c

\ '

k

*£

\

7<&

'

SPEECH
of ;
1ETERDY JOHNSON, OF MARYLAND,

"Delivered in the Senate of the United States, July 10, 1848. •
The bill reported by a Committee of the Senate to establish a Territorial Government in Qregon
being under consideration, and an amendment to strike out the section prohibiting slavery being
pending, Mr. JOHNSON said :— *
Mr. President : The subject before us is of transcendant importance. It
'awakens the anxious solicitude of ihe country-^-with thousands it is viewed
with unaffected despondency. But amidst the gloom I do not despair. I
believe that there is yet virtue and intelligence amongst us sufficient to frowri
down the demagogues of the hour and to preserve us as our fathers made us,
a great arid glorious, because a united people. But what has brought us into
this condition, and who are responsible for it? The Senator' from Massa
chusetts, (Mr. Davis,) following, in that particular, many who have preceded
him in the debate, has said, and in one sense truly said, that the present state
of things was all to be traced to the annexation of Texas. In part [ admit
the truth of that assertion. But the annexation of Texas did not necessarily
so irrvolve us! No man can be so blind to the history of that day/and the
days which succeeded it, as not to see and believe that if the administration
•of this Government by its Executive had been cautious, prudent, and states
manlike, the annexation of Texas would have led to no Mexican war, and to
no annexation of territory, from which the peril that involves us arises. No
man, in my judgment, looking to the state in which Texas was at the time
- of her coming into our Union can doubt that the United States had a perfect
right to receive her. If I do not mistake— and I am almost certain that I
do not^-the distinguished colleague of the 'Senator upon;my right, Mr. E>a-
visy (Mr. Webstek,) said :upon one occasion, after we became involved in
the war thus attributed to Texas annexation, that that furnished no just caiise
<flf war to Mexico. There were questions of expediency involved^ in that mea-
•sure, about which the people of the United State's differed. But if I had had
a seat upon this floor then, I should not have been found voting against it
for fear that it might properly involve us in war. I am at a loss indeed to
imagine,' looking to the then condition of that Government in relation fo'the
parent State from which it had separated itself, how any real question can be
¦entertained that Texas had a perfect right to annex herself to the United
States, and, of course, that the United States had a perfect right to accept her.
But, Mr. -President, in my judgment, and 1 believe in thatof nine-tenths of
the whole community, not a drop of blood need have been -spilled— not one
twentieth part of the treasure which has been spent need have been expend
ed — would not, in fact, have been spilled, and: would not have been expended
if the'destiny of this nation, as far as the Executive is concerned, had been.
entrusted to prudent, and wise, and just hands. I intend no compliment to
Ihe Senator from South Carolina, (Mr. Calhoun;) for I believe airy statesman
would have. accomplished the' same end, when I say that I have no doubt that
if he had been in the State Department, arid had had control of the negoti
ations growing out of annexnation, the war would have been Wofded, and this
qjiiestion, which is now upon us, never have arisen. The business wad,
'however, Unfortunately for humanity and the Country; managed by different
counsels. The war did come. But, even then, if it ha'd been conducted in.
a different spirit, and not with the obvious, if nbt the declared design of obtain
ing, by force" of arms, territory in liquidation- of our claims, this question ! would
have been avoided. ' The battles of Palo Alto and Resaca dela Palma, oa
Jfr$wers, printer, Washington.

I<

U

the 8th and 9th of May, would alone, if it had been permitted, have forever
settled— if it were not settled before— the independence of Texas ; and rioU
Mexican soldier every would have trod, the soil upon this side of theRio Grande.
It was, I fear and believe, the lust of dominion— the desire of territorial
acquisition— the ambition to terminate hbcareer by sending to. the Houses of
Congress inch a. message as we received a' few days since, that led the Execu
tive to pursue a different policy. But, besides the Executive, who are respon
sible? My friend from Massachusetts referred to this subject for another pur
pose, and I shall hereafter have occasion to allude to it in connection with
the same subject. He thought proper to tell the Senate and the country, that
the annexation of Texas was, not only the cause of the difficulty in which we
pre involved, but that Texas, was^ brought into the . Union by the Southern
States to accomplish, a Southern object and to forward Southern views. Will
the record bear out trie honorable Senator? That measure was adopted by a
majority of only one in this body — twenty-seven voting in the affirmative and
twenty-six in the negative. Who voted for it? Who voted against it? With
reference to these unfortunate geographical divisions, what says the record.?'
Amongst tjhe votes in the affirmative, I find recorded tbirleen on the part of
those coming from the States called free. Some of them are still upon this-
floor. They were —
Mejssr». Allen, Atherton, Breese, Buchanan, Dickinson, Dix, Fairfield, Hannegan, Niles,
Semple, Sturgeon, Tappan, Woodbury.
The name of General Cass is not among them, but all know that the only
reason fpr that is that he was not here to vote. Who voted against, it from the
Southern. States ?
Messrs. Archer, Barrow, Bayard, Berrien, Clayton, Critt«nder, Fester^ Jarnagin, lyiangunj,
M.orehead, Pearce, Rives.
; Twelve out of the twenty-six ! Sir, it is clear, from this, we should, not be
told, as we, have been told by the Senator from Massachusetts— and as his
colleague has also, intimated during the present and at the-, last sessionY— tb^t
that measure was accomplished by the South. ,
Mr. Davis, of Mass.— The honorable Senator makes a broader statement
than my remarks authorize. I think my language was that Texas was brought
into the Union by the, Southern Democracy with the aid .of the Democracy
,of the North.
Mr. Johnson:.— I know:that my friend said.that afterwards, and I was.about
to refer, to that, in a, moment. But the remarks of the Senator had no appli
cation unless, applied to the question to which he addressed himself, in con
sidering which he was attempting to prove that the incorporation of Texas-
into the Union was the act of Southern men, fpr the purpose of augmenting
Southern power and Southern influenqe.and. of protecting Southern institution^.
So much for sectional opinion upon this subject. But, as far as relate? to poIV
tical opinions, the Senator is. right, in. saying that Texas, was brought in almps,t
exclusively by a Democratic vote. The honorable gentleman whose successor
I am, (Mr. Merrick,) and my friend before me, the Senator from Louisiana,,
(Mr. Johnson,) were, I believe, the only Whigs who voted.for tb.e annexation.
Mr, B-adg^, (in his seat.) And Mr. Henderson, of Mississippi
M*. JqH^spiy,— Yes. These then were the only Whigs who voted for the
measure. No. doubt the Senators, from Louisiaua and Mississippi acted m
accordance with the opinions of, the States whjph, they represented. Perhaps
the hpnorable Senator whom I have succeeded did not exactly understand
theepmion of his State on that subject, but that he voted honestly, accorct-
Wg to his convictions, no. mat} has a right to doubt,
But after Texas was annexed, and the war comnjepced, what else was done'-
or rather what was npt done,, to avoid th,e calamitous situation in which we
now stand ? Let the journals of this body answer. After Mexico w^s virtual-

