minority. It promulgated the sublime creed of 
 human rights. It declared that all men are created equal, and endowed 
 by their Creator with inalienable rights to life and liberty. 
 
 The first acquisition of territory was made by the United States in 1784, 
 three years before the adoption of the Constitution. Just after the country had 
 emerged from the war of independence, when its struggles, perils, and prin- 
 ciples, were fresh in remembrance, and the spirit of the Revolution yet lived 
 and burned in every Axuerican heart, we made our first acquisition of terri- 
 tory. That acquisition was derived from — I might, perhaps, better say con- 
 firmed by — the cessions of Virginia, New York, and Connecticut. It was 
 the territory northwest of the river Ohio. 
 
 Congress forthwith proceeded to consider the subject of its government. 
 Mr. Jefferson, Mr. Howell, and Mr. Chase were appointed a committee to 
 draft an ordinance making provision for that object. The ordinance reported 
 was the work of Mr. Jefferson, and is marked throughout by his spirit of 
 comprehensive intelligence, and devotion to liberty. It did not confine its 
 regards to the territory actually acquired, but contemplated further acqui- 
 sitions by the cessions of other States. It provided for the organization of 
 temporary and permanent State governments in all territoiy, whether " ceded 
 or to be ceded," from the 31st parallel, the boundary between the United 
 States and the Spanish province of Florida on the south, to the 42d parallel, 
 the boundary between this country and the British possessions on the north. 
 
 The territory was to be formed into States ; the settlers were to receive 
 authority from the General Government to form temporary governments. 
 The temporary governments were to continue until the population should 
 increase to twenty thousaud inhabitants; and then the temporary were to 
 be converted into permanent governments. Both the temporary and the 
 permanent governments were to be established upon certain principles, ex- 
 pressly set forth in the ordinance, as their basis. Chief among those was 
 the important proviso to which I now ask the attention of the Senate : 
 
 "After the year 1800 of the Christian era there shall be neither slavery nor invol- 
 untary servitude in any of the said States, otherwise than in the punishment of 
 crimes whereof the parties shall have been duly convicted to have been personally 
 guilty." 
 
 Let it be noted and remembered that this proviso applied not only to the 
 territory which had been ceded already by Virginia and the other States, 
 but to all territory ceded and to be ceded. There was not one inch of terri- 
 tory within the whole limits of the Republic which was not covered by the 
 claims of one or another of the States. It was then the opinion of many 
 statesmen — Mr. Jefferson himself among them — that the United States, 
 under the Constitution, were incapable of acquiring territory outside of the 
 original States. The Jefferson proviso, therefore, extended to all territory 
 which it was then supposed the United States could possibly acquire. 
 
 Well, what was the action of Congress upon this proviso ? Mr. Speight, 
 '<f North Carolina, moved that it be stricken from the ordinance, and the 
 2 
 
18 
 
 jtood, for the previs S ites,— New Hampshire, Ma<« 
 
 Rhode bland, Connecticut, New York, a sylvania; against it, three 
 
 ( — Virginia, Maryland, and South Carolina Delawa 
 were not then represented in the Congress, and tl • irolina 
 
 being divided, was nol counted; oorwas the vote of x - 
 one delegate only beingpresent But the Senate will observe that the B 
 
 st l B is i" three. Of the twenty-three deli _ 
 
 the proviso, and seven against it. The vote of th< - to one 
 
 and thai of the ■ more than two to one for the piw iso. But under 
 
 the ],,, • the Articles of Confederation which then controlled the 
 
 legislation es of a majority of all the Stafc - were i 
 
 saryto retain the proviso in the ordinance. It failed, consequently; pre- 
 cisely as a proviso in a treaty must fail unless it i f tw< - 
 thirds of the members of the Senate. Sir. if that doctrine of the rights of 
 majorities, of which we hear so much ana see in actual p little, bad 
 then been recognized — if the wishes of a majority of I and of the 
 majority of the delegates, had prevailed— if the almost universal Bent 
 of the people had been respected, the question of slavery in this country 
 wou ld have been settled, that day, forever. All the territory acquired bj 
 the Union would have been covered with the impenetrable edom. 
 Bui then, as dow, there was a Slave [nteresl in the country : — then, as now, 
 there was a Slave Power. The [nteresl was comparatively small, and the 
 Power comparatively weak ; but they were sufficient, under the then existing 
 government, to defeat the proviso, and transfer the great qui 
 to future discussion. The facts which I have detailed, however, are sufficient 
 to show what was the general Bentiment, and what was the original policy 
 of the country in respect to slavery. Il was one of limitation, discourage- 
 ment, repression. 
 
 Wha1 ii. -\t occurred! The Bubject of organizing this terrirory remained 
 before Congress. Mr. Jefferson, in L786, went to Prance. Hi- great influ- 
 ence was no longer fell in the councils of the country, but his proi ; 
 mained and in 178*7 was incorporated into the ordinance for the government 
 of tli-' territory northwest of the river Ohio. 1 beg the Senate to observe, 
 that tlii- territory was,at that moment, the whole territory belonging to the 
 United States. I will not trouble the Senate by reading the proviso of the 
 ordinance. Et iB enough to say that the Jefferson Proviso of 1784, coupled 
 with a provision saving to tl"' original States of the Union a right to reclaim 
 fugitives from service, was incorporated int.- the ordinance, and became a 
 fundamental law over ever} fool of national territory. Whal wasthepolicy 
 indicated by this action by the fathersofthe Republic! Was it that ofin- 
 differentism between slavery andfreedom ! That of establishing a geographi- 
 cal line, on one side of which there should be liberty, and on tl ther side, 
 
