, HONORABLE D 8.P.l;ilECH OF THE ANIEL WEESTEE. THE COMPROMISE BILL, DELIVERED IN THE SENATE on THE UNITED shares, on THE1'7'rn DAY,OF'. . JULY, 1a5,o.,__:‘ ~'-v’w‘-I\w-~w\rv\/\-x4-puaxgta-éxiuhp-a~.a~,a,y~.; Mr. President: It was my purpQ.sc;”“on Tuesday of last Week, to have followed the honorable mernber from Spatli Carolina, (Mr. BUrLna,) who was address- mg the Senate on the rnorn,_ing*'_of that day, with what I then had, and now have," to say upon the subjeot....,—s6f this blll. But before the honorable member“ had concluded his own rornarks, it was announced to us, that the late Chief Magis- trate_of the ITnise’d Stateswas dangerously ill, and the Senate was moved to ad,,)ou1'n,,.,»-«Tile Senate adjourned ; and the solemn event of the decease of thpsficssfdent tool: place that evening. ir, various and most interesting reflections present themselves to the minds of men, growing out of that occurrence. The Chief Magistrate of a great Republic died suddenly. Recently elected to that high oflice by the spontaneous voice of his fellow countrymen, possessing in arrhightt deg~.nee..thei..r E regard, ere yet he had had a fair opportunity to develope the principles of his civil administration, he fell by the sh-elm of death. Vet, sir, mixed with the sari thoughts which this c'vr:11tSL1gg6Sl'.S, and the melancholy feeling which spread ov"e"ri»r~it~l-we whole country, the real lovers and adwrnirers of our constitutional gov» ernment, in the midst of their grief and affliction for this loss, find something consoling and gratifying. The Executive head of a great nation had fallen suddenly :no disturbance arose ; no shock was felt in a great and free Republic. Credit, public and private, was in no way disturbed, and danger to the comrnu-i nity or individuals was no where felt. The legislative authority was neither dissolved nor prorogued ;. nor was there any further" interruption or delay in the exercise of the ordinary functions of every branch of the Govern- ment, than such was necessary for the indulgence, the proper indulgence, of the crrief which alilicted Congress and the country. Sir, for his country Gene-— rel llaylor did not live long enough ; but there were circumstances in his death so favorable for his own fame and character, so gratifying to all to whom he was most dear,‘that he may be said to have died fortunately. ‘ “ That life is long which answers 1it‘e’s great end.” A gallant soldier, able and experienced in his profession, he had achieved all, i i that was to be expected by him in that line of duty. Placed at the head of the .n vvklmuk F I ‘ liilii-11:‘ ,4” ii ,gI‘Lr*'u,. l!\ . A “‘l“‘"’tLiountryrn”en. . t v Government, as I have said, by the free voice of the people, he died in the midst of domestic affections and domestic happiness. He died in the full possession of the gratitude of his country. He died in the consciousness of duty performed. He died here, in the midst of the counsels of his country; which country, through r us, its organs, has bestowed upon him those simple, but grand, and imposing rites, such as the Republic confers on the most distinguished of her sons. as -has run himibty. Providence, and he sleeps with the blessings of MS pl the :r_a,ce:..deistinedi for .....--w" “duohhoinors lliurn to her Hero paid, A l l E g i And .peacef‘ul slept the mighty [~E[ector’s shade.” y p p E Mr. President, I proceed now to say upon the subject before us" what itlvvas my purpose than to have said. I begin by remarking, that the longer. we stay E in the midst of this agitating subject, the longer the final disposition of it is put of . orpostponed, the greater is’ the intensity of that anxiety which possesses my iG1nr:oz~r dz. C0,, Printers. ‘ E i it i V a proposition of the Committee of Thirteen. Q breast. I Wish, sir, to harmonize, so far as I can, opinions. I wish to facili-» tate some measure of conciliation. I wish to consummate some proposition or‘ other, that shall bring opposing sentiments together, and give the country repose. It is not my purpose, to-day, to compare or contrast measures or plans which have been proposed. A measure was suggested by the President (Mr. POLK) in his message of 1848. The samemeasure, substantially, was again repeated by the late President (Mr. T.AYLOR)*iI1ll1lS message of 1849. Then there is before us this I do not regard these as opposite, conflicting, or, to use the language of the day, as antagonistical propositions at all. To a certain extent, they all agree. Beyond what was proposed either by Mr... Polk or by the late President, this report of the committee, and the bill now be- fore us, go another step. Their suggestions were, and especially that of the late President, to admit California, and for the present to stop there. The bill before. the fienate proposes to admit California, but also to make a proper provision, if the Senate deem the provision proper, for the Territories of New Mexico and Utah. I confess, sir, my judgment, from the first, has been that it was i11d~ispensab1e- that Congress should make some provision for these Territories; but I have been careless Whether the things, necessary to be done, should be done in one bill or in separate bills, except that, as a matter of expediency, it was and has been my opinion, from the beginning, that it would have been better to have proceeded. measure by measure. general opinion of the c ion, to begin with California, and then take up e other measures in their order. Upon further consideration, the committee——--very fairly I doubt not, and in the exercise of their best jndgment and discretion-«--thought fit to- Well, sir, Whether singly or unite the three things which are in this bill. together, each and every one of these objects meets my approbation, and all arein my ludgment desirable. In the first place, I think it is a desirable ob- Jéct to admit California. I do not conceal from myself, nor do I wish to con- ceal from others, that California is before us with some degree of irregularity stamped upon her proceedings. , She has not been through the previousprocess of territorialexistence. She has formed her constitution without our consent. But Itlook upon it, sir, that California, from the extraordinary circumstances which have attended her birth.anWd progress to the present moment, entitles herself from the necessity of tliecase, to anexception from the ordinarylrules. Whd expected to see such a greatcominunity springing up in such an incredibly short time ? Who expected to see 100,000 or 150,000 people encracred in such ._an]employrnent, with so much activity, and enterprise, and comhigrce, draw- ing to themselves the admiration and regard of the whole world, in the period of-a feyv months 2‘ Well,- sir, she comes to us with a constitution framed upon republican models, and conformable to the Cionstitution of the United States ; and under these circumstances, still admitting her application as premature and irregular, I amrfor admitting her, as there hasbeen nothing done Whichher admis- sion on our part will not cure. She will be lawfully in the Union if r we admit her, and therefore I have no hesitation upon that point. ’ T 1 Then, with respectto the Territories : I have been andl am of “opinion that we should not separate, at the end of this session of Congress without having made a suitable provision for theirrgovevtnment. Itdonot»-think_it safe to allow things . to stand as they are. It hasxbeen thought that there may be such a thing as admitting California, andvstopping there. Well, it is not impossible in the nature of things, that such a course of policy should be adopted, if it wduld meet the proper concui'rence._ But then I have always supposed, : sir, that if we were new acting upon California as a separate measure, and should, in the prosecution of that measure, admit her into the Union, the inquiry would immediately arise, W That was a matter of judgment upon the ex- ii ~~peuieiiwy§aet“Th*e'ceiirrs.ei..