I was very anxious day before yesterday, Mr. Chairman, when the gentleman from Vermont, [Mr. MEACHAM,] and the gentleman from New York, upon my left, [Mr. FENTON,] addressed the House upon the subject of the Nebraska bill, to make some remarks upon the same subject in reply to them. I desired to do so at the time, but the opportunity was not afforded me. And though I have lost some of the ardor of feeling which the occasion then excited, yet I think it important that these positions should be answered, and it is for that purpose that I rise to address the committee to-day. I assure you I shall be as brief as possible.
The gentleman from Vermont, [Mr. MEACHAM,] if I understood the train of his argument, opposed the Nebraska bill, as presented to the House, mainly upon the ground that it declares the eighth section of the act of 1820, preparatory to the admission of Missouri into the Union as a State, inoperative, because it is inconsistent with the principles of the acts of 1850, known as the compromise of that year. This eighth section of the act of 1820 is that clause which, without any relation to the State of Missouri, prohibits slavery forever from all that part of the territory acquired by the Louisiana cession outside of Missouri north of 36° 30' north latitude. The argument of the gentleman consisted of the following series of assumptions:
First, that that restriction or prohibition was in the nature of a compact, or contract, as he called it.
Secondly, that it had been continuously adhered to from that time to this.
Thirdly, that the measure now proposed would be a violation of that compact.
Fourthly, that this breach of good faith would be attended with disastrous consequences to the peace, quiet, and repose of the country.
This, sir, was the outline of his argument. Now I propose to take up these positions, and show to the House, if not to the gentleman himself, that in every particle they are untenable.
In the first place, I state that that eighth clause of the act preparatory to the admission of Missouri into the Union, restricting slavery north of 36° 30', never was a compact. It never had any of the requisites or characteristics of a compact. A compact between whom? Between the North and South?
Mr. MEACHAM. I used the word "contract,” not "compact."
Mr. STEPHENS. The gentleman from Vermont used the word “contract," as I said, but others have used the word "compact,” and, in this connection, they both mean about the same thing. But what I was about to affirm is, that that “great Missouri compromise” which Mr. Clay proposed, and with which his fame is identified, had nothing to do with this restrictive clause of the act of 1820. That compromise [Mr. CLAY's] was in the nature of a “compact." It was a "compact" between the general government and the State of Missouri. I am aware that the general opinion on this subject is very erroneous. This Mr. Clay fully explained in 1850. The common idea is, that Mr. Clay was the author of the prohibition of slavery north of 36° 30'. But such is not the fact. He did not even vote for it. That proposition came from a gentleman from Illinois. The compromise that Mr. Clay offered was afterwards. Its history is this: The people of Missouri, under the act of 6th March, 1820, went on and formed a State constitution, which contained a clause authorizing the legislature to pass a law to prevent the immigration of free negroes; and when application was made for admission as a State into the Union, Congress refused the admission, unless that clause should be expunged. It was then that Mr. Clay brought forward his measure. Here it is:
Resolution providing for the admission of Missouri into the Union on a certain condition, Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That Missouri shall be admitted into the Union on an equal footing with the original States, in all respects whatever, upon the fundamental condition that the fourth clause of the twenty-sixth section of the third article of the constitution, submitted on the part of the said State to Congress, shall never be construed to authorize the passage of any law, and that no law shall be passed in conformity thereto, by which any citizen of either of the States in this Union shall be excluded from the enjoyment of any of the privileges and immunities to which such citizen is entitled under the Constitution of the United States: Provided, That the Legislature of the said State, by solemn public act, shall declare the assent of the said State to the said fundamental condition, and transmit to the President of the United States, on or before the fourth Monday in November next, an authentic copy of the said act; upon the receipt whereof the President, by proclamation, shall announce the fact; whereupon, and without any further proceeding on the part of Congress, the admission of the said State into this Union shall be considered as complete.
JOHN W. TAYLOR,
Speaker of the House of Representatives.
JOHN GAILLARD,
President of the Senate, pro tempore.
Approved, March 2 1821.
JAMES MONROE.
This proposition, when submitted to the people of Missouri, and acceded to by them, as it was, may very properly be called a “compact.” For there were parties to it—the general government on one side, and the people of Missouri on the other—both agreeing to it. But not so with the eighth section of the act referred to—there were no such parties to it—that was nothing but a law, with no greater sanction than any other statute that may give place to subsequent legislation. There was no compact about it. Missouri never gave her sanction to it. She could not have been any party to it. She had no right to the territory outside of her limits. She had no power or authority to make any compact concerning it.
But the gentleman argued as if he considered this eighth section of the act of 1820, fixing the line of 36° 30', north of which slavery should be forever excluded, and which is commonly called the “Missouri compromise line,” as a contract between the North and South, as the parties. How, then, stand the facts upon this point of view? How did this eighth section get into the bill of 1820? It was in this way—the North insisted upon a restriction against the admission of Missouri as a State, which required her to abolish slavery within her limits, as a condition precedent to her admission—the House passed a bill with such restriction to which the South were in mass opposed. In the Senate, on motion by Mr. Thomas, of Illinois, that clause containing a restriction on the State was stricken out, and this eighth section inserted in lieu of it. The South in mass were opposed to the State restriction, as I have said; but many of her members—a majority of two, I believe—voted for the substitute as the lesser evil of the two. In this way the substitute was carried as an amendment to the bill. This amendment was agreed to in the House by a vote of 134 to 42. Among these 42 noes are to be found the names of several of the most prominent men of the South. In this way this line of 36° 30' was incorporated in the bill of 1820, preparatory to the admission of Missouri as a State. And to this extent, and no other, can it be called a compromise, a contract, or compact. It was literally forced upon the South as a disagreeable alternative, by superior numbers, and in this way went upon your statute book as any other law passed by a majority of votes. So much, then, sir, for this "compact," or contract. Now let us see, in the second place, how it has been fulfilled or adhered to from that day to this.