 Blavery,both equallyunder the protection and countenance of the Govern- 
 ment : No Bir; the farthest thing possible from that. It was the policy 
 avery from all national territory. It was adopted, too, under 
 remarkable circumstances. The territorj overwhich it was established was 
 claimed b\ Virginia, in righl of her charter, and in right of conquest The 
 pliant Geoi R rere Clarke, one of the bravest and noblest sons of that 
 had, with a small body of troops, raised under her authority, invaded 
 and conquered the territory. Slavery was already there, under the French 
 
19 
 
 colonial law, and also, if the claim of Virginia Avas well founded, under the 
 laws of that State. These facts prove that the first application of the origi- 
 nal policy of the Government converted slave territory into free territory. 
 
 Now, sir, what guarantees were given for the maintenance of this policy 
 in time to come ? I once, upon this floor, adverted to a fact, which has not 
 attracted so much attention, in my judgment, as its importance deserves. 
 It is this : While the Congress was framing this Ordinance — almost the 
 last act of its illustrious labors — the Convention which framed the Constitu- 
 tion was sitting in Philadelphia. Several gentlemen were members of both 
 bodies, and at the time this Ordinance was adopted, no proposition in respect 
 to slavery bad been discussed in the Convention, except that which resulted 
 in the establishment of the three-fifths clause. It is impossible to say, with 
 absolute certainty, that the incorporation of that clause into the Constitu- 
 tion, which gave the slave States a representation for three-fifths of their 
 slaves, had anything to do with the unanimous vote by which the proviso 
 was ingrafted upon the Ordinance ; but the coincidence is remarkable, and 
 justifies the inference that the facts were connected. At all events, the pro- 
 viso can hardly fail to have been regarded as affording a guarantee for the 
 perpetuation of the policy which it established. 
 
 Already seven of the original thirteen States had taken measures for the 
 abolition of slavery within their limits, and were regarded as free States, 
 Six only of the original'States were regarded as slave States. The Ordinance 
 provided for the creation of five new free States, and thus secured the 
 decided ascendency of the free States in the Confederation. The perpetua- 
 tion of slavery even in any State, it is quite obvious, was not then even 
 thought of. 
 
 And now, sir, let me ask the attention of the Senate to the Constitution 
 itself. That charter of our Government was not formed upon pro-slavery 
 principles, but upon anti-slavery principles. It nowhere recognizes any 
 right of property in man. It nowhere confers upon the Government which 
 it creates, any power to establish or to continue slavery. Mr. Madison 
 himself records, in his Report of the Debates of the Convention, his own 
 declaration, that it was "wrong to admit in the Constitution the idea that 
 there could be property in men. 1 ' Every clause in the Constitution which 
 refers in any way to slaves speaks of them as persons, and excludes the idea 
 of property. In some of the States, it is true, slaves were regarded as pro- 
 perty. But the language of Mr. Justice McLean on this point is very 
 striking. He says : 
 
 "That cannot divest them of the leading and controlling quality of persons by 
 which they are designated in the Constitution, The character of property is given 
 them by the local law. This law is respected, and all rights under it are protected 
 by the Federal authorities. But the Constitution acts upon slaves as persons, and 
 not as property." 
 
 Well, sir, not only was the idea of property in men excluded from the 
 Constitution* not only was there no power granted to Congress to authorize 
 or enable any man to hold another as property, but an amendment was 
 afterwards ingrafted upon the Constitution, which especially denied all such 
 power. 
 
 The history of that amendment is worth attention. The State which the 
 Senators from Virginia so ably represent on this floor was one of those which 
 
20 
 
 immediately after the ad >ption of the Constitution prop* sed amendments of 
 it < >m- otthe amendments which Bhe proposed was this: 
 
 freeman oughl to be taken, imprisoned, or deprived of his freehold, lib< 
 or franchisee, or outlawed, or exiled, or in any manner deprived of his lit'--, liberty 
 or property, hot by the Ihw of the land." 
 
 Did Congress adopt thai amendment^ N"o,sir; it adopted and pro] 
 to thi States a very different amendment It was this: 
 
 ,'1 be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due 
 law 
 
 in my judgment this prohibition was intended as a compre- 
 hensive guarantee of personal freedom, and denies absolutely to Congress 
 the power of legislating for the establishment or maintenance of slavery. 
 This amendment of itself, rightly interpreted and applied, would be sufficient 
 to prevent the introduction of slaves into any territory acquired by the 
 United States. At all events, taken in connexion with the Ordinance, and 
 with the original provision of the Constitution, it shows conclusively the 
 all intention upon the pari of the founders of the < rovernmenl to 
 afford any countenance or protection to slavery out itelimits. De- 
 
 parture from the true interpretation of the ' institution has created the ne- 
 cessity for positive prohibition. 
 
 \1 ' ■ ral view upon this subje< t is simply this: Slavery is the subjec- 
 tion of one man to the absolute disposal of another man by fori 
 ;,,„! slave, i tb the principles of the Declaration of Independence, 
 
 and by the law of nature, are alike men, endowed by their Creator with 
 equal rights. Sir. Mr. Pinckney was right, when, in the Maryland ETousi 
 f 1 1, | _r :: , .. },, ^claimed, "by the eternal principles of justice, do man in 
 a right to hold his slave for a single hour." Slavery then 
 exists nowhere by the law of nature. Wherever it exists at all, it must be 
 through the sanction and supporl of municipal or State legislation. 
 