ly conquered, her forces scattered and dismayed, her power completely broken,"
the .honorable Senator from Georgia, (Mr, Berrien.) proposed a resolu
tion, that jt was not advisable that any additional territory should be brought
into the Union, in consequence of that war ; and upon that resolution, every.
member upon this side of the chamber voted in the affirmative, with one ex
ception. We were, however, overruled — the resolution was rejected, and the
result is before us. It is unnecessary to state in the presence in which I stand,
thatin relation to that war and its justice as between Mexico and the United
States, I entertained, and still entertain an opinion different from that of
those with whom I am in the habil; of acting. But, when the question was
before us whether the war should be terminated by taking into the Union,
territory large enough'for the construction of as many States as existed in this
confederacy at the period pf the Declaration of Independence, I voted with
the Senator from Georgia ; not from a belief that the institutions of this cown-
(ry may not be almost indefinitely expanded, because I am satisfied that the
great improvement in the modes of communication between distant portions
of the Union, (modes virtually annihilating space and time,) are such that
we are just as competent to carry on this Government beneficially, if its sphere
extended from ocean to ocean, as we were when it embraced only the thirteen
original States ; but I voted for it, for the very purpose, as I staled at the time,
of avoiding this fearful question which now agitates every section of the land,
I was not led astray by the boasted glory of obtaining " indemnity for the past
and security for the future." We should have had " indemnity for the past"
in the glories of the war alone, and from the same source we had already
obtained ample "security for the future.'' Then we should have had our
own strength unimpaired, our Union untouched, and our institutions free from
peril. But. other counsels have prevailed. Here we are. Why, sir, even
myfriend from Massachusetts, (Mr. Davis,) cool, deliberate, and patriotic, as
any man within the limits, of the Union, beholds, in the condition in whicli
we are now placed, infinite danger. In the excitement of debate, speaking
from the heart to the heart, that honorable Senator has almost predicted that
unless the question be amicably adjusted, the Uqion will not abide. The
distinguished Senator from South Carolina, (Mr.- Calhoun ,> has told us, that
unless it, be settled, the South must stand upon her own rights, as he is con
vinced they have been secured by the Constitution. If we go out of the
charnper, the opinions. expressed abroad are still more pregnant with cause, for
alarm. Former subjects of difference between the two political parties of the
country disappear from the mindsofmen. Even that statesman, formerly des
cribed as a Northern man with Southern principles, now, and I fear justly, des
cribed, by his quandam friends, as a man without any principles, who owes all
the political elevation which he has ever enjoyed, to the confidence and sup
port of the South, is now seen heading a crusade against her institutions.
Instead, of using his own name, and past weight of character, to quiet the ex
citement which prevails, he is willing to head a. party, not only the distinc
tive principle of which, but the only principle of which, is practical war upon.
the South. Take up the papers of trie day, in the free States — aye, in those
very free States, the votes of whose Senators brought Texas in with all her
slavery, you find almost, without exception, the declaration that 'slavery' must
be kept within its present liiriils at all hazards, in the face of ail consequences ;
the Union to stand, or the Union to fall. It is not the fault of (he Whigs that
this alarming 'condition of things 's upon the country. It lies at another
dpor. But, although not traceable to us, it is our duty that we should unite
with our patriotic brethren, in all quarters of the Union, to, put an enp* to it,
if possible, at once7 and forever.
With these preliminary remarks, Mr. President, I propose, very briefly, to
inquire into the power of Congress to adopt either, of the measures which the

several propositions before us involve. First, then : Has Congress the right
to prohibit the introduction of slavery into the territories of the United States?
The opinion which 1 hold on this subject is not now stated for the first time in
this body. I have expressed it before, and as before, I answer no. In what
I am about to offer to the Senate, in maintenance of this opinion, I purpose to
confine myself exclusively to the Constitution itself, leaving the contemporane
ous legislative, and ihe judicial construction of itin this particular, where it has
been placed by Senatois who have preceded me. I shall have occasion to referto
that hereafter, for another purpose. What is the power claimed ? The Senator
from New York, (Mr. Dix,) and I think- the Senator from Vermont, (Mr.
Phelps,) whom I was not fortunate enough to hear,from circumstances beyond
my control, rested the power exclusively upon the relation in which the territo
ries stand before they become a State ; conceding, as was certainly done, by the
Senator from New York, thattbe moment it was introduced into the Union as a
State, no limitation upon slavery that you might incorporate into the territo
rial government, would operate. Now, sir, let it be remembered that suchi.
not the principle of the ordinance of '87, or of the Missouri compromise.
If the power exists at all. it exists to the extent in which it was exerted in
these instances. I therefore consider the Senator from New York as yielding
the whole subject in dispute. I repeat, if the power exists at all, it is the
same power which was exerted in the ordinance of '87, and in the Missouri
compromise, and enables the Congress of the United States, at all times, dur
ing all time that the territory may remain as the habitation of civilized man,
whether in the Union or out of the Union, to exclude slavery from it, as a
fundamental and permanent provision. Let us recur to the ordinance of '87
itself. After providing for other matters, it goes on to say :
" It is hereby ordained and declared by the authority aforesaid, that the following articles shall
be considered as articles of compact, between the original States and the people of States in the said
Territory, and fok eteh tiemain bnaltekabie, umiess by common consent, to wit," and
enumerates six.
The 6th is the one referred to, and is in these words :
"Art. 6. There shall be neither slavery nor involuntary servitude in the said territory, other
wise than in the.punishment of crimes, whereof the party shall have been duly convicted ; provided,
always, that any person escaping into the same, from whom labor or service is lawfully claimed in
any one, of the original States, such fugitive may be lawfully reclaimed, and conveyed to the person
claiming. his or her labor or service as aforesaid."
This provision, then, excluding slavery was, by the very terms of the or
dinance, to remain as a fundamental principle for the government of the
territory, after being admitted as Slates as well as before, until, by the com-
Nimon consent of all, it should be changed. What is the Missouri Compro
mise? Not that slavery north of the line agreed upon, being line thirty-six
degrees, thirty minutes north latitude, shall, during the condition of the coun
try as territory, be excluded ; but shall forever be prohibited. The words
of the 8th section of the act of 6th March, 1820, the Compromise law, are,
{< That in all territory, &c, slavery and involuntary servitude, otherwise lhaft
ip the punishment of crimes whereof the parties shall have been duly con
victed, shall be, and is hereby, forever prohibited? I repeat, then, if the
-power exists, it exists to the extent it has been exercised, or not at all.
Does the power exist under the Constitution ? In the first place, I might
save myself the necessity of arguing the question at all by throwing myself
upon the authority of the Senator from Massachusetts, (Mr. Davis,) because
I understood him as conceding that it was a power found out of, instead of
in the Constitution. The acute mind of that honorable Senator could not
avoid, if he had been willing to avoid, the force of the argument that the
Convention which framed the Constitution, when it was. their purpose to
confer powers of legislation, did it, in every instance, by express terms ' In
constituting the Government itself, and with reference to the legislative