The gentleman says it has been acquiesced in and conformed to for thirty years; and he asks, with much solemnity, if we are now about to violate and abrogate it? I have shown, sir, that the South was in no sense a party to this Congressional restriction north of 36° 30', except as a vanquished party, being outvoted on the direct question; protesting against it with all her might and power. Yet, sir, notwithstanding this, and not withstanding a large majority of her people from that day to this, as I think I may safely affirm, have held that clause of the Missouri act to be unconstitutional, as it was based upon the principle of a division of the common territory between the free States and slave States of the Union, for the sake of peace and harmony, the South did patriotically yield, and was willing for all time to come to abide by it. I say was, because of this “Missouri compromise," and the principles upon which it was founded, it may now be said “Illium fuit.”
The issue I make with the gentleman upon this branch of his speech is, that this agreement or contract, as he argued it, between the North and the South as to the line of division between slave territory and free territory, has not remained undisturbed and inviolate for thirty years, as he affirms. It has been shamelessly disregarded by Congress repeatedly, and in principle was entirely superseded, as I shall show, by the principles established by your legislation in 1850.
But as much as the arrangement was originally obnoxious to the South, the charge of violation of it cannot justly be made against her. No, sir; no, sir; it was the North that refused to abide by her own bargain. This I affirm. Now let us see how the record stands upon the subject. The first time that this question came up afterward, was within twelve months from the date of the act itself and before the same Congress. It came up on the application of Missouri for admission, in pursuance of the provisions of the very act that contains the “covenant.” She had formed a State constitution in pursuance of it; she had violated none of its conditions. The whole South were for letting her be admitted, and the entire North nearly, were against it. Here is the vote rejecting her admission—the vote was 79 for it, and 93 against it—the North in mass, almost, against it. Why was this refusal? If they recognized the provisions of the act of March preceding as containing any section binding upon them in the nature of a "contract," or "compact," why did they refuse to fulfill it? The pretext assigned was, that the constitution of Missouri contained a clause empowering the legislature to pass a law to prevent the introduction of free persons of color, as I have stated. But this could have been nothing but a pretext, for at that very day Massachusetts had a similar law in actual force upon her statute book. The truth is, the North at that early day showed that she did not regard the provisions of the act of 1820 as at all obligatory upon them as any thing like a compact. The real objection to the final admission of Missouri as a State was, that slavery was tolerated within her limits by her constitution. It was the old question, which gave trouble before this “contract” of 1820 was made.
It was then that Mr. Clay's compromise was adopted. Twelve months, therefore, had not passed before the North repudiated this compact by refusing Missouri admission without another compromise.
Well, the next time this question arose was on the admission of Arkansas into the Union in 1836. This State was formed out of a part of the Louisiana purchase south of 36° 30'. By the terms of the Missouri “contract," the gentleman from Vermont admits that she was to come in as a slave State. Did the North then so recognize and act upon these terms? The gentleman from New York [Mr. FENTON] said that this division line had been approved by the North for thirty years. If so, I ask him when or where? Did they raise no objection when Arkansas applied for admission? Let us see; here is the record.
Mr. John Quincy Adams, in this House, June 13, 1836, moved an amendment so as to make a section of the bill for the admission of that State read thus:
“And nothing in this act contained shall be construed as an assent by Congress to the article in the constitution of the said State relating to slavery and to the emancipation of slaves,” etc.
“Still harping on my daughter."
On a vote, the effect of which was to allow this amendment, there were eighty in favor of affording the opportunity. There were one hundred and nine on the opposite side, which prevented its being offered. Of these eighty votes, some were from the South. The object may have been to get a vote upon this distinct question of the recognition by the House of the line established in 1820. But after the amendment was ruled out on the direct vote for the admission of Arkansas with a constitution tolerating slavery, though she was south of 36° 30', there are fifty-two names under the lead of Mr. Adams, in the negative every one of them, I believe, from the North—I have the journal before me. And amongst these names I see Heman Allen, Horace Everett, Hiland Hall, Henry F. Jones, and William Slade. The entire delegation from Vermont, and the gentleman's [Mr. MEACHAM's] own predecessor upon this floor, or he who then represented a portion of the same constituency that that gentleman now does, recorded his vote against the admission of Arkansas. Did he or his colleagues have any other objection to it except that it was a slave State? If they regarded the line of 36° 30' as a solemn covenant between the North and South, why did they not give it their sanction at that time? The gentleman spoke of “honor”—
“I thank thee, Jew, for teaching me that word.”
Where was the "honor" of the representatives of Vermont on that occasion? In whose keeping was it placed? I suppose in the hands of their constituents, of whom the gentleman was one. The representatives from the gentleman's own State did then unanimously—most dishonorably, if he chooses so to characterize their conduct—repudiate that “contract” which the South never offered to disturb, until it was totally abandoned by an overwhelming majority at the North, as I shall presently show. I have shown that it was disregarded within twelve months after it was made, and refused to be sanctioned by the representatives of the gentleman's own State in 1836, the first time it came up again.
I will now go on, and show the gentleman and the House, when it came up again, and when finally it was utterly repudiated by the almost entire North
Mr. MEACHAM (interrupting). I would inquire of the gentleman if the senators from Vermont did not vote for it?
Mr. STEPHENS. For what? Mr. MEACHAM. For the admission of Missouri.
Mr. STEPHENS. I am not speaking of the Senate, but of the House I have none but the House records before me. I am dealing with members in this body, or those who preceded us here. If the gentleman desires, he can answer for his predecessors from the State of Vermont on this floor,
The next time any thing was said in our legislation about the "Missouri line of 36° 30%," was on the annexation of Texas. That measure was carried with that line in it, but not by northern votes. It was the South, still willing to abide it, that carried it then. There were one hundred and twenty-five northern votes given on that occasion. Of these, only fifty-one were for the annexation with this line established in it; while there were seventy-four-a large majority-who refused to give it their sanction. I do not mean to say that all who voted against that measure were opposed to that line of settlement. Many of them had other reasons. And I know full well, for I was here, that of those fifty-one northern men who voted for it, many of them would not have voted for the recognition of that line if the question had come up by itself. But those resolutions of annexation were so presented that they had to be taken as a whole, or not at all. I allude to this vote, merely because it was the next time in order when the question came up, and the vote certainly fails to show that the North, or even a majority of them, gave it their sanction. For that reason only I allude to it.