 Upoi ja the I onstitution acts, ft recognizes all men as 
 
 I ersons. It confers no power, but, on the contrary, expressly denies to the 
 • - of it- creation all power to establish or continue slaver) . 
 
 iwer under the Constitution to make a Blave than to 
 wer to establish slaverj than to establish the tu- 
 ition. 
 &t the same time the Constitution confers no power on Congress ; hut. 
 on the contrary, denies all power to interfere with the internal policy of an] 
 State, I established by it- own Constitution and it- own legis- 
 
 lation, in respect to the personal relations of its inhabitants. The States, 
 iiii,1,-: i titution, are absolutely free from all interference by Congress 
 in thai respect, except, perhaps, in the case of war or insurrection; and 
 in.a legislate as the) please within (he limitations of their own constitu- 
 tions. The) may alio* slaver) it' the) please, jusl as they may license 
 othei '■ 9 to laws, by which slaverj is allowed and regulated, 
 
 1) within the limits of th ind can have no extra tei 
 
 ritoi 
 
 Sir. I could quote the opinions of southern judg finitum, in sup- 
 
 port of the doctrine that slaver) is againsl natural right, absolutel) depend- 
 ent for < instance or continuance u] ■ 5 station. I might quote the 
 ion by Randolph of all a - the General <• iverament t<- 
 
21 
 
 the institution of slavery within the States. I might quote the deeision of 
 the celebrated Chancellor Wythe, of Virginia — overruled afterwards, 1 
 know, in the court of appeals — that slavery was so against justice that the 
 presumption of freedom must he allowed in favor of every alleged slave 
 suing for liberty, and that the onus of proving the contrary rested upon the 
 master. 
 
 I think I have now shown that the Ordinance of 1787, and the Constitu- 
 tion of the United States, were absolutely in harmony one with the other; 
 and that if the Ordinance had never been adopted, the Constitution itself 
 properly interpreted, and administered, would have excluded slavery from 
 all newly-acquired territory. But, sir, whatever opinion may be entertained 
 in respect to the interpretation of the Constitution which I defend, one thing- 
 is absolutely indisputable, and that is, that it was the original policy of the 
 country to exclude slavery from all national territory. 
 
 That policy was never departed from until the year 1790, when Congress 
 accepted the cession of what is now Tennessee, from North Carolina. But 
 did the acceptance of that cession indicate any purpose of establishing a 
 geographical line between slavery and freedom? Why, sir, on the contrary, 
 the State of North Carolina, aware that in the absence of any stipulation to 
 the contrary, slavery would be prohibited in the ceded territory, in pursu- 
 ance of the established policy of the Government, introduced into her deed 
 of cession an express provision that the anti-slavery article of the Ordinance 
 of 1787 should not be applied to it. It may be said that Congress should 
 have refused to accept the cession. I agree in that opinion. But slavery 
 already existed in the district as part of the State of North Carolina, and 
 it was probably thought unreasonable to deny the wish of the State for its 
 continuance. 
 
 The same motives decided the action of Georgia, in 1802, in making her 
 cession of the territory between her western limits and the Mississippi, and 
 the action of Congress accepting it. The acceptance of these cessions, as 
 well as the adoption and re-enactment by Congress of the slave laws of 
 Maryland for the District of Columbia, were departures from original policy; 
 but they indicated no purpose to establish any geographical line. They 
 were the result of the gradually increasing indifference to the claims of free- 
 dom, plainly perceivable in the history of the country after the adoption of 
 the Constitution. Luther Martin had complained in 1788, that " when our 
 own liberties were at stake we warmly felt for the common rights of man. 
 The danger being thought to be passed which threatened ourselves, we are 
 daily growing more and more insensible to those rights." It was this grow- 
 ing insensibility which led to these departures from original policy. After- 
 wards, in 1803, Louisiana was acquired from France. Did we then hasten 
 to establish a geographical line ? No, sir. In Louisiana, as in the territo- 
 ries acquired from Georgia and North Carolina, Congress refrained from 
 applying the policy of 1787 ; Congress did not interfere with existing sla- 
 very ; Congress contented itself with enactments prohibiting, absolutely, the 
 introduction of slaves from beyond the limits of the United States; and 
 also prohibiting their introduction from any of the States, except by bona 
 fide owners, actually removing to Louisiana for settlement. When Loui- 
 siana was admitted into the^Union, in 1812, no restriction was imposed 
 upon her in respect to slavery. At this time, there were slaves all along 
 
22 
 up the west bank of the Mississippi a~ far as St Louis, and perhaps 
 
 In 1818 M isouri applied for admission into the Union. The free States 
 awoke to the danger of the total overthrow of the original policy of the 
 country. They saw thai no State had taken measures for the abolition of 
 slaver) since the adoption of the Constitution. They -aw that the feeble 
 attempts to restrict the introduction of slaves into the territories acquired 
 from Georgia and from France had utterly failed. They insisted, therefore, 
 that in the formation of a constitution, the people of the proposed State 
 should embodj in it a provision for the gradual abolition of the ej 
 8lavery,and prohibiting the further introduction of slaves. By this time the 
 Slav.- Interest had become strong, and tin- Slave Power was pretty firn 
 tablished. The demand of the free States was vehemently contested. A 
 bill preparatory to the admission of Missouri, containing tie proposed re- 
 striction, was passed by the House and sent to the Senate. In that body 
 the bill was amended by striking out the restriction; the House refused to 
 concur in the amendmenl : the Senate insisted upon it. and the bill failed. 
 At the nexl session of Congress the controversy was renewed. In the mean 
 time Maine had been severed from Massachusetts, had adopted a constitu- 
 tion, and had applied for admission into the Union. A Mil providing for 
 her admission passed tin- House, and wassenl to the Senate. This bill was 
 amend" d in the Senate by tacking to it a hill for the admission of Missouri, 
 ami by tli'- addition "i a section prohibiting slavery in all tin- territory ac- 
 quired by Louisiana north of 36° 30'. The House refused to concur in 
 these amendments, and the Senate asked for a Committee ofConferei 
 