powers which it proposed to devolve upon the Corigress of the United States,
it proceeds not only in words to give the power, but to specify the objects
for which the power is to be exercised. But there was one thing to be
accomplished, which could not bo accomplished by the limited legislative
power given Congress for the general objects of the Government. And what
was that? It. was necessary to haye some territory for the seat of Govern
ment, entirely under its own control, subject to its own laws, and altogether
under the protection of its own legislation. Forts, arsenals, and dockyards,
it was seen, might also become necessary, in process of time, in every Slate
of the Union, and, upon the same principle of policy, over all such places
which might be appropriated to these objects, it was important that the legis
lation of Congressshould be universal and exclusive, and theConveniion made
it so. The language of the Constitution is, that Congress shall have power
" To exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding
ten miles square) as may, by cession of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become
the seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like authority"bver all places
purchased by the consent of the Legislature of the State ill which the same shall be, for the erec
tion of forts, magazines, arsenals, dockyards, and other needful buildings."
What, then, follows from these express grants of power? What is the le
gitimate inference? The provision relied upon by the Senator from New
York and by most of those who maintain the power in the. Constitution to
prohibit slavery in the territories of the United' States, is the; following :
"The Congress shall have power to dispose of and make all needful rules and regulations'res-
pecting the territory or other property belonging to the Unied States."
Mr. President, in the first place it is manifest that territory was regarded
and provided for, in that clause of the Constitution, as property only, and
that the same power, and no other, was intended to be given over it as it
was designed to confer over the other property which the Government of the
Uniied States were authorized under the Constitution, from time to time, to
acquire and hold. Now, I affirm, sir, that there is not to be found in the
Constitution a word which looks to the existence of this power unless it is
found in the particular clause to which I have just referred. My friend from
Massachusetts admitted the force of this argument, and based the opinion he
entertains upon the ground that there is a power to acquire independent of
the Constitution, and that such power carries with it, as an incident, the
power to govern, not under the Constitution, but out of the Constitution.
I think that this doctrine is founded on a dangerous error, if my friend will
pardon me for thus characterizing anything which falls from him. A stran
ger, however enlightened, who should be brought to the construction of this
instrument, if asked whether the power given in the clause which I have
just read, was designed to be a power equivalent in extent to that conferred
in the clause giving to Congress the exclusive jurisdiction over the District
of Columbia and over places purchased for dockyards, <fcc, would at once
answer, no. If the design of the Convention — its members being intelli
gent men— had been, in the one clause, to accomplish the same object which
they had in view in the other, they would have used the same phraseology*
It is a familiar rule of construction, that a departure in subsequent parts of a
law, or any instrument, from the phraseology adopted' in an antecedent part,
is to be accounted for only by inferring a departure in purpose.
But the Senator from Vermont told us that he finds the power in dispute
in the Constitution. He finds it in the legislative power of the Government.
That is begging the whole subject in controversy. What is the legislative
pOwer of the Government? The Constitution upon that point admits of but
one interpretation. Its language is peculiar, "all legislative powers herein
granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States." The very
terms exclude, by unavoidable implication, all powers not granted* It, above

all, excludes the idea that there was any, or ever was to be any, inherent le
gislative power which might be exercised without limitation, without refer
ence to the prohibitions which might be found in the instrument, or in the
restrictions which it contained. The language is, " all legislative powers
herein granted." We must then question the instrument itself, and ask
what was granted. It is a grant of enumerated, not of general powers. Now
there being no power to legislate for the territories except in the clause
which authorizes Congress to pass all needful rules and regulations respecting
them, the only question is what is the extent of the power thus conferred? I
admit, as a question not to be disputed, that it gives the power to organize a
territorial government because it is needful that such a government should ex
ist, with a view to the disposition and preservation of the territory, and the ulti
mate object with which all such territory is held, its introduction into the Union.
The Senator from Massachusetts and others who have spoken on the same
side, inquire is there no power existing in the Government, under this or some
other clause, to prohibit gambling, the circulation of obscene books, Or any
thing affecting the morals of the country within the territory, nor any article
of property which may be known to the laws of the States, but which it does
not suit the policy of the Government to have introduced. The cases are
not at all alike. Slaves, under the Constitution, are considered in the double
light of property and of persons. They are to be taxed as property — to be
represented as persons. In the second place, it is the duty of the Government
of the United States to see that as property they are not interfered with, as is
expressly provided in the clause which says that they should not cease to be
slaves by escaping from their own limits, but shall be surrendered upon de
mand. Upon what ground then does the Senator from Massachusetts, and
others, suppose that there is anything immoral in the institution of slavery —
that he should associate it with any thing that -is offensive to good morals. Is
it not manifest, looking to the Constitution alone, that slavery at the period
of the formation of the Government, as it then existed in the United States,
was not considered in the sense in which it is now considered — a political evil
which the free States had a right to strike at — which they had a right to limit.
On the contrary, were not all the States brought into the Union as equal and
independent? But, says the Senator from Massachusetts, what inequality or
injustice is there in saying that slavery shall be prohibited in this territory, or
in other territory belonging to the United States? A Southern man, he ar
gues, will not be prohibited from going thither in consequence of that prohi
bition. Mr. President, in dealing with an instrument like the Constitution,
we must regard its spirit and the authority from whence it emanated. We
are to look to the people of the States as they are, and as it was known they
would be. We are to consider the associations by which they are surround
ed, and by which it was known they would be surrounded, and the influences
which are known to operate upon them. We are to ask ourselves whether it
as possible that in making that Constitution the slave States designed to give
to the Congress of the United States the right to say that they should forever
retain theironginal number, whilst the free States might be increased without
limit. The ordinance of !87 was ratified by the Constitution itself almost in
words. That ordinance looked to the creation of five additional free States.
1 hat was bad enough, but it was inevitable. If they, the slave Stales, look
ed forward at all, they saw— they could not avoid seeing— that the day must
come when the disparity of representation between the free and the slave
totates would be such that the institution itself in ihe States would be in dan
ger, fisir, what was attempted to be done at the period of the Missouri com
promise? It was exacted by the free States as a fundamental condition of the
admission of that State into the Union, that slavery should not exist there after
its admission. The Union was shaken ot its centre by the effort to establish