I come down now to another step of our progress to the period from the year 1847 to 1850. The gentleman from Vermont [Mr. MEACHAM] had a map for illustration, which he exhibited to us. He pointed out to us the boundary of the Louisiana purchase. It commenced at the mouth of the Sabine, ran up that river to the 32° of north latitude; thence due north to the Red river; thence up that river to the 100° of west longitude from Greenwich; thence due north to the Arkansas river, and up that river to the 42° of north latitude, and thence due west to the South seas or the Pacific ocean. By this map, and his demonstrations from it, it appears that we had a title ceded to us from France to territory extending to the Pacific ocean. Well, that of course included Oregon—that is, according to the gentleman's map, we derived title to Oregon under the cession from France in 1803, and that territory was part of the Louisiana purchase. Mr. Jefferson so considered it, and sent Lewis and Clarke to explore the country.
Well, then, how did the South act toward this "solemn compact," as it is now called—the line of 36° 30'—when we came to organize a territorial government for Oregon in 1847? The southern boundary was the 42° of north latitude, and of course the whole of it lay north of 36° 30'. At this time (in 1847) we were in a war with Mexico, and it was well understood to be the policy of the administration to acquire territory from that government, which, in all probability, would, to some extent, be south of the line 36° 30'. From the votes of the House, upon what was well known as the “Wilmot proviso," the South had just reasons to apprehend that it was the fixed determination of a majority of the North to disregard entirely what is now called the “sacred covenant of 1820.” When, therefore, the bill to organize a territorial government for Oregon came up in this House on the 15th of January, 1847, Mr. Burt, of South Carolina, to take the sense of the North directly upon the question of abiding by this line of 36° 30', moved, as an amendment to that clause in the bill which excluded slavery forever from the territory, these words:
“inasmuch as the whole of said territory lies north of 36° 30' north latitude, known as the line of the Missouri compromise."
The object of this amendment was to put a direct test to the North whether they intended to recognize the principle upon which the controversy on the subject of slavery in the territories was disposed of in 1820 or not. Sir, the North understood the question fully and clearly, and they met it promptly their response was, that they did not. Here is the vote upon this question: there were in this House then 82 votes for Mr. Burt's amendment, and 113 against it! Of these noes, every man was from the North. Every southern man in the House voted for it. And of the 82 who voted to adhere to the principle of that adjustment, not as something too sacred to be touched, but for the sake of peace and quiet, there were, I believe, but six from the whole North—they were Douglas and Robert Smith, from Illinois; Cunningham and Parish, from Ohio; Charles J. Ingersoll, of Pennsylvania, and Hastings, of Iowa. Every man from Vermont and New York voted against it.
In the face of this record the gentleman from Vermont, [Mr. MEACHAM,] and the gentleman from New York, [Mr. FENTON,] in their places upon this floor, two days ago, declared that this "Missouri compromise" had met the approval of the North for thirty years. The South, in this instance, proposed it unanimously as a "peace offering,” and it was almost as unanimously rejected by the North. “Honor,” I think, the gentleman said. They rejected it over territory to which we derived title by the very cession alluded to in the act of 1820. And so thoroughly opposed were they to giving it their approval, and so bent upon its total abrogation, that they refused to affirm the principle when they got all by the affirmation. “Honor!” indeed! But sir, to proceed. This bill was defeated in the Senate, I believe. It did not become a law. The question came up again in 1848. Another bill was brought forward to establish a territorial government for Oregon. The Senate put in the following amendment:
“That the line of 36° 30' of north latitude, known as the Missouri compromise line, as defined by the eighth section of an act entitled ‘An, act to authorize the people of the Missouri territory to form a constitution and State government, and for the admission of such State into the Union, on an equal footing with the original States, and to prohibit slavery in certain territories,’ approved March 6, 1820, be, and the same is hereby, declared to extend to the Pacific ocean; and the said eighth section, together with the compromise therein effected, is hereby revived, and declared to be in full force and binding for the future organization of the territories of the United States, in the same sense and with the same understanding with which it was originally adopted.”
It came up for action in this House on the 11th of August, 1848. On the question to concur with the Senate in this amendment, the yeas were 82, and the nays 121. I have the vote before
This was a proposition to revive and declare in force a provision which is now claimed to have been held all the time as a sacred compact—almost as sacred as the constitution itself; and it was rejected by an overwhelming majority in this House-rejected, sir, by the North. The South was again unanimous for it. From the North at this time, I think, there were but four votes for it-Birdsall, from New York; Charles Brown, Charles J. Ingersoll, and Brodhead, from Pennsylvania. Here is the Journal. This proposition in the Senate was moved by Mr. Douglas. It received every southern vote in that body, and was opposed by every northern vote, except Douglas, Dickinson, Bright, Cameron, Hannegan, Sturgeon, and Fitzgerald. The vote on the adoption of it in that body was 33 to 21. Mr. Calhoun, who was well known to be opposed to the principle on which it was founded, gave it his support.
But upon the rejection of this amendment by the House, and a disagreement between the two Houses upon it, the amendment was lost, and the Oregon bill passed, and received the sanction of the President without this recognition of the Missouri compromise, but in the face of its open repudiation and abrogation by the North. This, sir, is the truth of history, and so let it be written. And with what sort of face can gentlemen, with these facts before them, rise up here and say that this compromise has been undisturbed and acquiesced in for thirty years? But, sir, there is still another chapter in this history.