 which the House agr 1. During the progress of these events, the II 
 
 alter passing the Maine hill, had also passed a hill for the admission ■■: Mis- 
 souri, embodying the restriction upon slavery in the State. The Senate 
 amended the hill by striking out the restriction, and by inserting the section 
 prohibiting slavery north of 36 30'. 
 
 I his section earn,' from the South, through Mr. Thomas, a Senator from 
 Illinois, who had uniformly voted with the slave States against all restric- 
 tion. It was adopted on the L7th February, 1820, as an amendment to the 
 Maine and Missouri hill, by :; i ayes, against 10 t. 
 
 Mr. Jli nter. 1 think that the provision passed without a division in the 
 Senate. 
 
 Mi-. < 'n ise. The Senator is mistaken. Fourteen Senators from the slave 
 . and twenty from the free Mate-, yoted for that amendment Fight 
 
 ' The ■■ ote « aa as follows: 
 
 srs. Morrill ami Parrot, of New Hampshire; Mellen and Ottis, of ! 
 achusetts; Dana and Lanmac ctiont; Bnrrill and Hunter, of Rhode Island; 
 
 Palmer and Tichenor, of Vermont ; K i n ^r and Sanford, of New York ; I tfckerson and 
 '■■ n Jersey; Lowrie and Roberta, of Pennsylvania; Ruggles and Trimble, 
 of Ohio; Horsey and Van Dyke, of Delaware; Lloyd and Pinkney, of Maryland; 
 of North Carolina: Johnson and Logan, of Kentucky; Eaton and Williams, 
 of Ten w n and Johnson, of Louisiana; Leak< .■ and 
 
 Walker, of Alabama; Edwards and Thomas, of Illinois. 
 
 Noi — Messrs. Noble and Taylor, of Indiana; Barbour and Pleasants, ofVirginia; 
 Mae, .a. ,,i' North Carolina; Gaillard and Smitli, of South Carolina; Elliott and Wal- 
 ker, of Georgia ; and Williai lippi 
 
23 
 
 from the former, and two from the latter voted against it. No vote by ayes 
 and noes was taken when the same amendment was ingrafted upon the 
 separate Missouri bill, a few days later ; the sense of the Senate having been 
 ascertained by the former vote. 
 
 This was the condition of matters when the Committee of Conference 
 for which the Senate had asked, made their report. The members of the 
 committee from the Senate were, of course, favorable to the Senate 
 amendments. In the House, the Speaker, Henry Clay, was also in 
 favor of them, and he had the appointment of the committee. Of 
 course he took care, as he has since informed the country, to con- 
 stitute the committee in such manner and of such persons as would be 
 most likely to secure their adoption. The result was what might have 
 been expected. It recommended that the Senate should recede from its 
 amendments to the Maine bill, and that the House should concur in the 
 amendments to the Missouri bill. Enough members from the free States 
 were found to turn the scale against the proposed restriction of slavery in 
 the State ; and the amendment of the Senate striking it out was concurred 
 in by ninety yeas against eighty-seven nays. From this moment successful 
 opposition to the introduction of Missouri with slavery was impossible. 
 Nothing remained but to determine the character of the residue of the Lou- 
 isiana acquisition; and the amendment prohibiting slavery north of 36° 30' 
 was concurred in by one hundred and thirty-four yeas against forty-two 
 nays. Of the yeas, thirty-eight were from slave and ninety-six from free 
 States ; of the nays, thirty-seven were from slave States and five from free. 
 Among those who voted with the majority was Mr. Lowndes, of South 
 Carolina, whose vote, estimated by the worth and honor of the man, out- 
 weighs many opposites. 
 
 Now, for the first time, was a geographical line established between 
 slavery and freedom in this country. 
 
 Let us pause, and ascertain upon what principle this compromise was 
 adopted, and to what territory it applied. The controversy was between 
 the two great sections of the Union. The subject was a vast extent of al- 
 most unoccupied country, embracing the whole territory west of the Missis- 
 sippi. It was territory in which slave law existed at the time of acquisition. 
 The compromise section contained no provision allowing slavery south of 
 36° 30'. It could never have received the sanction of Congress if it had. 
 The continuance of slavery there was left to the determination of circum- 
 stances. There was, probably, an implied understanding that Congress 
 should not interfere with the operation of those circumstances — and that 
 was all. .The prohibition north of 36° 30' was absolute and perpetual. The 
 act in which it was contained was submitted by the President to his Cabi- 
 net, for their opinion upon the constitutionality of that prohibition. Cal- 
 houn, Crawford, and Wirt were members of that Cabinet. Each, in a 
 written opinion, affirmed its constitutionality, and the act received the sanc- 
 tion of the President. Thus we see that the parties to the arrangement 
 were the two sections of the country — the free States on one side, the slave 
 States on the other. The subject of it was, the whole territory west of the 
 Mississippi, outside of the State of Louisiana; and the practical operation of 
 it was, the division of this territory between the institution of slavery and 
 the institution of freedom. 
 