~, ”WI""WtiSi~*O11B ot'~1:h*e“ Committee of Thirteen. Circumstan- C33 Cal1ed“~me.,to my home during its deliberations; andit seemed to be the— ' d I thouorht the better Q_p,in:_-my -3 What then, or what next ? I have never supposed that the questions respecting the Territories would thereby be put to rest,,even for the present. I have supposed, on the contrary, that the very next thing to be done would be, to take up the subject of the necessity of a government for the Territories, and prosecute that subject until it should be in some manner terminated by Con- gress, to the exclusion of I all ordinary subjects of legislation. I am not author- iced to say, sir, I do not know, the opinion of the honorable members of the Committee on Territories : here Site near me the honorable member from Illié nois, who is at the head of that committee, and I take it for granted that he can say whether I am right o1;,notI,’ilthat if we should this clay admit California alone, he would to—morrow_,feel it his duty to bring in a bill for the government of the Territories, or tnmialce some disposition of them. I I Mr. DOUGLAS, Qipniwati low voice.) Does the Senator wish an answer ? I Mr. Wsnsrrmt“ Lshould like to lrnow the honhr-able mernber’s purposeu Mr. Doqoedd. Mr. President, if Californialshould be admitted by herself, I shoL1lcfl,,eef‘iainly feel it my duty, as the chairman of the Committee on Territo- l Wr:ie»s5"“”to move to take up the subject of the Territories at once, and put them """" " through, and also the Texas boundary question, and to settle them by detail, if they are not settled in the aggregate, together. i I can such is the opinion p 1 and determination of a ma ority of that committee. I Mr. W.nn.s'ren' resumed. t Then“, I I get rid of the subject, evenfor the present, by admitting California alone. Now, sir, it is not wise to conceal from ourselves our condition. Suppose we admit California alone. My honorable friend from Illinois brings in, then, a. bill for a I I‘II’I‘rir-item-ito:~ia1 government for New Mexico and Utah. We rrntist open our eyes to the stateof opinion in the two Houses respectively, and endeavor to foresee what would be the probable fate of such a bill. If it be a bill containing as whil- bition of slavery, we know it could not pass this House. If it be a bill without such prohibition, we know what difficulty it would encounterellsewliere. So that we very little relieve ourselves from the embarrassing circum,Istances‘olf the condition in which we are placed, by taking up California and acting upon it, alone. I am therefore, sir, decidedly infavor of passing the bill in the form in which it is upon your table. I . But, sir, if it be the pleasure of the Senate to approve the motion which it is proposed to make to the Senate, shortly, for laying this whole measure upon the tag ble, and thereby disposing of this bill, I can only, for one, say that if this measure be defeated by that proceeding, or any other, I hold myself not only inclined, but bound, to consider any other measures which may be suggested 5 because the case is pressing, and the circumstances of the country are ‘urgent. When in the world have we had any foreign question, if I may say so, any exterior question, that has occupied the ‘consideration of Congress for sevenmonths, and yet been brought to no result? When have we had a subject before us that has paralyzed all the operations of Government, that has displaced the regular proceedings of the two Houses of Congress, and has left us at the end ofseven months of a session, without the ordinary annual appropriation bills}, IWhen have we ever had before, in the historytof this Government, such an occurrence as that ?_nWhat is now proposed, is, to make a territorial government for New . .l.lMle*fxidoli‘ilandlUtah, without restriction. to I feel yauthorizedtoassume,jlfrornthei ll c+ircu.mstancjes.=before us, that it ‘is in the power of gentlemen of the South to decide whether this territorial government without restriction, as providedlin this bill, shall be established or not. I have voted against restrictionfor the reasons which I have already given to the Senate, and may Irejpeat; i_,b.uti,t now lies with Southern gentlemen to say whether this bill, thus providing forterri- torial governments without restriction, shall pass or not; and they willdecide that question, doubtless, by reference to what is likely to happen, if it should not pass. ow, sir, I am prepared to say that if this measure does not pass,“ Yam I “ rr,,yWt‘‘’awpuaiynauunvawmvatLa;;::;.,_jgWj,nwmzs , 4 ireadytto support other proper measures that can pass, and will pass. Ish-all never consent to end this session of Congress until some provision be made for New Mexico. Utah is less important. Let her respose herself upon the borders of the Salt Lake another year, if necess_ary. But as to New Mexico, sitiulated as she is,with a controversy on hand, as she has, with her more pow-« erful neighbor, Texas, Ishall never consent to the adjournment of Congress without a provision made for avoiding a collision, and for the settlement of the point in controversy between that Territory and that State. I have the strongest objection to a premature creation of States. I stated that objection at large 111 the Senate, some two years ago. The bringing in of small States with a rep- resentation in the Senate equal to the representation of the largest States in the Union, and with a very small number of people, deranges and disturbs the pro- per balance between the Senate and the House of Representatives in Congress. It makes the Senate a kind of oligarchy. There may be six, or eight, or ten small States in the southwest, having as many Senators in Congress as they have Representatives. This objection is founded upon the incongruity which such a case produces in the constitutional relation of the Senate and the House. It disfigures the symmetry of the Government; and in this respect it does not make“ the slighest possible difference, in my estimation, whether they are to be Wee Safes or slave States. I am not disposed to make a Territory, that is im- I “”“i”fif’0l’thet ~j:*Unio1‘i“,”“i““on‘ ac co mat of want of population, a State, ‘merely because itwill beta free State. That does not weigh with me a hair. But my objection has”lbetenranrd“~i~s";-as—.L..haye stated or attempted to .state, that the admission of such States, with such sm3H”aTn“ounT§”ot popufitioii, jderanges the system. It makes the Senate what it was never intended by the Constitution to be. , Nevertheless, sir, as I favor the admission of California, Valtihoupgh she presents herself before us with some irregularity in her course ‘of proceedings, so there are greater evils, in my judgment, than the admission of New Mexico as a State, now, at once, or the provision that she shall be ad- mittecl in a certain time hereat'ter., I do not think that so great an evil as it would "be to leave New Mexicojwithont a government, without protection, on the very eve of’ probable hostility with Texas, so far as I can discern; for, to my mind, there is the highest. degree of probability, that there will arise collisions, contests, and,‘ for $3.u°‘l1l;_I know, bloodshed, if the boundaries of New Mexico shall not be ffsettled by ongress. , w ”_ j j j I I I know