At the close of the war with Mexico extensive territories, as was expected, were acquired-territories extending south as well as north of the line of 36° 30'—constituting a public domain of hundreds of thousands of square miles, purchased by the common blood and common treasure of the people of the South as well as the North. The policy of the advocates of the “Wilmot proviso," from the beginning, had been to appropriate the whole of this immense region exclusively to the North. Hence their uniform hostility to the Missouri compromise, because that was founded upon the principle of division. Their determination was to have all. The South was still willing to divide, notwithstanding the policy which she ever advocated was to leave all the territories open for the occupancy and colonization of the people of the whole country, from whatever section they might emigrate, with the liberty of forming such institutions, upon a republican basis, as they might deem most conducive to their happiness, interest, and prosperity, without any congressional restriction or dictation whatever. This was always the doctrine maintained at the South. She was willing to divide, only as an alternative between that and a greater evil. To an entire exclusion, by act of Congress, she had made up her mind never to submit, let consequences be what they might. This was the state of things upon the assembling of the Thirty-first Congress. The events of that Congress are too recent and vivid upon the recollection of all to need a rehearsal. The majority of the North still proclaimed their determination to appropriate the whole of the public domain to themselves. Both sections stood in hostile array against each other. The strife became so embittered and fierce that legislation was paralyzed, and every thing seemed to threaten confusion and anarchy. The South again repeatedly proposed a settlement upon the Missouri line. The proposition was made in this House, on the part of the South, for the last time, on the 13th day of June, 1850. It was in these words:
“Provided, however, That it shall be no objection to the admission into the Union of any State which may hereafter be formed out of the territory lying south of the parallel of latitude of 36° 30', that the constitution of said State may authorize or establish African slavery therein."
This proposition was rejected in committee of the whole upon a count by tellers ayes 78, noes 89. It was the last time, sir, it was ever offered. When the North had again, and again, and again, for three years, refused to abide by it, the South, driven to the wall upon it, was thrown back upon her original rights under the constitution. Her next position was, that territorial restriction by Congress should be totally abandoned, not only south of 36° 30', but north of that line too! Upon this ground she planted herself on the 15th day of June—the debates in this House on that day were more exciting, perhaps, than ever upon any day since the beginning of the government. It was upon that day I put the question directly to a distinguished gentleman then here from Ohio, [Mr. VINTON,] whether he would vote for the admission of any slave State into the Union, and he refused to say that he would. The determination, as manifested by the votes of the majority of the North, was to apply legislative restriction over the whole of the common territory, in open and shameless disregard of the principles of the so-called Missouri compromise, notwithstanding the gentleman from Vermont says that it has been adhered to and held inviolate for thirty years. It was on that day, sir, that a distinguished colleague of mine, [Mr. Toombs,] then on this floor, now in the other wing of the Capitol, made that speech which has become somewhat famous in our State, in which he said, with eloquence seldom heard within these walls:
“We do not oppose California on account of the anti-slavery clause in her constitution." It was her right, and I am not even prepared to say that she acted unwisely in its exercise that is her business; but I stand upon the great principle that the South has a right to an equal participation in the territories of the United States."
* * * * * * * * * *
“Deprive us of this right and appropriate this common property to yourselves it is then your government, not mine. Then I am its enemy; and I will then, if I can, bring my children and my constituents to the altar of liberty, and, like Hamilcar, I would swear them to eternal hostility to your foal domination. Give us our just rights, and we are ready, as ever heretofore, to stand by the Union, every part of it, and its every interest; refuse it, and, for one, I will strike for independence."
It was then, when the North had refused all compromise, and went into the contest for “the whole or none,” that the South took up the gauge, planted herself upon her original ground, armed, as she conceived, in the panoply of truth; and her representatives boldly meeting those arrayed, not only against her rights, but a great principle of free government, face to face, said:
Lay on, Macduff;
And damn'd be he that first cries, Hold, enough!"
The grounds she then took were, that there should be no settlement of this territorial controversy, but upon the recognition of her original principles, which were, that all congressional restrictions upon this subject were wrong, and should be totally abandoned. This was the basis of her ultimatum, as then proclaimed. It was offered in this House on the 15th day of June, 1850. No decision was had on it. It was offered two days after in the Senate to the then pending compromise bill in the Senate. This proposition was in these words:
“And when the said territory, or any portion of the same, shall be admitted as a State, it shall be received into the Union with or without slavery, as their constitution may prescribe at the time of admission.”
The whole question of slavery or no slavery was to be left to the determination of the people of the territories, whether north or south of 36° 30', or any other line. The question was to be taken out of Congress, where it had been improperly thrust from the beginning, and to be left to the people concerned in the matter to decide for themselves. This, I say, was the position originally held by the South, when the Missouri restriction was at first proposed. The principle upon which that position rests lies at the very foundation of all our republican institutions; it is that the citizens of every distinct and separate community or State should have the right to govern themselves in their domestic matters as they please, and that they should be free from intermeddling restrictions and arbitrary dictation on such matters, from any other power or government in which they have no voice.
It was out of a violation of this very principle, to a great extent, that the war of the Revolution sprung. The South was always on the republican side of this question, while the North—no; or, at least, I will not say the entire North, for there have always been some of them with the South on this question; but I will say, while a majority of the North, under the free-soil lead of that section, up to the settlement of the contest in 1850—were on the opposite side.
The doctrine of the restrictionists or free-soilers, or those who hold that Congress ought to impose their arbitrary mandates upon the people of the territories in this particular, whether the people be willing or unwilling, is the doctrine of Lord North and his adherents in the British Parliament toward the colonies during his administration. He and they claimed the right to govern the colonies "in all cases whatsoever," notwithstanding the want of representation on their part. The doctrine of the South upon this question has been, and is, the doctrine of the whigs in 1775 and 1776. It involves the principle that the citizens of every community should have a voice in their government. This was the doctrine of the people of Boston in 1775, when the response was made throughout the colonies, “The cause of Boston is the cause of us all.” And if there be any here now who call themselves whigs arrayed against this great principle of republican government, I will do toward them as Burke did in England; I will appeal from “the new to the old whigs.”