94 
 
 The arrangement was proposed by the lave Si -. It was carried bj 
 their votes, A large majority of Southern S ted for it; a majority 
 
 of Si luthern Representatives voted for it. It was approved by all the South- 
 ern members of the Cabinet, and received the sanction of a Southern I 
 dent, 'l'lio compact was embodied in a single Mil containing reciprocal 
 provisions. The admission of Missouri with slavery, and the understanding 
 that slavery should net be prohibited by Congress south <■(' 36° 30', were 
 the considerations of the perpetual prohibition north of that line. A.nd that 
 prohibition was the consideration <>t' tin; admission and the understanding. 
 The >!a\ • Stat - received a large share of the consideration coming to them, 
 paid in hand. Missouri was admitted without restriction by the act itself. 
 Every other part of the compact, on the part of the - been 
 
 fulfilled t'> the letter. No part of the compact on the }>art of tic Blave 
 States has been fulfilled at all, excepl in the admission of towa, and the or- 
 ganization of Minnesota; and now the Blave States propose i" break up the 
 contract without the consent and against the will of the free States, and 
 upon a doctrine of supersedure which, if sanctioned at all, must he inevita- 
 bly extended so as to overthrow the existing prohibition of slavery in all the 
 organized Territories. 
 
 Let in,, read to tie- Senate Borne paragraphs from Niles's 1; gister, pub- 
 lished in Baltimore, March 11, 1 820, which show clearly what was then 
 the universal understanding in respect t<> this arrangement: 
 
 "The territory oorth of 36 d< g. 80 min. i< 'fort m r 1 forbidden t" 1"- peopled with 
 Blaves, except in the State of Missouri. Tie- right, then, t.i inhibit slavery in any of 
 the Territories is clearly and completely acknowledged, and it is conditioned as t.> 
 some of them, that even when they become Slates, slavery shall ho forever' prohibit- 
 ed in them. There i- no hardship in this. The Territories belong t.. the United 
 and the Government may rightfully prescribe tin- terms en which it will dis- 
 if the public lands. This great point was agreed to in the Senate - 
 11: and in the House of Represi otatives by 134 ;■• 12, or really 1:;'.' to 37. And we 
 trust that it is determined forever' in respect to tie- countries now subject t<> the 
 legislation of the < reneral Government." 
 
 I ask Senators particularly to mark this: 
 
 "Itistrut th* compromise is tup oft) liable by the 
 
 authority which enacted it; but tin circumstances of th- cast give to this l-nr <i uoaix 
 to that of a positive provision of the Constitution; and I hazard 
 
 anything by saying that tht Constitution exists in its observance. Both parties have 
 sacrificed much to conciliation. We wish to hpa< i k-pt ,n good faith, and 
 
 we trust that a kind Providence wiU "pen the way to relieve us of an <-\il which 
 every is 1 citizen deprecates as the Bupreme em-:-.- of the country." 
 
 That, >ir, was the language of a Marylan d. r, in 1820. Be expressed the 
 
 universal understanding of the country. Here then is a compact, complete, 
 
 perfect, irrepealable, so far as any compact, embodied in a legislative act, 
 
 can be Baid to be irrepealable. It had the two sections of the countrj for 
 
 its pat eat territory for its subject, and a permanent adjustment of 
 
 a dangerous controversy for its object It was forced upon the free States. 
 
 It has been literally fulfilled by the free States. It is binding, indeed, only 
 
 u| m >ii honor and conscience : but, in Buch a matter, the obligations of honor 
 
 and conscience must be regarded a> even more sacred than those of consti- 
 
 ... 
 tutional pros isions. 
 
 Mr. President, if there was any principle which prevailed in this arrange- 
 ment, it was that of permitting the continuance of slavery i" the localities 
 
25 
 
 where it actually existed at the time of the acquisition of the territory, and 
 prohibiting it in the parts of territory in which no slaves were actually held. 
 This was a wide departure from the original policy which contemplated the 
 exclusion of slavery from territories in which it actually existed at the time 
 of acquisition. But the idea that slavery could ever be introduced into free 
 territory, under the sanction of Congress, had not, as yet, entered into any 
 man's head. 
 
 Mr. President, I shall hasten to a conclusion. In 1848 we acquired a 
 vast territory from Mexico. The free States demanded that this territory, 
 free when acquired, should remain free under the government of the United 
 States. The Senator from Illinois tells us that he proposed the extension of 
 the Missouri compromise line through this territory, and he complains that 
 it was rejected by the votes of the free States. So it was. And why ? Be- 
 cause the Missouri compromise applied to territory in which slavery was 
 already allowed. The Missouri prohibition exempted a portion of this terri- 
 tory, and the larger portion, from the evil. It carried out, in respect to that, 
 the" original policy of the country. But the extension of that line through 
 the territory acquired from Mexico, with the understanding which the Sen- 
 ator from Illinois and his friends attached to it, would have introduced 
 slavery into a vast region in which slavery, at the time of acquisition, was 
 not allowed. To agree to it would have been to reverse totally the original 
 policy of the country and to disregard the principle upon which the Mis- 
 souri compromise was based. 
 