that 'exaction. Thdt power Was claimed tinder another part of the Cbhstitu-
tion, which says that States may be admitted into the Union, and it was con
tended that in the authority to admit was involved the authority to impose
the conditions of admission. It Was also claimed under the authority given
in the clause providing that Congress, if they thought proper, might, after the
year 1808, prohibit the migration or importation of Slaves into the States, it
being inferred thatin the term "migration" this power Was involved. It was
also contended that under the power to regulate commerce between the States, a
power in regard to foreign commerce, which Would have been sufficient to have
authorized theGovernment to prohibit (he African slave-tirade, Congress had the
right to prohibit the domestic slave trade. What is going on now at this day? The
Senator from Massachusetts asserts his belief that slavery in the States is per
fectly safe. He says that the guaranties of the Constitution effectually pre
vent interference with slavery within its present limits. But how is it with
the fanatics of the North? They maintain that the wbdle of these constitu
tional provisions are a nullity, that slavery is a moral evil, and^that there is
'an obligation resting upon all the members of the Union to put an end to it.
The newspapers of the day have informed you that the immediate friends of
one of the Senators upon this floor, (Mr. Hale.) who have placed him be
fore the country as a candidate for the highest Executive office, Will nbt con
sent to support those who confine the application of the Wilrhot proviso to
the territories of the Union ; that they adhere to him as their candidate be
cause their desires and designs are limited only by the extinguishment of the
institution altogether.
I do not stop to inquire whether the Senator from Massachusetts was right
in his estimate of the present relative power of the free and slave States, and
of the augmentation of their relative power sincethe Constitution was adopt
ed. What it will be, if the power now claimed by the North should be ob
tained and acquiesced in, we may easily foresee. The President has told us,
and no dOubt correctly, that we are now the proprietors of a domain, through
the Mexican treaty, abundantly sufficient to make thirteen Stales of the size
of the original States of the Union. Is any man So blind as not to perceive
that when that day arrives, on which these thirteen additional States shall
come as free Stales into the Union, slavery will not be permitted to exist in
any of the States. It would be a foregone conclusion. Pure and patriotic
men at, the North, who are willing to stand by the compromises of the Con
stitution, would labor in vain to prevent it. The power to regulate commerce
between the States would be seized upon in order to prohibit the migration Of
slaves from Sta'te to Stale.. What would be the result? Either slavery must
be extinguished by the States themselves in which it exists, or they must live
on with the certainty that when the trial of strength would corrie between the
whiles and the slaves, they could hope for no aid from the free Slates. I mak'e;
bold to say, from the temper which these States are now manifesting, that if
an insurrection were to break out in South Carolina tomorrow — if every
house were threatened with the torch of the incendiary, and every life with
the dagger of the assassin, thousands in the North would in vain be invoked
for aid. I do not mean that there are not men, and thousands of men, in that
section who would feel the obligation to give aid, but they might prove unable
to afford it, and to control that opinion, now becoming prevalent, and stronger
and stronger as the question is agitated, that slavery, no matter where and how
recognized by the Constitution, is a clear moral and religious wrong; and
should be extinguished." To those who entertain this opinion the owner of
slaves can in vain look for assistance. It shocks, I know, Senators on this
floor to hear it supposed that such a state of things is probable. Biit'go to the
North: Go to the followers of Tappan and Garrison. Mark that spirit which
has brought an Ex-President of the United States, as a candidate again for

that high office, before the country, in the very face of his' "former conduct
and pledges as to this very institution, and then ask yourselves whether what.
I have said is not but too true.
, Mr. President, I am no advocate of slavery. I have never hesitated to ex
press my opinion concerning it, here and at home, when it has been necessary
or not indelicate to express it. Most sincerely do I wish that no African had
been brought from his native land. Most truly should 1 rejoice if none but
freemen trod the soil of the United States. From the depth of my heart do
I wish it were so. But, notwithstanding I regard slavery as an evil, impair
ing the strength, paiajyzing the arm of ihe community where it exists, in
times of danger, yet I am not to be told that there are not the same virtuei
and the same patriotism at the South, which are to be found in the North.-'
Nor am I to be persuaded but that there are many advantages growing out of
the institution in connection with the particular form of government which we
enjoy. I am not blind to the fact that constitutional freedom, such as ours, is
perhaps mor»likely to be uniformly maintained and supported by slaveholding
citizens than by others. It is unnecessary to refer to instances in the history
of the world, for the purpose of showing that slavery is perfectly consistent
with a high state of patriotism and an ardent love of political liberty. Every
school-boy knows it. Yet, after all, in my opinion, the evils of the institution
more than counterbalance its advantages. But that which, in my opinion, more
than any thing else, as our Union is constituted, seems to counterbalance these
advantages, whatever they may be, is its tendency to the evil of such an agita
tion asnow disturbs the nation. Men who go from the North to the South and
seethe institution of slavery as it is, see how happy this class of the population
are, and look upon it as it really exists, as a domestic instil ution creating a re
lation dear to the slave as well as the master, can very readily believe that it
may be suffered to prevail and to extend without any real danger to the Gov
ernment itself. But there are those amongst us who seize upon any subject
by which they can gratify their ambition, or thirst for power and office, and
with utter disregard of consequences to (he country. They are willing to
run the hazard of destroying the Union rather than fail in their selfish objects.
How do they accomplish it ? I venture to say, that twenty years ago no
roan of any character could have been found in the United States who would,
have placed himself in the position in which an ex-President now stands.
Ten years ago, so far as that particular man is concerned, he would not have
taken that position, and certainly at no time during the life of General Jack
son. In this, by friend or opponent of his, I am sure I will not be contra
dicted by a single Senator on this floor. Twenty years ago, I repeat, so far
from desiring to be placed in such a position, anv respectable man in the free
States, would have considered it an insult, an indignity, to have had it offered
to him. But there he is, cool, calculating, observing, fond of popularity, no
matter how acquired, selfish to a proverb, in the midst of (his supposed, if
not real, enthusiasm of hostility to slavery, discerning its present condition,
and believing in its future spread, and goaded on, too, by political revenge, he
is willing to take a position which, twenty yearsago, he would have spurned
with apparent contempt and scorn.
IW, then, to my friends around me from the North, who suppose, no
doubt, that I have gqne too far in saying that domestic insurrection at the South
would not be put down by the arm of thousands of the men of the free States,
that I am speaking of that which is being demonstrated every day.
Mr. President, need I ask if such a spirit now rages against the institutions.
of the South that, unless it shall subside, it is likely to defeat the guaranties of
the Constitution ? Sir, the men who started.it were but a handful a few vears>
ago, now they number thousands. It was then .said that our security, under
the Constitution, was as great as it was under the administration of Washing-.-