I say nothing of the constitutional view of the question. When I have been asked if Congress does not possess the power to impose restrictions or to pass the “Wilmot proviso," I have waived that issue; I never discuss it. On that point I have told my constituents, and I tell you, I treat it as Chatham treated it in the British Parliament, when the question of power to tax the colonies without representation was raised there. That question Chatham would not discuss; but he told those who were so unjustly exercising it, that if he were an American he would resist it. The question of power is not the question; the question is, is it right thus to exercise it? Is it consistent with representative republican government to do it? That is the question. Where do you new latter-day whigs from the North stand on this question? Will you take the side of Lord North and the British tories, and maintain that it is the duty of this great government, with its superior wisdom, to legislate for the freemen of this country, as free-born as yourselves, who quit your State jurisdictions and seek new homes in the West?
And where do you, calling yourselves democrats from the North, stand upon this great question of popular rights? Do you consider it democratic to exercise the high prerogative of stifling the voice of the adventurous pioneer and restricting his suffrage in a matter concerning his own interest, happiness, and government, which he is much more capable of deciding than you are? As for myself and the friends of the Nebraska bill, we think that our fellow-citizens who go to the frontier, penetrate the wilderness, cut down the forests, till the soil, erect school-houses and churches, extend civilization, and lay the foundation of future States and empires, do not lose by their change of place, in hope of bettering their condition, either their capacity for self-government or their just rights to exercise it, conformably to the constitution of the United States.
We of the South are willing that they should exercise it upon the subject of the condition of the African race amongst them, as well as upon other questions of domestic policy. If they see fit to let them hold the same relation to the white race which they do in the southern States, from the conviction that it is better for both races that they should, let them do it. If they see fit to place them on the same footing they occupy in the northern States, that is, without the rights of a citizen or the protection of a master, outcasts from society, in worse condition than Cain, who, though sent forth as a vagabond, yet had a mark upon him that no man should hurt him—I say, if they choose to put this unfortunate race on that footing, let them do it. That is a matter that we believe the people there can determine for themselves better than we can for them. We do not ask you to force southern institutions or our form of civil polity upon them; but to let the free emigrants to our vast public domain, in every part and parcel of it, settle this question for themselves, with all the experience, intelligence, virtue, and patriotism they may carry with them. This, sir, is our position. It is, as I have said, the original position of the South, It is the position she was thrown back upon in June, 1850. It rests upon that truly national and American principle set forth in the amendment offered in the Senate on the 17th of June, which I have stated; and it was upon the adoption of this principle that that most exciting and alarming controversy was adjusted. This was the turning point; upon it every thing depended, so far as that compromise was concerned.
I well recollect the intensity of interest felt upon the fate of that proposition in the Senate. Upon its rejection in the then state of the public mind depended consequences which no human forecast could see or estimate. The interest was enhanced from the great uncertainty and doubt as to the result of the vote. Several northern senators, who had before yielded the question of positive, restriction—that is, the “Wilmot Proviso”—had given no indication of how they would act upon this clear declaration that the people of the territories might, in the formation of their State constitutions, determine this question for themselves. Among these was Mr. Webster. Just before the question was put, and while anxiety was producing its most torturing effects, this most renowned statesman from New England arose to address the Senate. An immense crowd was in attendance. The lobby, as well as the galleries, were full. All eyes were instantly turned toward him, and all ears eager to catch every word that should fall from his lips upon this, the most important question, perhaps, which had ever been decided by an American Senate. His own vote, even, might turn the scale. That speech I now have before me. In it he declared himself for the amendment. His conclusion was in these words:
“Sir, my object is peace-my object is reconciliation. My purpose is not to make up a case for the North, or to make up a case for the South. My object is not to continue useless and irritating controversies. I ain against agitators North and South; I am against local ideas North and South, and against all narrow and local contests. I am an American, and I know no locality in America. That is my country. My heart, my sentiments, my judgment, demand of me that I should pursue such a course as shall promote the good, and the harmony, and the union of the whole country. This I shall do, God willing, to the end of the chapter."
The reporter says:
[“The honorable Senator resumed his seat amidst the general applause from the gallery.”]
Yes, sir; he did. I was there, and witnessed the scene; and no one, I fancy, who was there, can ever forget that scene.
Every heart beat easier. The friends of the measure felt that it was safe. The vote was taken the amendment was adopted. The result was soon communicated from the galleries, and, finding its way through every passage and outlet to the rotunda, was received with exultation by the crowd there; with quick steps it was borne through the city; and in less than five minutes, perhaps, the electric wires were trembling with the gladsome news to the remotest parts of the country. It was news well calculated to make a nation leap with joy, as it did, because it was the first step taken toward the establishment of that great principle upon which this territorial question was disposed of, adjusted, and settled in 1850. It was a new step in our governmental history. From the beginning, nothing had been the cause or source of so much sectional feeling and strife as this question of slavery in the territories—a question so nearly allied in principle to the old controversy between the colonies and the mother country.
With the colonies the question was not so much the amount of taxation; it was not the small duty on team that was far from being oppressive—but it was the principle on which it was placed; it was the principle asserted and maintained in the “preamble,” that our forefathers resisted by arms. And Mr. Webster well said, on some occasion, that the American Revolution was “fought against a preamble.” That preamble asserted the right, or power, of the home government to govern the colonies in all cases. It was against that principle the war was commenced.