no question so important, connected with all these matters, as this isettlfementq of the Texan boundary. i That immediately and intimately, in my; udgment, touches the question of the duration of peace and quiet in the bouhtry; andtl cannot conceive how gentlemen, looking upon that subject in “all ,its',asip_ec_ts,""ican content themselves with the idea of retiring from their seats “here, andfjleiaving it where it is. I should be derelict to my duty if I jjdid not persist,_ to theilast, in bringing it to a decision by the authority of Con- fgres‘rs;. If a a motion be made, as it has been announced to be intended to be ‘made, to lay this bill upon the table, and that motion prevails, this measure is ftatjaisiwend. ,"‘T,hen',there must be a resort to some other measures; and I am ”dispo“sed tosay that, in case of the failure of this ‘bill, I shall be in favor of ya billfwhich, shall provide for three things, viz: The admission of California with itS,,p.resentjconstitutionand boundaries, the settlement of the Texan boundary, andqjthe ,a_,drni_ssion of ,,Me;8;ico _fas”a State. Sueha measure will produce a final termination of the controversies which new agitate us, and relieve the jrrijcountryllfromdistraction. , j p p . Siiir,”this'\mearsure is topposed by the North, or some of the North, andby the ,"_Soufth,T or some of the Southgj andjit has the remarkable misfortune to encounter resisjtanoei by personsthe most precisely opposed to eachother in every m'attercon- fnfectéid, witjhthei subje ct under consideration. . There are those-—--I do not speak, of course, of I members of Congress, and I do not desire to be understood as 5 making any allusion whatever, in what I may say, to members of this House or of the other-,—-there are those in the country who say, on the partoftthe South, that the South by this bill gives up everything to the North, and we will fight it to the last; and there are those, on the part of the North, who say that this bill gives up everything to the South, and we will fight itto the last. it And really, sir, strange as it may seem, this disposition to make battle upon the bill, by people who never agreed in anything before under the light of Heaven, has created a sort of fellowship and good feeling between them. One says, Give me your_hancl, my good fellow; you mean to go against this bill to the death, because it gives up the rights of the South _; I mean to go against the bill to the death, because it givesrtfip the rights of the North; let us shake hands and ‘cry out, “Down withgthte bill,” and then unitedly raise the shout, “A. day, an hour, of virtuous l.ihe~rty is worth a whole eternity in bondage!” Such is the coirsis-— tency of;the‘“‘”'dpposition to this measure. I ’ I lw\j_9w',“” sir, I ascribe nothing but the best and purest motives to any of the geiitlemen, on either side of this chamber, or of the other House, who take that view of this subject which c:lifFers from my own. I cannot but regret, cer~ ’ tainly, that gentlemen who sit around me, and especially my honorable col- league, and myfriendsl tom Massachjusetts in the other House, are obli by their glengel r 0f “tide “t*g,"r,I,,,,,gvlarger .. i I e,» conscience to support to the utmost of my ability. They are just as high min aspatriotic, pure, and every way as well-intentionerl as I am 5 and, sir, if it was put to a vote, and the thing were to be decided by a majority, I must conn fess my friends from Massachusetts could outvoteme. But still my own opin- ions are not changed, not in the least degree changed. Iteel that every interest k 1 of the State, one of whose representatives I am, as well every great interest of the whole country, requires that this measure, or some equivalent measure, as healing, composing, and conciliatory. ; s this, should be adopted by Congress before its adjournment. That ismy object, and I shall steadily pursue it. ‘ Letus examine this. r If I may analyze the matter a little both inregard to the North and the South, Massachusetts, being a northern State, may be taken as an example, or a sample, of northern interests. What does she gain by this bill? What does she lose by it? If this bill passes, Massachusettsand theiNorth gain the admission of California as a free State, with her ,present constitution, a very intensely desirable object, as I believe, to all the North. She gains that.‘ ‘ Shengains, also, the quieting of the New Mexican ques—- tion and the Texas boundary, which, in my judgment, as I have already said, is themost important of all these questions, because it is the most immediately menacing evil consequences, if such consequences be not arrested by this or some similar measure. She gains the quiet of New Mexico, and she gains the settlement of the Texas boundary-—objects all desirable and most iznportant. More than that, sir, she gains, and the whole,Northgains, and the ‘whole country gains, the final adjustment of by far the greatest partof all theesla-4 very questions. ,When I speak of this bill in that connexion, Inrean also to connect it with the other subjects reoornmended by the cominitteee; and Isay t,hat.,if,ithe.whlo1e report of that committee fcouldybetcarried out, one of tliepgreati ded, est of all possibleibenefits will be secured; that is, the settlement, to?,anr.entent”rof . far more t~hanla majority of them all, of the questions connected with slavery which have so long agitated the country. And then, sir,l\/Iassachusetts, and the North, and the whole country, gain therestoration of ; this Government to the ordinary. exercise of its functioris. The North and the South will, see Gene grass replaced in its position of and active, beneficial, parental legislation for the whole country. Consider, sir, what has happened? While itis of the utmost importance that this restoration to the exercise of its ordinary functions by_Con- gress should be _accomplished, here we are, seven or eight rnonths from the beginning of the session, hardly able to i keep the Government alivle. _All is 9 Wu‘/mt We "la, y W, E J 6 paralysis. We are nearly brought" to a stand. We are all suspended upon this one topic, this one.idea, as if there were no object in government, nousgs iiigoverninent, no duties of those who administer government, but to sett e one uestion. , ' p , T ‘Wciall, sir, the next inquiry is, _What do l\/Iassacliusetts and the North, the anti- slavery States, lose by this adjustment? gWhat is it they lose? I put that question to every gentleman here, and to every nian_in the country. _ They lose the application of what is called the Wilinot Proviso to these Territories, and that is all. There is nothing else that I suppose the whole No_rth_are not Willing to do, or willing to have done. They yvish to get California into the Union and quiet New Mexico 3 they wish to terminate the dispute about the Texan boundary, cost what it reasonably may. They make no sacrifice in all these. What they sacrifice is this: The application of the Wilmot PI'0V1S0 ‘C0 the TeI'I‘1t0- ries of New Mexico and Utah, and that is all._ Now, what IS the value of that loss, or that sacrifice, in any i'easonableman’s estimater-P The value of it, sir, depends upon its necessity. If, in any reasonable inarfis Judgmeiit, thetliiecessity of the application of that Proviso to New Mexico is apparent,.why, then, lZl1E‘:1‘6glS value in it to those who hold that the further extension of slayery is tobe re»- sgsted, as 3, matter of principle. But if‘ it be not necessary, if _cii-cumstances do * is Proviso, fillld. 