ton. Some doubted this, and foresaw and foretold danger, and time has prov
ed that their fears and prophesies were too well founded.'
I understand the SenatoV from New York, (Mr.'Drx,) as admitting that the
authorily of Congress to prohibit slavery, which he finds in the clause of the
Constitution empowering them to pass all needful rules and regulations res
pecting the territory of the United States, terminates when the territorial con-
dition.terminates. No such thing. If the right exists at all, it is a right to
impose the restriction as1 a fundamental article of government to be enforced,.
as well in the territorial condition, as in the condition of1 a'State. Mr. Presi
dent, does such a power exist? That is, I think, to be answered by ihe an
swer to this question. Was it not the purpose of the Government that all
the States of the Union should be equal at all times, and in all things ? Was
it proposed to vest in the Congress of the United States, the authority to sub
ject some States to restrictions, and to leave others unrestricted? And
was it proposed to accomplish it by vesting in Congress an unlimited power
over the whole question ? If the power to impose this restriction is to be
found in the article of the Constitution to which I have referred, it is there
.without any limitation. Whatever Congress shall deem to be needful, they
may exact as a condition to fetter the territory until it comes into the Union,
It has that extent, or it has done. Now, there are other relations, sir, besides
the relation of master and servant, known to society. The relations of pa
rent and child, husband and wife, master and apprentice, are relations just in
the same sense as the relation. of master and slave. The father has a right,
during minority, to the service of his child ; the master during the existence
of an apprenticeship, has a right to the service of his apprentice, and to con
trol him by punishment, limited only by the necessity of each case. Now, if
the relation of master and servant can be prohibited by a regulation of Con
gress, upon the ground that it is needful, what is to restrain them from saying
that no man shall go into the territories of the United States with his wife,
child, or apprentice ? If the power exists, it must be general and universal,
without limitation, and embracing all the relations of life. Will any body
pretend that Congress could make such a regulation as that ? The question
answers itself. There is another way of prohibiting slavery in the territories,
besides direct prohibition. Subject the'citizens of the South, for that, purpose,
then, to some oiher inequality. Congress has an unlimited discretion over
the whole subject if the power exists at all. Nine-tenths of the citizens
of the South, perhaps all of them, now believe the institution to be a highly
useful one, not only for the purposes of social life, but for political ends.
It is with them, perhaps, a fixed and settled conviction that a Republican
Government can best be maintained among a people where that institution
prevails. How are those to deal with the subject, who think that such an
opinion is erroneous and dangerous? How are (hey to guard against the in
troduction of that institution into this territory, thus subjected to their exclu
sive and unlimited government? Can they do it only by saying that the
citizen of the South cannot go therewith his slaves? The surest way to ac
complish it would be to declare the citizens of the South shall not go there
at all. Sir, I desire-to know, if the power exists, why it cannot be exercised
to that extent? The cases to which my friend from Massachusetts (Mr. Da
vis) referred, of the piohibition of improper books, immoral practices, gamb
ling, dealing in lottery tickets, &C, were cases in which he supposed it clear
that the power existed to prohibit, as there must be a power to prevent every
thing likely to have an immoral tendency. But what is more immoral, in
the estimation of the free States, than the institution of slavery 1 With some
at the North, gambling is a virtue in comparison with it. No books that the
pen of man ever wrote on other subjects, however licentious and demoral
izing, can, in theiD judgment, . equal in enormity the sin of slavery. It is
subversive, they allege, of civil freedom itself, inconsistent with liberty,

10
and at war with the fundamental truths of our Declaration of Independence,
that all men are born equal, and endowed with the inalienable rights of life,
liberty-and the 'pursuit of 'happiness. It strikes, they maintain, at privileges
given to man by his Creator; and that as we owe higher obedience to God
than to anything human, it is our highest duty to see that these privileges are
not trampled upon by man. Well then, sir, keep out this; immoral contami
nating slaveholder from your domain ; keep out this corrupting citizen. Do
not suffer him to intrude within the limits of your territory— do not suffer him
to pollute the good and pure man of the North ; he may induce your Northern
.men to believe that slavery is a blessing— that it is not inconsistent with the
Declaiation of Independence— that it is as much an ordinance of God, found
ing the opinion, too, upon the past history of ihe world, as is the truth that
men are created equal. The best way, (hen, to prevent the introduction and
establishment of slavery within your territories, is to exclude the slaveholder.
It is " needful and propei" that he should be excluded, and we have the au
thority to pass all rules and regulations " needful" in our estimation. But
suppose he is allowed by you in a spirit of liberality to go there, the next
thing that may be resorted to in order to keep out the institution of slavery,
is to prohibit any man from speaking, writing, or printing any thing in favor
of such an institution. But the Constitution may be said to be in the way;
by thai, free discussion is permitted. That is true, but it is free discussion
only under the Constitution. But the power claimed is, by the Constitution,
unlimited. It stands, therefore, unaffected by any of its other provisions,
whether ihey vest rights or impose limitations; under that power there are
no rights which it does not itself give— no limitations which it does not itself
impose. Freedom of speech, therefore, or of the press, it may restrain if it
deems it a needful rule and regulation. Again : there is another way of
bringing Southern men to their senses upon this subject— -to make them
strike at the root of this evil within their own borders — feel the inequality of
their condition, and thus bring them to the standard of the free States; — you
may pass any needful rules and regulations with respect to the disposition of
the territories of the United States. Now, under this power, if it be unlim
ited, as it clearly is, if it exists at all, why may not Congress say who shall
be the purchasers of the public lands? Can not they say that they will not
sell a foot of territory except to a man frOm the free Slates? But that is not
all — the power does not stop here. What is to be done with the proceeds of
the sales of the public lands when they are received? They come into the
Treasury to be appropriated as Congress think proper. What is to prevent
Congress from appropriating the whole exclusively to the advantage of the
free States? Nothing, sir, nothing. The argument leads to that, if pushed
toils legitimate result. Bui, further. The ladies of .the South who have
been brought up in the midst of this institution, and who, of all others, best
know how innocent it is in itself, and the many social advantages which be
long to it, may be found amongst its disciples, and by the extent of their in
fluence may inculcate its excellence wherever they go. It is needful that
such opinions should be suppressed, and these ladies, therefore, may be pro
hibited from going into the territory; Congress may then provide that no
man emigrating to these territories shall carry with him a wife from a South
ern Stale, or ever thereafter contract such an alliance. I defy the ingenuity
of man to show, that if the .power exists at all, it does not exist to the extent
I have stated, in each of the instances I have supposed. There must then
be some limitation. What is the limiiation, if it is not to be found <m the
obligation under the Constitution itself, of leaving each State, with re
ference to her sister States, in the enjoyment of perfect and absolute equality?
A word or two upon the ground on which my friend from Massachusetts
(Mr. Davis) places this power, and where he supposed the Senator from