The cause of right in which the men of '76 engaged, was vindicated in the success of the revolution and the disruption of the British empire. And, as a coincidence worthy to be noted, it so happened that this kindred principle of the proper and just rights of the people of our territories, or colonies, made its first step toward ultimate success on the anniversary of the battle of Bunker Hill. It was on the ever memorable 17th day of June. It was on that day (1775) the blow was struck, by the colonists at Boston, against the unwise, unjust, and arbitrary policy of Lord North And it was on the same day, just seventy-five years after, that the unwise, unjust, and arbitrary policy, to say no more of it, of this general government attempting to compel the people of our territories to adopt such institutions as may please a majority of Congress, without consulting the rights, interests, or wishes of those immediately concerned-was, for the first time, abandoned by the American Senate without a blow. It is fortunate for us, and fortunate for millions that shall come after us, that it was abandoned without a blow. Had the restrictionists of this country held out as Lord North's ministry did in their policy, it might have ended in consequences most disastrous to our common well-being, and the hopes of mankind. But they did not. The Power of truth prevailed. Patriotism trampled over faction. And as soon as this great American principle I so call it because it lies at the foundation of all our republican institutions-was vindicated in the Senate, the House did not again resume the subject. We waited until the bills came from the Senate. The same provision as that I have read was put in the New Mexico bill. That swept away the restriction that had been put in the Texas annexation resolutions over all that part of Texas lying north of 36° 30', included in the present territory of New Mexico. The House took up these bills, after they were passed by the Senate with these amendments, with this new principle incorporated in them, and gave them their sanction.
This, sir, is what is called the compromise of 1850, so far as this territorial question is concerned. It was adopted after the policy of dividing territory between the two sections, North and South, was wholly abandoned, discarded, and spurned by the North. It was based upon the truly republican and national policy of taking this disturbing element out of Congress, and leaving the whole question of slavery in the territories to the people, there to settle it for themselves. And it is in vindication of that new principle then established for the first time in the history of our government—in the year 1850, the middle of the nineteenth century that we, the friends of the Nebraska bill, whether from the North or South, now call upon this House and the country to carry out in good faith, and give effect to the spirit and intent of those important measures of territorial legislation. The principle of those territorial acts was utterly inconsistent with every thing like Congressional restriction. This is what we wish to declare[.] And this principle, carried out in good faith, necessarily renders all antecedent legislation inconsistent with it inoperative and void. This, also, we propose to declare.
The restriction imposed by the eighth section of the act of 1820—thrown into that act out of place and without any legitimate connection with it, like a fifth wheel to a wagon—is just such antecedent legislation. The principle on which it was based has been abandoned, totally abandoned, as I have shown, by those who now contend for it, and superseded by another, a later, a better, and a much more national and republican one.
We do not propose to repeal "any compact,” or to violate faith in any sense—we only invoke you to stand upon the territorial principle established by what is known as the compromise of 1850. That has already received the sanction of an overwhelming majority of the American people, as I doubt not it always will receive when fairly presented. I have seen it suggested, that if a proposition should be made to extend the provisions of this bill to the guarantee to the South in the Texas annexation resolutions for the admission of slave States from Texas south of 36° 30', that such proposition would certainly defeat it. By no means, sir; those who reason thus show nothing so clearly as how little they understand the real merits of the question.
That guarantee, secured in the Texas resolutions, so far as the character of the institutions of such States, hereafter to be formed, is concerned—that is, whether they be slave or free—is, itself, in perfect accordance with the present provisions of this bill. That guarantee was not that those new States should be slave States, but that the people there might do as they please upon the subject. The reason that the guarantee was important, at the time, was, because the policy of Congressional restriction had not then been abandoned. The South never asked any discrimination in her favor from your hands. All that the South secured by those resolutions, so far as the character of the States is concerned, was, simply, that they should be admitted at a proper time, “either with or without slavery," as the people may determine. As to the number of States, that is a different question. So that if you should repeal that so called guarantee for slave States, by extending this bill to that country, you would only erase to fill again, with the same words. We ask no discrimination in our favor. And all we ask of you men of the North is, that you make none in your own. And, why should you? Why should you even have the desire to do it? Why should you not be willing to remove this question forever from Congress, and leave it to the people of the territories, according to the compromise of 1850? You have greatly the advantage of us in population. The white population of the United States is now over twenty millions. Of this number, the free States have more than two to one, compared with the South. There are only a little over three millions of slaves.
If immigration into the territories, then, should be assumed to go on in the ratio of population, we must suppose that there would be near seven white persons to one slave at least; and of these seven, two from the free States to one from the South. This is without taking into the estimation the immense foreign immigration. With such an advantage are you afraid to trust this question with your own people?—men reared under the influence of your own boasted superior institutions? With all the prejudices of birth and education against us, are you afraid to let them judge for themselves? Are your “ free-born” sons, who never “breathed the tainted air of slavery,” such nincompoops that they cannot be “trusted out without their mothers' leave?” It must be so, or else another inference is legitimate and clear; and that is, that notwithstanding all your denunciations of the "hated and accursed institution,” you have an inward consciousness that it is not so bad after all, and that the only way you can keep wise, intelligent, and Christian men, even from New England itself, from adopting it, is to set yourselves up as self-constituted guardians and lawmakers for them. I consider your policy and the tenacity with which you hold to it, as the fullest and amplest vindication of the institutions of the South against all your misrepresentations, abuse, and billingsgate about them.
I think, sir, I have shown conclusively that the line of 36° 30', known as the Missouri compromise line, never was a “compact,” in any proper sense of that term. And even if it was that it has been disregarded, broken, and trampled under foot by the parties who have lately so signalized themselves as its champions and defenders. I have shown, that while the South was opposed to the policy by which it was adopted, and took it as a disagreeable alternative, yet she never offered to disturb it, but was willing to abide by it for the sake of peace and harmony. I have shown, also, that the present measure is no “breach of faith,” but that its object is to carry out and give effect to the great territorial principle established in 1850.