110 i‘-53»01‘1~ fice made in refusing, or declining tolapply it. ‘That is the question. ‘_ _ Now, sir, allow me to say,*that the Wilmot Proviso is no matter of: principle;g it is a insane to an end; and it cannot be raised to the dignityvriiofvapriii'cipleii The‘ principle of the North I take to be, that there shall be no further extension of slave territory. Let that be admitted; what then? ‘It does not necessarily fol-— low that in every case you must come down with a Wilmot. If there are other circumstances that are imperative and conclusive, and such as influencg and control the judgment of reasonable men, rendering it unnecessary, for these- tablishment of that principle, to apply arneasure which is obnoxioiis and disa- greeable to others, and, regardedbythem as derogatory to their equality as main» bers of the Union, then, I say, it is neither high, nor patriotic, nor just to applyvit. a My honorable colleague ajdrnitted‘ the other day, with great propriety and frankness, that if it could be made. certain, or ifit were certain, that natural causes necessarily excludeslavery from New Mexico, then the restriction ought not to beinserted in” the bill. Now, by certainty, I suppose my colleague meant notrvmathemlatical certainty ;, lIv suppose he meant that high probability, that moral certainty, which governs men in all the concerns of life. Our du- ties to society, our objects in society, are all measured by that high probability, which is something short of mathematical certainty, but which we are bound to acttupon in every transaction of daily life, either in a public or in a private ca» pacity. T Now, the question, therefore---I address myself to gentlemen of the North—-is this: Is the probability of the exclusion of slavery from New Mexico by natural causes so high, and strong, and conclusive, as that we should act upon it as we act on the same degree of probability, applied to other questions, in civil, moral, and social relations? I shall not recur to what I have said, myself, heretofore, on this subject; for I suppose my friend from Pennsylvania, Mr. CO0PER,) and my friend from Connecticut, (Mr. SMr'rrr,) who discussed this matter latterly, have “left it proved, and as much demonstrated as any.prob~ lem of ‘a moralandpoliticallvcharactercan be demionstrated, thatit is true, that N ew Mexico is not a country in which slaveryexists,tor into which it ever can beintroduced. If that were not so upon previous evidence, and if new anything further need be added, we have before us, to-day, an authentic expression, of thelwill of the inhabitants of that country themselves, who,yitis‘ agreed on all hands, have the ultimate right of decision on a subject that concerns them»; selves alone, and that expression is altogether against slavery. What is it,vthen,~thatis' yielded by the Northlbut a mere abstraction, it naked 7 , ‘potssllblllty, upon which no man would act? N o man would venture a farthing now for a great inheritance to be bestowed on him when slavery should be es-’ ‘tablished in New Mexico. Now that there is an authentic declaration upon the subject by the people of New Mexico themselves, what is thieretthatishould lead us to hesitate in settling this matter? =Why shouldtwe proceed upon the ground of an abstract notion of adhering to the Wilmot Proviso? And Itrnust be permitted to say that, as applied to this case, it is all an abstraction. I do not mean to say that the injunction againstslavery in the ordinance of 1787 was a mere abstraction; on the contrary, it had its uses; but I say the applica- tion of that rule to this case is a mere, abstraction, and nothing else. . It does not affect the state of things in the slightest degree, present or future. Every thing is to be now, and remain hereafter, with or without that restriction just as it would the other way. It is, therefore, in my judgment, clearly an abstiaction. I am S01‘J.',Yg sir, very sorry, that my friend from Connecticut, (Mr. SMITH ) 'whoWhas»st1tdied this case a great deal more than I have, studied it while lie ,..was’i"a member of the other House, and has demonstrated, beyond theupower of ,which has risen to a sort of rule, in some of the Amen-s 8 can States, is differently received and treated elsewhere. _According to our notions and habits of thinking, it is not only allowable, but incumbent upon a. member of Congress, in the opinion of many, to follow the in_structions given by his own particular COI1St1l'.ll€‘.ntS, although his vote affects the interest, the honor, the glory, the renown of twenty millions of people. As an instance, sir, of the various views taken of this subject, _as a question of morals, 1 may refer to what happened in the Chamberof Deputies of France_ some years ago, perhaps while the honorable member from Michigan was residing in lfaris, but more probably shortly after his return. A gentleman, who was a candidate for the Chamber of Deputies in France, promised his constituents that on a certain measure, expect-~ ed to "come before the chamber, he would vote as they required. They required him to vote so and so, and he said he would do it. Well, sir, he was chosen; and when he came to the Chamber to take the oath of cities, he was told: Not so fast! Objection was made. The Chamber said he did not come there as a fair man 5 he did not come as an impartial man, to judge of the interests of the whole country upon the great questions that were to come before the Chain» her. He was pledged and trammelled; he had given up his conscience and promised his vote, and therefore did not stand on an equalityxwith other niem~~-- , i bers of that assembly who came unpledged and untrarnmelled, and bound to e.:,;qi,~_,,.1.-3 l'.1M.".‘.ll." i been udgments. I, tliey_rej_ected liini, and whoever v e upon political morals, arid the duty of those who represent the people, thatl know of since the time of Mr. .'Burke’s speech at Bristol, can be gratified by reading Monsieur Guizot’s speech on that occasion. The member came under pledges made to afew to give his vote ‘for them, although it mightbe against the many, and they held him not to be a worthy representative of France, fit to act on the questions which concern ed the interests of the whole kingdom. For my part, sir, I know how easily we glide into this habit of following instructions. Although I know,‘ too, that mem- bers of Congress wish to act conscientiously always, and I believe they wish themselves free from these trarnmels. But the truth is, that under the doctrine of instructions Congress is not free. To the extent to which this doctrine may at any time prevail in it, the two Houses are not deliberative bodies. Congress needs a “Wilmot Proviso,” much more than the snow-capped mountains of New Maxi» co, or the salt plains of Utah. If the genius of American liberty, or some angel from a higher sphere, could flyover the land with a scroll bearing words, and with power to give effect to those ‘words, and those words should be: “Be it ordained that neither in the Senate nor in the House of Representatives in Con- gress assembled, shall there be slavery or involuntary servitude, except for cririie,” it would be a glorious crowning honor and felicity, to the Constitution of the United States. 