11
South' Carolina (Mr. Calhoun) also referred it — that is, that it is to be found
in the authority to acquire territory. Well, sir, where is that authority to be
found? Mr. Chief Justice Marshall, in the case of North American Insu
rance Company vs. Carter, 1 Peters, 542, speaking of Florida, before her ad-
mission into the Union, says: "In the mean time, Florida continues to be a
territory of the United Stales, governed by virtue of that clause in the Gon~
stitution which empowers Congress to make all needful rules and regula
tions, respecting the territory, or other property of the United States." And
then adds, " Perhaps, the power of governing a territory belonging to the
United States, which has not, by becoming a Stale, acquired the means of
self government, may result necessarily from the facts, that jt is not within
the jurisdiction of any particular State, and is within the power and jurisdic
tion of the United States. The right to govern may be the inevitable result
of the right to acquire territory."
It will be seen that the Chief Justice places the actual government of the
territory before him, upon the clause of the Constitution to which I have re
ferred the power to govern territory, and to which it is generally referred.
What he says besides, is said with evident doubt, and to be considered but as
the expression of an opinion, that in the absence of the particular grant of
power, it might possibly be maintained as an incident to the power to acquire.
But, sir, if the right rests upon this laiter ground, the power to acquire, I
should like to know, in a Government like ours, what authority to acquire
can exist that is not given in the Constitution in express terms, or by neces
sary implication. I do not deny that being sovereign, and having an unlim
ited power to declare war and make treaties, unless the power to acquire is
expressly excluded, the United States would have the authority to acquire.
I do not question, and never have questioned, but that they have the an-
thority to acquire, because they have the authority to make treaties, given irt
broad, unqualified, unlimited terms. I do not deny that they have the power
to acquire by conquest, for they have the authority to declare war, and war
can be terminated in only one of two ways — if terminated successfully —
either by treaty, or by conquest. But the question at last recurs. Having
acquired territory under some one of the powers of the Constitution, how is
the territory acquired to be dealt with, and how are the people within it to
be dealt with ? How are the people who emigrate into it from the States to
be received and governed? Do not the first come in as citizens of the Uni
ted States? Do the latter lose their character of citizens of the United States
by immigrating from the States of their nativity or residence, into the territo
ries so acquired, and because acquired, being a portion of the United States?
Let us pursue this for a moment, and see what is the consequence of hold
ing that they are not to be governed as citizens, and under all the limitations
and guards of the Constitution. Certain things are prohibited by the Con
stitution. The argument to which I am about to speak is, that the Constitu
tion contains no authority at all in itself to legislate over the subject of sla
very, or any other connected with the territories acquired,, after the Constitu
tion was adopted. Let us examine this.
The Convention which framed the Constitution thought that the freedom,
happiness, and security, of the people of the United States, were to be as ef
fectually promoted by the limitations upon the powers of the Government
which it imposed, as by the powers which it conferred. They considered that
there were certain powers which the Government of a free people should not
possess, and they therefore incorporated certain limitations with lhat view, in
the Constitution itself. The people Of the United States are governed in the
exercise of no unlimited authority reposed in Congress. For example : The
Constitution says that all duties, imposts, and excises shall be uniform — that
laws upon the subject of naturalization and bankruptcies shall be uniform—

12
that the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus'shall not be suppressed, unless
when in cases of rebellion or invasion, the public safety may require if— that
no bill of attainder or ex post facto law shall be passed — no tax or duty shall
be laid upon articles exported from any State — no capitation or other tax laid
unless in proportion to the census, (fee — no preference given by any regula
tion of commerce or revenue to the ports of one Slate over another — no title
of nobility granted — no person holding an office of profit or trust under the
United States, shall, without the consent of Congress, accept any present, &c.
from any king, prince, or foreign State — no genera! search warrants allowed —
private property not lo be taken but for public uses, and then only upon full
compensation — no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting-
the free exercise thereof — or of abridging the power of speech or of the press,
or of the right of the people peaceably to assemble and to petition the Gov
ernment for a redress of grievances, to be passed.
Mr. President, are not all these proteciions, so studiously provided, applica
ble to the territory, and the people of the territory of the United States?
If they are, and who will be bold enough to deny it, it is only on the ground
that the Constitution of the United States covers the Territories. They rest
upon that foundation, or they have none. The argument of the Senator from
Massachusetts was, that you were to administer a Government in these ac
quired Territories out of the Constitution, and by virtue of a power out of
the Constitution ; but that in doing so, you should observe the funda
mental maxims of the Constitution. That is not the question. The ques
tion is not what a prudent and just Government ought to do in the adminis
tration of its power ; what sensible or humane men would do in dealing with
the subject ; what rights they would give or withhold ; but it is whether, un
der the Constitution of the United States, they are not bound to govern such
Territories, and the people wilhin them, under and by virtue of the provi
sions of the Constitution, for the purpose of securing (o ihem all the benefits
of the Constitution as well in the powers it vests as in the restrictions it im
poses on Congress. This becomes slill more manifest when we consider
that the power of the Government of the United States over these Territories
is one that looks to its termination. It is temporary, and so designed. It is
exercised with a view to an end. and what end ? The incorporation of the ter
ritory as States into the Union, and of course of its inhabitants as citizens
of the United States. How do they come in? As freemen, for the first
time? Is that which is an offence when committed by me, no offence when
committed by them ? Can they be debarred from any of the privileges which
the Constitution secures to me as a protection lo my riglus of person and of
property ? They are certainly not made freemen by being bioii°ht into the
Union ; they are freemen before, and they are freemen before only under and
by virtue of the Constitution. There must be some limitation, then to the
power to govern them whilst in a territorial state ; and we come down at last
to the question upon which, as I think, the propositions before us must be
decided Does the authorily to pass all needful rules and regulations carry
with it the power to impose ihe restrictions now contended for "2
I have said all that I proposed to say upon that point, and a word or two
more and 1 have done. I have staled that it was not my purpose to trouble
the Senate with any remarks on contemporaneous interprfitaiionB or judicial
construction of the Constitution in reference to the subject. I admit that the
Missouri compromise can be maintained only, as a law, upon the ground that
the power in dispute does exist. The circumstances wh ch brought it about
LTsi nd's LaT ^^V ?¦*"* that' M for aS lhe aUthority °' *« ™"
nl'Sf7 legislative, binding enactment, it assumes the possession by
Congress of ihe power and rests upon it. That it is, therefore, a legislative in
Ent To! T the P°™ 1S l° blfound in °r 0ut of the Constftuuon and
belongs to Congress. The same thing was done when Texas was annexed.

I ?