 It is true that when the controversy in respect to this territory came to a 
 conclusion, the provisions of the acts by which territorial governments were 
 organized, were in some respects worse than that proposition of the Senator. 
 While those bills professed to leave the question of slavery or no slavery in 
 the Territories, unaffected by their provisions, to judicial decision, they did, 
 nevertheless, virtually decide the question for all the territory covered by 
 them, so far as legislation could decide it, against freedom. California, in- 
 deed, was admitted as a free State ; and by her admission the scheme of ex- 
 tending a line of slave States to the Pacific was, for the time, defeated. 
 The principle upon which northern friends of the territorial compromise 
 acts vindicated their support of them was this : Slavery is prohibited in 
 these territories by Mexican law ; — that law is not repealed by any provision 
 of the acts ; — indeed, said many of them, slavery cannot exist in any terri- 
 tory, except in virtue of a positive act of Congress ; no such act allows 
 slavery there ; there is no danger, therefore, that any slaves will be taken 
 into the territory. Southern supporters of the measures sustained them 
 upon quite opposite grounds. Under the provisions of the Federal Consti- 
 tution, they said, the "slaveholder can hold his slaves in any territory in spite 
 of any prohibition of a Territorial Legislature, or even of an act of Congress. 
 The Mexican law forbidding slavery was abrogated at the moment of acqui- 
 sition by the operation of the Constitution. Congress has not undertaken 
 to impose any prohibition. We can, therefore, take our slaves there, if we 
 please. 
 
 The committee tell us that this question was left in doubt by the terri- 
 torial bills. 
 
 What, then, was the principle, if any, upon which this controversy was 
 adjusted \ Clearly this : That when free territory is acquired, that part of 
 
26 
 
 it which is ready to come in as a free State shall be admitted into the Union. 
 and that part which is not ready shall be organized into territorial gov< rn- 
 ments, and its condition in respeel to Blavery or freedom shall be left in 
 doubt during the whole period of its territorial existence. 
 
 It is quite obvious, Mr. President, how very prejudical Buch a doubt must 
 be to the settlement and improvement of the territory. But I mi 
 pan-.' upon this. 
 
 The truth is. that the Compromise Aeta of 1850 were not intended to in- 
 troduce any principle of territorial organization applicable to anj 
 territory except that covered by them. The professed object of the friends 
 of these acts was to compose the whole shivery agitation. There were 
 various matters of complaint. The non-surrender of fugitives from ser* 
 vice was one. The existence of slavery and the -lave trade here in this. 
 District and elsewhere, under the exclusive jurisdiction of Cot 
 another. The apprehended introduction or prohibition <>t' slavery in the 
 territories furnished other grounds of controversy. The sla 
 plained of the free States, and til'' free States complained of the - 
 tt was supposed by some that this whole agitation might be stayed, and 
 finally pul at rest by skilfully adjusted legislation. So. sir, we had the 
 Omnibus Bill, and its'Nappendages, the fugitive slave bill, and the District 
 slave trade suppression bill. To please the North — to please the free States — 
 California was to 1"- admitted, and the slave depots here in the District were 
 to be broken up. ,To please the slave States, a stringent fugitivi 
 was to be passed, and slavery was to haw a chance to get into th< 
 territories. The support of the Senators and Representatives from Texas 
 was to be gained by a liberal adjustment of boundary, and by the assumption 
 of a large portion of their Stat.' debt The general result contemplated was 
 a complete and final adjustment of all questions relating to slavery. The 
 acts passed. A number of the friends of the acts signed a compact, pledging 
 themselves to supporl no man for any office who would in any way renew 
 the agitation. The country was required to acquiesce in the settlement a> an 
 absolute finality. No man concerned in carrying those measures through 
 Congress, and least of all the distinguished man whose efforts main!] 
 tributed to their success, ever imagined that in the territorial acts which 
 
 fori 1 a part of the Beries, they were planting the germs of a new agitation. 
 
 I. I have proved that on,- of these acts contains an express stipulation 
 which precludes the revival of the agitation in the form in which it i> now 
 thrust upon the country, without manifest disregard of the pro\ isions of those 
 acts themselves. 
 
 I have thus proved beyond controversy that the averment of the bill, 
 which my amendmenl proposes to strike out, is untrue. Senators, will you 
 unite in m statement which you know to be contradicted bj the history of 
 the country .' Will you incorporate into a public statute an affirmation 
 which is contradicted by everj event which attended or followed the adop- 
 tion of the Compromise A.cts? Will you here, acting under your high 
 responsibility as Senators of tin Si tea, assert as fact, bj a solemn vote, that 
 which the personal recollection of ever] Senator who was here during the 
 discussion of those Compromise Act- disproves! I will not believe it until 
 I see it. If you wish to break up the time-honored compact embodied in 
 the Missouri Compromise, transferred into the joint resolution for the an< 
 
27 
 
 nexation of Texas, preserved and affirmed by these Compromise acts them- 
 selves, do it openly — do it boldly. Repeal the Missouri prohibition. Repeal 
 it by a direct vote. Do not repeal it by indirection. Do not " declare" it 
 " inoperative," because " superseded by the principles of the legislation of 
 1850." 
 