0! thou spirit of Nathan Dane! I-low couldst thou take so much pains to set men’s limbs and motions free in the Territories, and never’ deign to add even a proviso, in favor of the freedom of opinion and conscience in the halls of Congress! > t i Sir, I am of opinion that every public consideration connected with the._ain— e-rests of the State, one of whose representatives, and theimost humble of them all, I am, shows the absolute necessity of settling this question atonce, upon fair and reasonable terms; the necessity of judging subjects according to their real merit and importance, and acting accordingly; and that we.,sli,pi,i_ltl,,,not be carried away by. fancies of gorgons, hydras, and chirne~rras:t..idire, to the utter disregard. of all that is substantially valuable, ir.riportant,aiid essential in the ad- ministration of the Governmen t. Massachusetts, oneof the smallest of the States of the Union, circumscribed within the limits of.8,000 square miles, of barren, rocky, and sterile territory, possesses within its limits at lthismoment a million of people. = ‘With the same ratio of ‘ population, N eWiY0'i.’kiWO1Jld containfnearly 6,000,000 people,=and Virginiaimore than"7,0OO,0030. ‘What arethe occupatioiis . andrpursuits of such a population on so small a territory? 7 A_very small portion 9 of them live by the tillage of the land. They are engaged exactly in those pursuit which fall under the control, protection, and regulation of the laws of this Government. These pursuits are, commerce, navigation, the fisheries, and manufactures; every one of _ which is under the influence of the operation of acts of Congress every day. On none of these subjects does Congress ever" pass a law that does nottmaterially affect the happiness, industry, and pros- perity of Massachusetts; yes, and of Rhode Island too, [looking at the Rhode Island. Senators] Is it not, then, of great importance to all these interests that the Government should be carried on regularly? that it should have the power of action, of motion, andlegislation? Is it not the greatest calamity, that it should be all paralyzed, hung up, dependent upon oneidea, as if there was no object in government, no use in government, no desirable protection from government, and no desirable legislation by government, except what relates to the single topic of slavery? . it I cannot conceive that these great interests would be readily surrendered by the business men of the country, the laboring community of the Northern Statues-, to abstractions, to naked possibilities, to idle fears, that evils may ensue if a partic- ular abstract measure be not passed. Men must live; to live, they must work. And: howis this to be done, if inthis way all business of society is stopped, and I every thing isplaiced in a state, of stsagnation, and no man knows when to expect the hour of his redemption to draw nigh? Depend upon it, the people of the . North wish to see an end put to this state of things; they desire to see a. measure of ‘ conciliation pass, and harmony restored ; and to be, again, in the enjoyment of a good government, under the protection and action of good laws, and that their interrupted labors may be profitably resumed; that their daily employment may return ; that their daily means of subsistence and education for themselves and their families may be provided. There has not been, in my acquaintance with the people of this country, a moment in which so much alarm has been experienced, so much sinking of the heart fel_t, at the state of public affairs, in a. time of peace, as now. I leave it to others to judge for themselves, who may better know ublic ‘opinion 5 but, for my part, I believe it is the conviction of five-sixths of the whole North, that questions such as have occupied us here should not be allowed any longer to embarrass the Government, and defeat the just hopes of those who support the Government and expect to live under its protection and care. 7 I have alluded to the argument of my friend from Connecticut, because it is the ablest argument on this subject that I haveheard; and I have alluded to his intimated vote as illustrating what I consider the evil of instructing men, before a case arises, as to what shall be their conduct upon that case. The honorable member from Connecticut is as independent as any other man, andof course will not «understand me to mean anything personal in what I have said. I take his case merely as an illustration of the folly and absurdity of instructions... vWhy should amen of his strength of intellect, andwhile acting for the whole country, be controlled in his judgment by instructions given by others, with little knowledge of the circumstances, and no view of the whole case? ‘ a it I have now, Mr. President, said what I think the North maygain, andtwhat‘ it may lose..= Now let us inquireflhow it is with the South. In the first place, I think that the South, if all these measures pass, will gain an acceptable, and r satisfactoryiamaroidte for the reclamation of fugitive slaves. As to the territorial I acquisitions, I am bound in candor to say, taking Maryland as an example, for instance, that Maryland will gain just what Massachusetts loses, and that is nothing at all; because I have not theslightest idea that, by anything that we can dohere, any provision could be made by which the territoryiof New Mexico and Utah could become, susceptible of slave labor, andso useful to the South. Now, let me say, Mr. President, with great respect and kindness, that I wish Southern gentlemen should consider this ‘matter “10 -calmly and deliberately. There are none in this chamber, certainly, who desire the dissolution of this Union, nor in the other House of Congress. But all the World out of doors is not as wise and patriotic, as all the world within these walls; and I am quite aware that there are those who raise the loudest clamor against the Wilmot Proviso, and other restrictions upon slavery, that would be exceedingly gratified, nevertheless, to have that restriction im- posed. I believe there are those stretched all along from here to the Gulf of Mexico Who would say, “Let them put on further restrictions ;let them push the South a little further,and then we shall know what we have to do.” But, again, the Southern States gain What they think important and gratifying; that is, an exemption from a derogatory inequality. They find themselves placed where they wish to be placed, and, as far as the Territories are concerned, relieved from What they consider the Wilrnot yoke. This appeases a feeling of wounded pride; and they gain, too, the general restoration of peace and her» mony in the progr‘ess~ of the Government, in the beneficial operation of which they have a full share. One of the evils attendant upon this question, is the harsh judgment passed by one portion of the Union upon another, founded not on the conduct of the North or South generally, but on the conduct of particular persons or associations in each part respectively. Unjust charges are made by one against the other, and these are retaliated by those who are the objects of them. Accusations made by individuals in the North are charged by the South upon the whole North indiscriminately. On the other hand, ex- travagant individuals at the South utter objectionable sentiments; and these are ?bruited all over the North as Southern sentiments, and therefore the South is denounced. In the same way, sentiments springing from the abolitionists of ‘the North, which no man of character and sense approves, are spread in the South; and the whole North is there charged as abolitionists, or being tinc- ‘xtured with abolitionism. Now, one side is just as fair and as true as the other. It is a prejudice, of which both sides must rid themselves, if they ever mean to -come together as brethren, enjoying one renown, one destiny, and expecting one and the same glory hereafter. If we mean to live together, common prudence should teach us to treat each other with respect. t T T The Nashville address has been alluded to, and ithas been charged upon the whole South, as a syllabus of Southern sentiments. N ow, all do notbelieve a word of this. Far beit from me to impute to the South, generally, the sentiments of of the Nashville Convention. That address is a studied disunion argument. It proceeds upon the ground that there must be a separation of the States, first, because the North acts so injuriously to the South that the South must secede; and, secondly, even if it were not so, and a better sense of duty should return to the North, still such is the diversity of interest, that they cannot be kept together. Mr. BARNWELL, (interposing) Will the honorable Senator refer to that portion of the address which contains the sentiment which he declarescontains the desire for disunion in any event Whatever; for that I understand is the charge against the address? r p v ‘ T T Mr. Wsnsrsn. What I understand about this address is this: I say the .