It remains for me now to say something upon the last part of the speech of the gentleman from Vermont; and that is, the great excitement that this measure is likely to produce. The country was in peace and quiet, says the gentleman, until this bill was introduced. Well, sir, who raises any excitement now? Whence does the opposition come? And what are the reasons for it? The North, it is said, is to be excited. And excited about what? Why, because Congress, when this bill passes, will have recognized the territorial principle established in 1850, and declared all antecedent legislation over the territories of Kansas and Nebraska inconsistent with that principle inoperative and void. And what is the harm or mischief to be done? Why, nothing, but extending to the freeman of Kansas and Nebraska that privilege which ought to be the birthright of every American citizen—to have a voice in forming the institutions, and passing the laws under which he is to live. That is all. Who, then, is to be agitated at this monstrous outrage? Why, nobody but those who wish to impose an unjust restriction upon a freeman's franchise; nobody but those who deny to a portion of their fellow-citizens a fitness or capacity for republican government. Nobody but those who would maintain the same policy on the part of the general government toward the people of the territories which Lord North and his tory confederates, on the part of England, held toward the colonies. That there may be, and that there are, some such bodies, I do not doubt. But who are they, and what is their force? They are nothing but the fragments of the old “Wilmot proviso," "Free-Soil," and “Abolition Phalanx,” attempting to rally their broken and routed columns by this hypocritical cry about the sacredness of compacts. Whoever expected to see the New York Tribune and the Evening Post, and such newspapers, pouring forth their invocations in behalf of the "sanctity of the Missouri compromise?” The men who thus cry aloud now are the very same who denounced every man at the North who voted to maintain that line, while the question was open, as a “dough face” and “traitor.” They thought then that they had the world in a swing, and would have every thing their own way; not satisfied to have " the Wilmot” fixed upon all territory north of 36° 30', they determined to have it fixed upon the whole of the public domain. With this spirit they went into the contest. And so far from getting it fixed where it was not, they came out of the contest with the establishment of a principle, which took it off where it was fixed before. Like the man that failed properly to use his talent, they had taken away from them “even that which they had.” They went a “wooling," and came back thoroughly “fleeced” themselves--hence their desperation. That such men may rail, and rave, and rage, may be expected. Let them rage on. Had they, and men of like opinions before them, never thrust their unjust and anti-republican territorial policy in the halls of Congress, there never would have been sectional strife within these walls. Whatever of party conflicts we might have had growing out of questions of legislation for so vast a country as ours is, with all its complicated and diversified interests, we should have been saved from this lamentable quarrelling about State institutions, which threatened such fearful consequences in 1850.
But, sir, we are told that discord once reigned in heaven. The evil spirit of pride and ambition, craving powers and prerogatives not proper or legitimate, entered the breasts of those admitted even to the presence of the Most High; jealousy, envy, and hate produced not only words, but blows, between archangels ministering round his throne.
“Long time in even scale
The battle hung."
These unholy conflicts, so unsuited to that place, were never composed until Heaven's First-Born, clothed in the majesty of divine power, arose and hurled the factious hosts from the empyrean battlements to the bottomless pit below.
“Nine days they fell; confounded chaos roared,
And felt tenfold confusion, in their fall,
Through his wild Anarchy: so huge a rout
Encumber'd him with ruin. Hell, at last,
Yawning, received them whole, and on them closed:
Hell, their fit habitation, fraught with fire
Unquenchable, the house of woe and pain.
Disburden d Heaven rejoiced, and soon repaired
Her mural breach, returning whence it rolled."
From that profound deep, below which there was no lower deep, they still sent up much cursing, wailing, howling, and hissing.
So, sir in these halls, sacred to national purposes, and those objects for which the government was formed, we have had peace-destroying feuds and unseemly conflicts engendered and instigated by the fell demon of "Restriction," or " Wilmot proviso," which once stalked with insolent brow, in our very midst. These scenes lasted until the Genius of our country rose in its might, on the 17th of June, 1850, armed with the great American principle of self-government, which had borne our fathers through the struggle of the revolution, and drove the hideous monster, with all his impious crew, from the Capitol-cast them out and hurled them downward to that low deep from which their plaintive howls now ascend.
These convocations at the Tabernacle and at Chicago and elsewhere—the ravings of the infidel preacher, Theodore Parker, and all his weaker followers-are but the repetition of the pandemonium scenes; there consultations were held, and grave debate had, how the banished fiends should regain their lost estate, “Whether by open war or covert guile.” These manifestations may be expected. We have had them before—yea, and much more violent, too. When the compromise of 1850 was passed, these same men declared open war against its provisions. “Repeal!” “Repeal!” was blazoned upon their banners; mobs were got up in Boston, in Syracuse, and at Christiana; blood was shed by these resisters of the law. The spirit of the North was appealed to in fanatic accents. That spirit answered in prompt and patriotic tones of popular reprobation at the ballot-box, just as it will do again. These threats of what will be the fate of, and “political graves” of, northern men who vote for this bill, can fright nobody but old women and timid children. They are worse than ghost stories—we have heard them before.
I recollect well with what eloquence a gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Root] some years ago, in this House, spoke of the deep degradation that awaited every man at the North who should dare to vote against the Wilmot proviso. No patronage of the government could save him; no land office, ever so remote, could keep him from being hunted down, ferreted out, and held up to the just scorn of an indignant constituency. But his prophetic warning came far short of becoming history. Northern men did abandon the proviso. In doing so they acted wisely, justly, nobly, and patriotically; and so far from digging their political graves by the act, they have but planted themselves deeper and firmer in the hearts, love, affection, and admiration of their countrymen.
The same “scare-crow” was held up to northern men who occupied national ground on the admission of Missouri. It was said then that they would find “their graves" in the ground where they stood. And some pretend now to say that such was the fact. But in the record I have before me, I see, among the very few from the North who did then stand up for the right against the huge clamor that was raised against them, the names of Baldwin, from Pennsylvania; Holmes, of Massachusetts; and Storrs, of New York; and Southard, of New Jersey. Where did Southard find his grave? Mr. Baldwin was afterwards one of the judges of the Supreme Court of the United States. Mr. Holmes, when Maine was admitted as a State, was elected to the Senate, and held that highly honorable post, for aught I know, as long as he wanted it.
Mr. Storrs, who was a man of great talents, never lost the confidence of his constituents. Had he not been cut down by death at an early age, he might, and most probably would, have attained the highest honors of the country, not excepting the chief magistracy itself. These statesmen found “political graves” where many of those who now rail so fiercely would, doubtless, be very willing to find theirs. But of those who espoused the side of the restrictionists at that time I do not see the name of a single man who ever attained high political distinction in this country. Their very memories, in most instances, have passed away, and their "graves,” if they have any, would be about as hard to find as that “of Moses in the wilderness."