13
I admit, also, and most freely, that the opinion which has been expressed
by the Senators from New York, Vermont, and Massachusetts, and maintain
ed by those who agree with them is honestly expressed and maintained.
I concede that they not only believe that the power exists, but that it is in
cumbent on thein to exert it. I have no doubt that they are sincere in the
conviction, both of the truth of the opinion and of the expediency of acting
upon it. The opposit^ opinion is held with just as thorough a conviction by
the citizens, generally, of the States in which slavery exists. In this dilem
ma, what is to be done? What, as brethren and fellow-citizens, shall we do?
Is there no mode of reconciling the difference? We are dear to each other,
or we ought to be as dear to each other, as any people upon the globe. Who
are bound together by greater or stronger ties ? We have the same ancestry —
the same glorious monuments of which to be proud — the same memorials to
boast of — the same matchless Government to bless us — the same responsibl-
ities to the world, to posterity, to freedom. Is it right that this difference
should progress until it works the dissolution of the Union, converts us from
brethren into aliens, and possibly from friends into enemies? Why, sir, the
question furnishes its own answer. No American can place his hand on his
heart without saying, instinctively, no, no. - 1 speak from the inmost recesses
of my heart when I say that I would rather see any other calamity visit the
land, and in any shape in which Heaven in its inscrutable providence might
inflict it rather than see disunion, in my judgment the direst of all calamities.
Mr. President, if the citizens of the South were asking for an amendment
to the Constitution to revive the slave-trade, were aiming to introduce'an ad
ditional slave within our limits, I could imagine that the North would stand,
and stand proudly and firmly, against, such a proposition, and at all hazards.
But that is not the issue. That is not the inquiry. That is not the subject
upon which they are to decide. We do not propose to bring in one additional
slave, or to prolong the institution itself one hour. And, sir, are therenot some
peculiar considerations connected with slavery, as we have it amongst us, that ,
¦should appeal to the hearts and the heads of our Northern brethren ? They
have got rid of this misfortune, as they deem it, and as I deem it. I speak
it with no view to excite unpleasant feeling, but they got rid of it by, for the
most part, selling their slaves, to the South. And then, again, how have
•slaves been imported into the United States? Chiefly by northern men, with
northern capital, and in northern vessels. At the adoption of the Constitu
tion, there were slaves in all the States. Almost the entire profit Of the do
mestic and African slave-trade, as it was originally carried on, went into north
ern pockets. Nearly the whole value of their slaves, when they determined
on getting rid of them, was paid them by southern citizens, as purchasers.
When, then, they have, to a great extent, been the authors of this supposed
great evil, as it exists with us ; when they are, in a large degree, responsible
for it, is it unreasonable to require that they should give their aid to a happy
and peaceful termination of the present controversy? I think I know the
•spirit of the North as well as they do, and upon this subject it is strong, and
•is getting still stronger. But these northern gentlemen do not perhaps know
as well as I do, the spirit Of the South. With the South there are worse
things than disunion. There is a sense of degradation which they deem
infinitely worse than any other condition in which man can be plaoed.s I
implore the men of the North to remember that they are striking at the
South in a way which forces upon the latter a conviction of intended inferiority.
Let them hot be blind to the fact that they are virtually saying to the men of the
•South, that they are not as good as they are. Let them not be forgetful that
they, apparently, are seeking to pass us by on the opposite side of the street,
because contact with us is contagion. Sir, we cannot, will not brook this
insulting, arrogant superiority.

14
The Senator froni New York, (Mr. Dix,) said the other day, with hiss usual
courtesy and suavity of manner, as well as with the coolness with which he
utters. all he does say, that it could hardly be doubted that the love of repub
licanism was stronger in the North than in the South. Sir,, if this self-suffi
ciency was not amusing it would be contemptuous. It loses, however, its
power .to offend in its ludicrous untruth — not the less ludicrous and untrue
because believed to be true by the honorable Senator. Sir, when has the
South been looked to in vain to vindicate the rights, interest, and honor of the
country ? The war of 1812 was brought about by the statesmen of the South,
and to a great degree conducted by Southern valor, for the especial vindica
tion of what were peculiarly Northern rights. The entire history of the
country, from the days of the revolution to the present hour, demonstrate the
total unsoundness of the opinion. An attachment to the Government, a pro?
per appreciation of its advantages, a uniform and undying love of liberty, and
a determination to preserve it, have, from first to last, characterized the citi
zens of the Southern States. It is not for me to say that in these respects
they excel their Northern brethren, for I do not believe it, but what unpreju
diced and intelligent man can venture to assert that they do not, in alt these
particulars, at least equal them. But, Mr. President, to return, the tongue of
an angel could not utter in terms sufficiently strong the commanding induce
ments which ought to stimulate these two sections of the country to settle
this controversy at once and forever. How is it to be settled? In my judgr
ment it can only be done as it has been heretofore done — only in the mode*
in which honest men always settle differences of opinion about their respec
tive rights— by compromise. I have no desire to excite alarm for effect mere
ly; I know that I am incapable of it. But, Mr. President, I speak in solemn
.earnestness and with heartfelt solicitude my conviction that if this question be
not settled by compromise, it will be settled by blood, or by the separation of
the ties which so happily and gloriously have heretofore bound us together.
Sir, are we belter than our fathers? The Constitution owes its existence to
them because, amongst other things, of their compromises, as brethren, upon
this very institution. We never should have lived as a nation, under, this
form of Government, but for that compromising spirit. How have we been
kept together? In 1819 this very topic deeply agitated the land. Its distant
thunder appalled the stoutest hearts. The impending storm threatened to
buist upon our heads with destructive fury. But it passed innocuously away.
Why? The men of the day were pure, patriotic, and wise enough to sacri
fice individual opinion upon the altar of their country. They compromised
the controversy, peace and harmony followed, and the Union was saved. Shall
we not do the same? Are patriotism, wisdom, and brotherly feeling all, gone?
I cannot be brought to believe it.
Mr. President, our fellow-eitizens oG, the North have committed a great er
ror, ev«n looking, to the end which they desire, the extinction of slavery, in
the course which they have pursued. I speak as to what I know of my own
State, and what I believe is true of at least four other States, when I assert
that Northern men are the authors of the slavery which now exists in theou
Some years.ago, not a session of the. Legislature of Maryland passed at which
some law was not enacted to encourage and facilitate manumission* Public
sentiment run altogether in that direction. But the agitation of the abolition
ists commenced and was so prosecuted until our citizens became thoroughly
alarmed, so that now manumission by the Legislature is prohibited except by
an act passed unanimously by both branches at one session, and confirmed in
the same way at a succeeding session. If the thraldom of slavery is more
absolute and permanent, with us than it was, they are the authorsof it. Here
let me ask what, the men of the Nprthhave done for the. emancipated slaves
amongst them? Have they given them the right of suffrage?