-argument of the address is, that the States cannot berkept together; because, first, the general disposition of the N orthis to invade the rights of the South, stating this in general language merely; and tlien, secondly, even if . _thctwe~re not so, and the North should get into a better temper in that respect, still no per- manent peace could be ‘expected, ‘and no union“ long maintained, on account of the diversity of interests between the different portions of the Union. i There a is, according to the address, but onejconclition on which people can live toge- ther under the same governrnent; and that is, where interests areiientirely ridenticalg An exact identity of interest, «according to their inotions, is the only security of goodgovernment. r W ’ s t t i ~ _ a Mr. .B.A.‘RNWELI... With regard to the first part, the honorable Senator 1S cor- 11 rect, and I have nopcloubt at all that is the character of the address, that, unu less a great change be produced in the temper of the Northern people, and the "treatment which they give to us onaccount of our institutions, no permanent union between us could exist. With regard to the latter part,I contend that the -address contains no such sentiment. It states distinctly that, in the position which the difi"erentportions of the Union occupy with regard to each other, with the want of that identity of interest between them, it is absolutely essential to the :South thatits sectional interests should be independent of the control of the North. Mr. WEBSTER. And what does that mean but separation 2 Mr. BARNWELL. Not at all. It means what I have always alleged, that the North has no right to interfere “with the institution of slavery. If that interfer- ence is stopped, we do not contend that there is any necessity for a dissolu- p tion of the Union. But if it is persisted in, then the opinion of the address is, .and I believe the opinion of a large portion of the Southern people is, that the Union cannot be made to endure. a Mr. Wnssrnn. It is hardly worth while, as the paper is not before us, for the honorable member from South Carolina and myself to enter into a dis»- cussion about this address. If I understand its argument, it is as I expressed it, thiatyevenif the North were better behaved, there is a want of identity «of interests between the North and the South which must soon breal:‘up.th‘eu Union. As far as regards the other r'ema1;k, that the North must abstain from any interference with the peculiar institutions of the South, why, every sensible man in the North thinks exactly so. I know that the sensible men of the North are of opinion, that the institution of slavery, as it exists in the States, was intendedoriginally.to be, ha.s ever been, and now justly is, entirely out of the scope and reach of the legislation of this Government; and this every body understands. . I But I was saying that I can and shall not impute any sentiment of disunion to the South, generally. Why, whom dol sit among? tWith‘ whom have I been associated here for thirty years? With good Union men from the South. And in this Chamber, and in late years, have there not beenmen from the South who have resisted every thing that threatened danger to the Union? Have there not been men here that, at some risk of losing favor with their own people at home, have resisted the Mexican war, the acquisition of territory by arms, nay, men who played for the last stake, and resisted the ratification of the treaty after the conquest was made, by which these Territories were brought under the control ofthis Government? Sir, with these recollections, which do so much honor to the character of these gentlemen, and with these acts, which attest the entire loyalty of the great body of the South to the Union, I shall indulge in no gen- eral complaint against them ;‘ nor, so far as it comes within the power of my rebuke, will Itolerate it. They have the same interests, they are descended from the same revolutionary blood, and believe the glory of the country to be as much theirs as ours; and I verily believe they desire to secure as perpetual an at- tachment to the North as the most intelligent men of the North do to perpetuw ate such an attachment with the South. I believe that the great masses of the people, both North and SOI1i‘.l_1, aside from the influence or agitation, are for the Union and for the, Government; and God‘ grant that they mayremain so, and prevent evetrytthling which may overturn either the one or the other! [A¥p- plaus!e,”instantly checked by the President] a I, was sorry to hear, because I thought it was quite unjust, that all the folly and _madness of the recent expedition to:Cuba was chargeable upon theSouth,~gen’- erally. S The South had nothing‘, more to do with it than Massachusetts, or the city of Boston, or the city of New York. It is unjust to say that such a violation of the law was perpetrated by the South, or found more apology or justification in the general Southern mind, than it found in New York or in Mas- . sachusetts. 12 Mr. BUTLER, (in his seat.) Not a bit more. Mr. WEBSTER. Now, the Senator from Connecticut told the truth the other day, and I am obliged to him for telling the truth. [Laughteizj I do not mean that it ‘is unusual for him, [renewed laughter,] but I mean that it is a great deal more unusual, in the course of this debate, to hear the real truth spoken, than to hear ingenious sophisms, and empty abstractions. But he told us the truth in respect to these territorial acquisitions: thatit was not the North or the South that were the real authors of that conquest, but that it was the party that supported Mr. Polk for the Presidency", and that supported his measures while in the Presidency. The South, undoubtedly, as the party most in favor of the ‘administration, ‘tools’. the lead; and that part of the North that up-' held the administration followed, not as little Iulus followed his father---~ “rzon pa.9.s-ibus egm.'s”--but with the same stride as its leaders. And there- fore I was glad that my honorable friend from Connecticut, instead of giv- ing us a normal, stereotyped speech against the South, told the truth of these transactions. There are other topics, which I pass over. I said something formerly about the imprisonment of the black citizens of the North who go south, engaged in navigation, and are there arrested. That is a serious business, and we see that England has complained ofit, as violating our treaty with her. Ithink that it is an evilthat ought to be redressed; fonl never could see any necessity for it, and am fully persuadedthat other means can be taken to relieve the South from alarm without committing an outrage upon those who, at home, are considered as American citizens. At the same