 Mr. President, three great Eras have marked the history of this country, 
 in respect to slavery. The first may be characterized as the Era of Enfran- 
 chisement. It commenced with the earliest struggles for national inde- 
 pendence. The spirit which inspired it animated the hearts and prompted 
 the efforts of Washington, of Jefferson, of Patrick Henry, of Wythe, of 
 of Adams, of Jay, of Hamilton, of Morris, in short, of all the great men of 
 our early history. All these hoped — all these labored for — all these believ- 
 ed in the final deliverance of the country from the curse of slavery. That 
 spirit burned in the Declaration of Independence, and inspired the provi- 
 sions of the Constitution, and of the Ordinance of 1 787. Under its influence, 
 when in full vigor, State, after State provided for the emancipation of the 
 slaves within their limits, prior to the adoption of the Constitution. Under 
 its feebler influence at a later period, and during the administration of Mr. 
 Jefferson, the importation of slaves was prohibited into Mississippi and Loui- 
 siana, in the faint hope that those Territories might finally become free 
 States. Gradually that spirit ceased to influence our public councils, and 
 lost its control over the American heart and the American policy. Another 
 Era succeeded, but by such imperceptible gradations that the lines which 
 separate the two cannot be traced with absolute precision. The facts of the 
 two Eras meet and mingle as the currents of confluent streams mix so im- 
 perceptibly that the observer cannot fix the spot where the meeting waters 
 blend. 
 
 The second Era was the Era of Conservatism. Its great maxim was : 
 Preserve the existing condition. Men said, Let things remain as they are ; 
 let slavery stay where it is; exclude it where it is not; refrain from disturb- 
 ing the public quiet by agitation; adjust all differences that arise, not by 
 the application of principles, but by compromises. 
 
 It was during this period that the Senator tells us that slavery was main- 
 tained in Illinois, both while a Territory and after it became a State, in 
 despite of the provisions of the Ordinance. It is true, sir, that the slaves 
 held in the Illinois country, under the French law, were not regarded as 
 absolutely emancipated by the provisions of the Ordinance. But full effect 
 was given to the Ordinance in excluding the introduction of slaves, and thus 
 the Territory was preserved from eventually becoming a slave State. The 
 few slaveholders in the Territory of Indiana, which then included Illinois, 
 succeeded in obtaining such an ascendency in its affairs, that repeated ap- 
 plications were made, not merely by conventions of delegates, but by the 
 Territorial Legislature itself, for a suspension of the clause in the Ordinance 
 prohibiting slavery. These applications were reported upon by John Ran- 
 dolph, of Virginia, in the House, and by Mr. Franklin in the Senate. Both 
 the reports were against suspension. The grounds stated by Randolph are 
 specially worthy of being considered now. They are thus stated in the 
 Teport : 
 
 "That the committee deem it highly dangerous and inexpedient to impair a pro- 
 vision wisely calculated to promote the happiness and prosperity of the northwestern 
 
28 
 
 conn try, and to gi b and security to that ext ntier. In the salutary 
 
 operation of this sagacious and benevolent restraint, it is believed that th.- inhabit- 
 ants of Indiana will, at no very distant 'lav, rind ample remuneration for a temporary 
 privation of labor and of emigration.'' 
 
 Sir. these reports, made in 1803 and 1807, and the action of 
 upon them, in conformity with their recommendation, saved Illinois and 
 perhaps Indiana, from becoming slave States. When the people of Illinois 
 formed their State constitution, they incorporated into it a section pr >viding 
 that neither slavery nor involuntary servitude Bhall be h< reafter introduced 
 into this State. The constitution made provision for the continued s< rvice 
 of the few persons who won- originally held as slaves, and then bound to 
 service under the Territorial laws, and for the freedom of their children, and 
 thus secured the final extinction of slavery. The Senator thinks that this 
 result is not attributable to the ordinance. T differ from him. But for the 
 ordinance, I have uo doubt slavery would have been introduced into End 
 Illinois, and Ohio. It is something to the credit of the Era of Conserva- 
 tism, uniting its influences with those of the expiring Era of Enfran 
 ment, that it maintained the ordinance of 1787 in the northwest 
 
 The Era of Conservatism passed, also by imperceptible gradations, 
 the Era of Slavery Propagandise Under the influences of this new 
 spirit we opened the whole territory acquired from Mexico, except Califor- 
 to the ingress of slavery. Every foot of it was cov< red by a Mexican 
 prohibition; and yet, by the legislation of 1850, we consented to ex] 
 to the introduction of slaves. Some, 1 believe, have actually been carried 
 l tah and into Xew Mexico. They may l>e few, perhaps, but a few are 
 enough to affect materially the probable character of their future govern- 
 ments. Under the evil influences of the Bame spirit, we are now called 
 upon to reverse the original policy of the Republic; to subvert evei 
 
 i pact of the conservative period, and open Nebraska to slavery. 
 
 sir, I believe that we are upon the verge of another Era. That Era will 
 be the Era of Reaction. The introduction of this question here, and its 
 ission, will greatly hasten its advent. We, who insist upon the 
 tlization of slavery, and upon the absolute divorce of the General 
 lenl from all connexion with it, will stand with the men who favored 
 the Compromise Acts, and who ye1 wish to adhere to them, in their letter 
 and in their Bpirit, against the repeal of the Missouri prohibition. Bui you 
 may pass it here. You may send it to the other House. It may become 
 law. Bui its effeel will be to satisfy all thinking men thai no compromises 
 with slavery will endure, except so long as they Berve the interests of - 
 ry; and thai there is no safe and honorable ground for non-slaveholders to 
 stand upon, except that of restricting slavery within State limits, and ex- 
 cluding il absolutely from the whole Bphere of Federal jurisdiction. The 
 old questions between political parties are at rest No great question so 
 thoroughly possesses the public mind as this of slavery. This discussion 
 will hasten the inevitable reorganization of parties upon the new issues which 
 
 our circumstances BUggest It will light up a fire in tin- country which 
 
 may, perhaps, consume those who kindle it. 
 