15
Mr. Hale. — They have in New Hampshire.
. Mr. Johnson*— I understood the Senator from New York, (Mr. Dix,) the
other.day, astelling.us that that proposition had been almost unanimously re
jected. by the peppleof that State, recently. New Hampshire,, also, must.aban-
don it, qr, instead of being represented by white men, the, Senator will have
a black successor, or one, perhaps, much more, degraded, and degrading. I
maintain then, that our friends of the North are responsible. for the present
state of things, in Maryland, and as I believe also in Delaware^ Virginia, North,
Carolina, and Kentucky ; certajnly in Delaware, Virginia, and: Kentucky^
The, people of these States were becoming convinced that slave labor, with
them.was; dear labor, I think it the dearest in the world in such climates,
and for such staple productions as are suited to them.; and besides this they
were, in many instances, goverened by the. moral. sentiment, which, no doubtj
influences many in the North. But all this, has, been defeated, frustrated, an?
nihilatedj by the, for the most part, heartless agitation: which now threatens
danger to the Union itself.
Mr. President, I am not to be told that an amicable settlement of thequesr
iion would, not be hailed.every where with acclamations of joy. AH good and
true. men of the free States would exclaim, the mprnent; tijey hear that the
matter, was peacefully adjusted, God.be praised, the Government, stands, the
Union is preserved. Let those who think that.a different, result would occur
loojc tQ, the debates in this and the other chamber, when. the same difficulty
was formerly settled by compromise,, andthey. will see that there is no danger
from such a settlement- Who, whispered any thing against that adjustment ?
Wh.atpraisesand what blessings were not showered upon thegreat and patriotic
statesman who.most contributed to effect it, ? Who hasjatteimpted to disturb the
adjustment since ? Who thinks of goi ng nortlvof the line then established, with
slaves?. Who thinks of prohibiting ciUzens.ofthaSouithfrom going south of that
line with slaves? Who dreams that the Union was or is in danger, oitthe. great
interests of thecountry were or are put in peril, becausetbecilizensof the.Sd.uth
h^ye been and ace suffered togosouthof that lip e with slaves? Who will af
fect to deny tjtiat jf the men of 1819, '20,. could, have; anticipated the acquisi
tion of additional territory, they would nof have extended it- to the. line then
adopted, or some other in .thesame spirit of patriotic compromise ? That wa*
no temporary settlement of a question. , It was proposed and; adopted by Con
gress, a^a measure foreyer, putting. an end to the controversy. It omitted to
prjovide.for the present case, only because it was not anticipated. It was not
extended to the territory which is now disturbingand perplexing us, simply
because its acquisitjip(nwas nqtforeseen. Let, then, I invoke; you, the spirit
in whtfih that compromise, was, effected, and that crisis, passed, now govern us,,
and my word for it, before the year, is ended, all parties. will, not onlybe satis-
ffeflj but, rejoiced. The strength and, happiness of, the country will, then, un«-
Ae£ its auspice.s, be unimpaired ; andj above, all, the Union preserved. Bfl-
S^e I, conclude, although, perhaps, not immediately called for by the purpose
which. Ijiave had in view,. in. addressing, you, permit me, to say a. word in re
lation ] to. the propositions submitted by way of arnendjinent,, one, by. the Sena
tor from Mississippi, (Mr. Davis,) the other, by the Senator from, -Kentucky,
(Mr. Underwood.) I shall not vole for the amendment of the Senator from
Mississippi, because I think it unnecessary, and because it asks the Senators
from the free States to do more than is requisite, in my judgment, to effect
an available settlement of the question. The amendment of the Senator
from Kentucky, I deem, also, altogether unnecessary to the result to be ac
complished, and I am unwilling to ask any Senator upon this floor who dif
fers from me in opinion, as to the power to say affirmatively as the amend
ment does, that Congress will not at any time hereafter, interfere with the
question of slavery south of the proposed line. Adopt the line excluding

16
slavery north of it, and the men of the South will stand,.in my opinion, south
of if, protected by the Constitution in the absence of any -legislation by Con
gress, and (hat is enough for me. A1 word or two more and I have done. '•''
Mr. President: I need not say to those that hear me that I feel deeply im
pressed with a conviction that the welfare of the country is greatly involved
in the Presidential .election. I content myself with stating the fact that I do
take a lively and: unaffected interest in the success, at that election, of the
party to which I belong ; but; sir, if there be truth in man, and I be capable
of uttering it, much as I value Whig principles, and ardently as I desire the
election to (he Presidency of the unsurpassed soldier and spotless and incor-
ruptible patriot selected as our chief in the coming contest, I, for one, would
consent, cheerfully consent, that the Government, through all time, should be
administered' by those who differ from me, rather than that this question
should remain unsettled. The individual gratification and political results
from the success of either of the candidates now before the country for that'
high office, might be but temporary. Measures of public policy which either
might recommend or Congress adopt, might be injurious only to a limited
extent. There is an inherent energy in our institutions, an intrinsic and re
cuperative power in our people, capable of resisting mere mistakes in public
policy. Such errors, sooner or later, are sure to be detected and corrected.
"The truth is certain to be discovered and adopted.
But this measure strikes, in my humble judgment, at our very being as a
people. Would to God the matchless glory conferred upon our name in the
war just terminated, were cast into utter oblivion,, and the gallant and noble
(spirits lo whom we are indebted for it, blotted from remembrance forever,
rather than it should be the occasion of destroying the domestic peace and
happiness which prevail throughout the land, and weakening even that sense
¦ of security in the continuance of our free institutions, which until lately pre-
-vailedJn every bosom.
Mr. President, the mere thought that the Government of my country is in
-peril, fills me wilh dismay. I hope I haVe as much courage as men ordina
rily have, bill I feel and confess that I have not the courage to look at my
country in ruins. I have not the fortitude even to anticipate it. I dare not
Jiherefore lift the veil which stands between me and the horrors behind it, if
-the present controversy is not amicably ended. This, sir, disguise it as we
<may, is the question of the day; It casts all others in the shade, and it must
be settled, and settled soon, if settled at all. I have approached it as the Se
nate will, I know, concede, though a citizen of a State in which slavery ex
ists with a determination, as far as it is in my power, to bring it to a peaceful
result. The opinions Of the North and of the South cannot both fully pre-
-vail, and the Union stand; something must be yielded on each side -each
T,k gliftlfaed m pa,rt' but only™pa't- And now, in the name of our
fathers who gave us the Constitution we live under, and whose blood was
poured out like water to acquire the liberty it secures, I invoke every Se
nator to bring to the Crisis which is upon us, ihe assistance of the pure' and pa
triotic spirit which we cannot but have inherited from them. This done, the
uaijger is over. *

YALE UNIVERSITY LIBRARY

3 9002 08954 2709

\

\