time I am bound to say that I know nothing in the world to prevent any free citizen of Massachusetts, imprisoned under the laws of South Carolina, from trying the question of the constitutionality of that law, by applying at once to any judge of the United States for a writ of /zabeas corpzts. I do not think, therefore, that there was any great necessity of matting it a matter of public embassy. Ithinlt that was rather calculated to inflame feeling, than to do good. But I must say, as I have said heretofore, that the gentleman who went from Massachusetts was one of the most respect- able men in the Commonwealth, bearing an excellent character, of excellent temper, andevery way entitled to the regard of others, to the extent to which he has enjoyed the regard of the people of Massachusetts. Sir, I wasin Boston some month or two ago, and, at a meeting of the people, said, that the public mind of Massachusetts, and the North, was lahoring under certain prejudices, and that I would take an occasion, which I did not then enjoy, to state what I supposed these prejudices to be, and how they had arisen. I shall say a few words on the subject now. In the first place, I think that there is no prejudice on the part of the people of Massachusetts or of the North, arising out of any ill-will, or any want of patriotism or good feel- ing, to the whole country. It all originates in misinformation, false representa- tion, misapprehensions arising from those laborious efforts that have been made for the last twenty years to pervert the public judgment,and irritate the public feelin . y ” S , y p Theg first of these misapprehensions is an exaggerated sense of the actual evil of the reclamation of fugitive slaves, felt by Massachusetts and the other New England States. What produced that? The cases do not exist.,_,,,,,.There has not been a case within the knowledge of this gener.atidn‘, in which a man has been taken back from Massachusetts into slavery by process of law, not one; and yet» there are hundredsof people, who read nothing but abolition newspapers, who suppose that these cases arise weekly; that, as a common thing, men, and sometimes their wives and childern, are dragged back from the free soiliof Massachusetts into slaveryat the South. , t o 4 Mr. HALE, (interposing.) Will the honorable. Senator allow me to ask him a question? Is he not mistaken in the point of fact in regard to the State of _ :giesPs.Cti:..the..P 13 Massachusetts? I recollect something occurring in Massachusetts, not more than three or four years ago, in relation to a man by the name of Pierson, and that there was a large public meeting on the subject in Faneuil Hall. Mr. Wnnsrsn. I will state how that was. That was a case of kidnapping by some one who claimed, or pretended to claim, the negro, and ran away with him by force. What I mean to say is, that there has been no man, un- der the Constitution and laws of the country, sent back from Massachusetts into slavery, in this generation. Ihave stated before, and I state now, that cases of violent seizure or kidnapping have occurred, and they may occur in any State in the Union, under any provisions of law, and in respect to black persons or white persons. Now, sir, this prejudice, made by the incessant attrition on the public mind by abolition societies, abolition presses, and abolition lecturers, has grown very strong. No drum-head, in the longest day’;-2 march, was ever more incessantl ‘ beaten and smitten," than public sentimentlin the North has been, every month, and day, and hour, by the din, and roll, and rub—a-dub of abolition writers and abolition lecturers. I That it is which has created the prejudice. Sir, the principle of the restitution of . runaway slaves is not objectionable, unless the Constitution is objectionable. If the Constitution is right in that p ciple__ isright, andjthe law providing for carrying it into effect is right. If tiliatilbleiso, and if there be no abuse of theright under any law of Congress, or any other law, then what is there to complain of P I say, sir, that not only has there been no case, so far as I can learn, of the ‘reclamation of a slave by his master, which ended in talring him back to sla- very in‘ this generation, but I will add that, so far as I have been able to go back in my researches, as far as I have been able to hear and learn in all that region, there has been no one case of false claim. Who knows in all New Eng- land of a single case of false claim having ever been set up to an alleged fugitive from slavery? It may. possibly have happened; but I have never lznown it nor heard of it, although I have made diligent inquiry; nor do I be«- Iieve there is the slightest danger of it, for all thecommunity are alive to, and would take instant alarm at, any appearance of such a case, and especially at this time. There is no danger of any such violation being perpetrated. Before I pass from this subject, sir, I will say that what seems extraordinary is this, that this principle of restitution, which has existed in the country for more than two hundred years without complaint, sometimes as a matter of agreement between the Northern colonies and the South, and sometimes as a matter of comity, should all at once, and after the length of time Ihave mentioned, become a subject of excitement. I happen to have in my hands letter from Gov. Berkely, the governor of Virginia, to Gov. Endicott, of Mas- sarhusetts, written in.the year 1644---more than two hundred years ago---in which he says that a certain gentleman (naming him) had lost some servants, whom he supposes to have-run away, giving their names, into the jurisdiction of Massachusetts; and the member from Kentucky glllr. CLAY] will be pleased to learn that it contains a precedent for what he consi ers to be the proper course of proceedingin such cases. Gov. Berkelystates that the gentleman, the owner of the slaves, has madeiit appear in court that they are his slavesand have run away. He goeson to say, ,‘‘,We expect you to use all kind oflices for the restoration to their mastersof tthxelsleifugiltirvie s, as we constantly exercise the same ofices in restor- ing runaways to you.” At that day I do not suppose there were a great many slaves in ,_Massachusetts; but there was an extensive system of apprenticeship, and hundreds of persons were bound apprenticesin Massachusetts, some of whom would run away. They were as likely to rungto Virginia as any where else; and in such cases they were returned, upon demand, to their masters. Indeed it was found necessaryin the early laws of Massachusetts to make provision for the seizure and return of runaway apprentices. In all the revi- 14 sions of our laws, this provision remains; and here it is in the revised statutes- now before me. It provides that runaway apprentices shall be secured upon the application of their masters_, or any one on their behalf, and put into jail_ until they can be sent for by their masters; and there is no trial by jury in their case, either. Isay, therefore, that the exaggerated statement of the danger‘ and mischief arising from this right of reclaiming slaves is a prejudice, pro-, duced by the causes I have stated, and one which ought not longer to haunt and terrify the public mind. With great respect, I will also state that I think it is a prejudice to insist. with so much strength upon the application of the “Wilmot Proviso” to these. Territories of New Mexico and Utah, because of its apparent inapplicability, and the want of all reasonable necessity for making that application in the man~ ner proposed, and“ as itis offensive and affronting