So much, then, for these threats. They are but the "ravings," and "howlings," and "hissings" of the beaten and routed ranks of the factionists and malcontents. They are the wailings of the politically condemned, coming up from the bottom of that deep pit where they have been hurled by a patriotic people for the good, the peace, quiet, and harmony of the whole country. We need not expect to silence them the friends and advocates of the compromise of 1850 did not expect or look for that at the time. That would have been a forlorn hope; and though many of the enemies of the compromise, of the North, who were beaten in the great battle of 1852, have since seemingly surrendered and begged for quarters, pretending to be ready to acquiesce, I must be permitted to say on this occasion, without any wish to push myself in the New York contest, I have very little confidence in the integrity of their professions. They fought the compromise as long as there was any prospect of making any thing by fighting it. When whipped, routed, and beaten, then, like craven and mercenary captives, they turned to power, to see if any thing could be made there by subserviency and sycophancy. I have no faith in their conversion-never have had any. Warmed into life again by the genial rays of executive patronage, I have always thought, and still think, that they will only become the more formidable whenever the occasion offers for their real principles to manifest themselves. Hydrophobia can never be cured-it will break out on the changes of the moon. And so with the disease of negromania. Sir, the viper will hiss and even sting the bosom that nurtures and fosters it. Whether I am right in this anticipation, or whether this administration is right in its present policy, we shall see.
But we who stood by the compromise of 1850, and intend to stand by it now, and carry it out in good faith, are not to be moved by any clamor got up by its old enemies; nor are we to be shaken in our purpose by any mistaken appeals in behalf of the "sanctity of compacts," coming from a source even as respectable as that of the National Intelligencer. That paper, in a late article, seems to consider the line of 36° 30' almost as binding as the constitution—the bare “suggestion” for a departure from which should arouse the friends of the constitution everywhere. If so, why did not that paper raise the alarm in 1836, when Mr. Adams, in this House, backed by fifty-two northern votes, made something more than a “suggestion” to depart from it?
In 1845, when a majority of the North voted against the annexation of Texas with this line in it, why was not its voice again raised? In 1847 and 1848, when it was completely set at naught and trampled upon by the North, as I have shown, why was it not then raised? Then the contest was fierce and hot between those who stood by that line and those who were for its total obliteration. For three long years when this contest raged, why did the Intelligencer never say one word in behalf of its maintenance and preservation? That was certainly the time for any one who regarded it as imbued with “sanctity” and “sacredness” to speak. It is too late now. The old principle in our territorial policy has passed away, and we have in its stead a new one. We are not, therefore, to be shaken in our purpose to carry out this new principle by any such clamor or appeals. Our purpose is fixed, and our course is onward. What little agitation may be got up in Congress, or out of it, while this debate lasts, will speedily subside, as soon as this new principle is once more vindicated. Why do you hear no more wrangling here about slavery and freedom in Utah and New Mexico? Because by this new principle, the irritating cause was cast out of Congress, and turned over to the people, who are most capable of disposing of it for themselves. Pass this bill—the sooner the better—and the same result will ensue. This shows the wisdom and statesmanship of those by whom this principle was adopted as our settled policy on this subject in 1850. A cinder in the eye will irritate and inflame it, until you get it out; a thorn in the flesh will do the same thing. The best remedy is to remove it immediately. That is just what the compromise of 1850 proposes to do with this slavery question in the territories whenever it arises. Cast it out of Congress, and leave it to the people, to whom it very properly and rightfully belongs.
In behalf of this principle, Mr. Chairman, I would to-day address this House, not as partisans—neither as whigs or democrats, but as Americans. I do not know what you call me, or how you class me, whether as whig or democrat, in your political vocabulary, nor do I care. Principles should characterize parties, and not names. I call myself a republican, and I would invoke you, one and all, to come up and sustain this great republican American policy, established in 1850, for the permanent peace, progress, and glory of our common country. If any of you are convinced of its propriety and correctness, but are afraid that your constituents are not equally convinced, follow the example of Mr. Webster, after his 7th of March speech, when the doors of Faneuil Hall were closed against him. Meet your constituents, if need be in the open air, and, face to face, tell them they are wrong, and you are right. I think, sir, that great man, on no occasion of his life, ever appeared to greater advantage in the display of those moral qualities which mark those entitled to lasting fame, than he did in the speech he made in an open barouche before the Revere House, in Boston, to three thousand people who had assembled to hear what reason he had to give for his course in the Senate. He stood as Burke before the people of Bristol, or as Aristides before the people of Athens, when he told them above all things to be "just.” In that speech Mr. Webster told the people of Boston, You have conquered an inhospitable climate; you have conquered a sterile and barren soil; you have conquered the ocean that washes your shores; you have fought your way to the respect and esteem of mankind, but you have yet to "conquer your prejudices. That was indeed speaking "vera pro gratis.” And that was a scene for the painter or sculptor to perpetuate the man in the exhibition of his noblest qualities far more worthy than the occasion of his reply to Mr. Hayne, or his great 7th of March speech. Imitate his example—never lose the consciousness that “Truth is mighty and will ultimately prevail.” The great “truth" as to the right principle of disposing of this slavery question in the territories, was first proclaimed by the Congress of the United States in 1850. It was as oil upon the waters. It gave quiet and repose to a distracted country. Let it be the pride of us all in this Congress to re-affirm the principle—make it coextensive with your limits inscribe it upon your banners make it broad as your constitution-proclaim it everywhere, that the people of the common territories of the Union, wherever the flag floats, shall have the right to form such republican institutions as they please. Let this be our pride; and then with a common feeling in the memories and glories of the past, we can all, from every State, section, and territory, look with hopeful anticipations to that bright prospect in the future which beckons us on in our progress to a still higher degree of greatness, power, and renown.
No comments:
Post a Comment