 1 cannot believe that the people of this country have bo far lost Bight of 
 the maxima and principles of the Revolution, or are so insensible to the 
 obligations which those maxims and principles impose, as to acquis 
 
29 
 
 the violation of this compact. Sir, the Senator from Illinois tells us that he 
 proposes a final settlement of all territorial questions in respect to slavery, 
 by the application of popular sovereignty. What kind of popular sove- 
 reignty is that which allows one portion of the people to enslave another 
 portion? Is that the doctrine of equal rights? Is that exact justice ? Is 
 that the teaching of enlightened, liberal, progressive Democracy ? No, sir ; 
 no! There can be no real Democracy which does not fully maintain the 
 lights of man, as man. Living, practical, earnest Democracy imperatively 
 requires us, while carefully abstaining from unconstitutional interference 
 with the internal regulations of any State upon the subject of slavery, or 
 any other subject, to insist upon the practical application of its great prin- 
 ciples in all the legislation of Congress. 
 
 I repeat, sir, that we who maintain these principles will stand shoulder to 
 shoulder with the men who, differing from us upon other questions, will yet 
 unite with us in opposition to the violation of plighted faith contemplated 
 by this bill. There are men, and not a few, who are willing to adhere to 
 the compromises of 1850. If the Missouri Prohibition, which those com- 
 promises incorporate and preserve among their own provisions, shall be re- 
 pealed, abrogated, broken up, thousands will say, Away with all compro- 
 mises ; they are not worth the paper on which they are printed ; we will 
 return to the. old principles of the Constitution. We will assert the ancient 
 doctrine, that no persou shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property, by 
 the legislation of Congress, without due process of law. Carrying out that 
 principle into its practical applications, we will not cease our efforts until 
 slavery shall cease to exist wherever it can be reached by the constitutional 
 action of the Government. 
 
 Sir, I have faith in Progress. I have faith in Democracy. The planting 
 and growth of this nation, upon this western continent, was not an accident. 
 The establishment of the American Government, upon the sublime principles 
 of the Declaration of Independence, and the organization of the union of 
 these States, under our existing Constitution, was the work of great men, 
 inspired by great ideas, guided by Divine Providence. These men, the 
 fathers of the Republic, have bequeathed to us the great duty of so admin- 
 istering the Government which they organized, as to protect the rights, to 
 guard the interests, and promote the well-being of all persons within its 
 jurisdiction, and thus present to the nations of the earth a noble example of 
 wise and just self-government. Sir, I have faith enough to believe that we 
 shall yet fulfil this high duty. Let me borrow the inspiration of Milton, 
 while I declare my belief that we have yet a country " not degenerated nor 
 drooping to a fatal decay, but destined, by casting off the old and wrinkled 
 skin of corruption, to out-live these pangs, and wax young again, and, enter- 
 ing the GLORIOUS WAYS OF TRUTH AND .PROSPEROUS VIRTUE, BECOME GREAT 
 
 and honorable in these latter ages. Methinks I see in my mind a great 
 and puissant nation rousing herself like a strong man after sleep, and shaking 
 her invincible locks. Methinks I see her as an eagle mewing her mighty 
 youth, and kindling her undazzled eyes at the full mid-day beam ; purging 
 and unsealing her long-abused sight at the fountain itself of heavenly 
 radiance ; while the whole noise of timorous and nocking birds, with those 
 also that love the twilight, flutter about, amazed at what she means, and in 
 their envious gabble would prognosticate a year of sects and schisms." 
 
30 
 
 Sir, we may fulfil this sublime destiny if we will but faithfully adh< i 
 the great maxims of the Revolution; honestly carry into their legitimate 
 practical applications the high principles of Democracy ; aad pi 
 violate plighted faith and solemn compacts. Xet u< do this, puttii _ 
 trusl in the God of our Fathers, and there is do dream of national prosperity, 
 power, and glory which ancient or modern builders of ideal commonwealths 
 ever conceived, which we may not hope k> realize. But if we turn aside 
 from tip se ways of honor, t<> walk in the by-paths of temporary expedients, 
 compromising with wrong, abetting oppression, and repudiating faith, the 
 wisdom and devotion and labors of our fathers will have been all — all in 
 vain. 
 
 Sir, T trust that the result of this discussion will Bhow thai th« 
 
 will sanction no breach of compact. Let us Btrike from the bill that 
 statement which historical facts and our personal recollectioi . and 
 
 then rejeel the whole proposition which looks toward a violation of the 
 plighted faith and solemn compact which our fathers made, and which we, 
 :hcir sons, arc bound by every tie of obligation sacredly t<> maintain. 
 
 f 4C 
 
o ' . . W K 
 
 
 
 
 
 • S> 
 
 
 
 >S' 
 
 
 
 \ 
 
 
 
 
 
 & 
 
 ••■ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ^ *-*«v1 7>w *, 
 
 
 
 
 
 ^B: 
 
 
 
 
 ^ V rt o 
 
 v». 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 °o. 
 
 
w 
 
 
 <J> *»«0° .^ 
 
 
 
 
 
 vv 
 
 
 
 r- -W : 
 
 a°* 
 
 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 ^ **^* ,/ 
 
 ^ ; Jiilr ^ •" 
 
 
 
 
 
 V^ 1