to gentlemen from Southern States. Another prejudice against the South is just exactly that which exists in the South against the North, and consists in imputing to a ‘whole portion of the country the extravagances of individuals. Sir, I dwell no longer upon these subjects, into which I was led rather inci-~~ dentally by a remark of my own, as I have said, in Boston. But I return for a few moments to the general question. I will say, however, before I depart from this part of the case, that the State in whose representation I bear a part, is a Union State, thoroughly and em-V phatically; that she is attached to the Union and the Constitution by insepa- rable ties; that she connects all her own history from colonial times, her_ struggle for independence, her efforts for the establishment of this Govern-» ment, and all the benefits and blessings which she has enjoyed under it, in one great attractive whole, to which her affections are constantly and pow-— erfully drawn. All these make up a history in which she has taken a part, and the whole of which she enjoys as a most precious inheritance. She is a State for the Union; she will be for the Union. It is the law of her destiny: it is the law of her situation: it is a law imposed upon her by the recollections of the past, and by every interest of hers for the present, and every hope of hers for the future. I ‘ , Mr. President, it has always seemed to me to be a grateful reflection that, however short and transient may be the lives of individuals, States may be permanent. The great corporations that embrace the government of mankind, protect their liberties, and secure their happiness, may have something of perpetuity, and as I might say, of immortality. For my part, sir, I gratify myself by contemplating what in the future will be the condition of that gen- erous State, which has done me the honor to keep me in the counsels of the country for so many years. ‘I see nothing about her in prospect, less thanthat‘ which encircles her now. I feel that when I, and all those that now hear me, shall have gone to our last home, and afterwards, when mould may have gathered upon our memories, as it will have done upon our tombs, that State, so early to take her part in the great contest of the Revolution, will stand, as she has and does now stand, like that column which, near her Capitol, per- petuates the memory of the first great battle of the Revolution, firm, erect, and immoveable. I believe, sir, that if commotion shall shake the country, there will be one roclc forever, as solid ‘as the granite of her hills, for the Union to repose upon. I believethat if disasters arise, bringing clouds iwhioh shall ob,- secure the ensign j now over her and over, us, there will be one star that will but burn the brighter amid the darlcness of that night; and I believethat, if in the remotest ages----I. trust they will be infinitely remote--~ani occasion shall: occur when the sternest duties of patriotism are demanded and to be perform- ed, Massachusetts will imitate her own example; and that, as at the breaking outpof the Revolution, she was the firstto offer the outpouring of all her blood 15 and all her treasure in the struggle for liberty, so she will be hereafter ready, , when the emergency arises, to repeat and renew that offer, with a thousand times as many warm hearts, and a thousand times as many strong hands. And now, Mr. President, to return at last to the principal and important question before us : What are we to do? How are we to bring this emergent and pressing question to an issue and an end? Here have we been seven and- a half months, disputing about points which, in my judgment, are of no practical importance to one or the other part of the country. Are we to dwell forever upon a single topic, a single idea? Are we to forget all the pur-- poses for which governments are instituted, and continue everlastingly to dis- pute about that which is of no essential consequence? I think., sir, the country calls upon us loudly and imperatively to settle this question. I think that the whole world is looking to see whether this great popular Government can get. through such a crisis. We are the observed of all observers. It isnot to be disputed or doubted, that the eyes of all Christendom are upon us. ' We have stood through many trials. Can we stand through this, which takes so much the character of a sectional controversy? Can we stand that? There is no inquiring man in all Europe who does not ask himself that question every day, when he reads the intelligence of the morning. Can this country, with one set of interests at the South, and another set of interests at the North, .inte1-eats qsgpposed, but falsely supposed, to be at varinace, can this , people see what 155 so evident to the whole/world beside, that this*Unio'n” is their main hope and greatest benefit, and that their inerests are entire-M ly compatible? Can they see, and will they feel, that their prosperity, their respectability among the nations of the earth, and their happiness at home, depend upon the maintenance of their Union and their Constitu--- tion? That is the question. [agree that local divisions are apt to overturn the understandings of men, and to excite a belligerent feeling between section and section. It is natural, in times of irritation, for one part of the country to say, if you do that I will do this, and so get up a feeling of hostility and de» fiance. Then comes belligerent legislation, and then an appeal to arms. The question is, whether we have the true patriotism, the Americanism, necessary to carry us through such a trial. The whole world is looking towards us with extreme anxiety. For myself I propose, sir, to abide by the principles and the purposes which I have avowed. I shall stand by the Union, and by all who stand by it. I shall do justice to the whole country, according to the best of my ability, in all I say, and act for the good of the whole country in all I do. Imean to stand upon the Constitution. I need no other plat»- form. I shall know but one country. The ends I aim at shall be my coun- try’s, my God’s, and Truth’s. [Applause in the galleries, immediatelyisupu pressed by the Chain] I was born an American; I live an American; I shall die an American; and I intend to perform the duties incumbent upon me in that character to the end of my career. I mean to do this, with absolute disregard of personal consequences. What are personal consequences? What is the individual man, with all the good or evil that may betide him, in com»- parison with the good or evil which may befall a great country in a crisislike this, and in the midst of great transactions which concern that country’s fate? Let the consequences be what they will, I am careless. No man can suffer I too much, and no man can fall too soon, if he stiffer, or if he fall, in defence of the liberties and”Constitution of his country. Digitization information for the Daniel Webster Pamphlet Project University Libraries University of Missouri——Columbia Local identifier web000 Digitization work performed by the University of Missouri Library Systems Office Capture information Date captured Scanner manufacturer Scanner model Optical resolution Color settings File types Source information Format Content type Derivatives — Access copy Compression Editing software Editing characteristics Resolution Color File types Notes 2004-2005 Minolta PS7000 600 dpi Unknown tiff Pamphlets Text with some images Uncompressed Adobe Photoshop 600 dpi Bitonal; images grayscale tiff Pages cropped and brightened Blank pages removed Property marks removed