Mr. President, I did not expect to provoke a personal assault on my course in relation to the measure before the Senate by anything which I said this morning. I trust that I did not touch the honorable gentleman’s [Mr. Toombs] sensibilities when I stated that I supposed his only object was to remove what he considered a violation of the Constitution of the United states from the Statute-book; and that that seemed to be the great to be the great principle which he had in view in giving his support to this bill. I leave it to the Senate to say whether I did not state with sufficient distinctness that I wanted to know from those gentlemen who had expressed themselves so vehemently, so loudly, and so eloquently, if you please, in favor of some great fundamental principle which they wished to establish by this bill, what that great principle really was? Each one said that there was a great principle in it, which they did not risk even by voting for a proposition which their judgments approved. I turned to the honorable Senator from Georgia, I trust in no offensive manner, and asked what principle he wanted to establish by the bill. He said he wished to repeal that odious or infamous restriction called the Missouri compromise.
Mr. Toombs—I did not use the term. I said unconstitutional.
Mr. Atchison—I said infamous.
Mr. Bell.—I know some Senators spoke of it is infamous; but it does not matter in what terms that compromise is denounced. My object was to know what was the great principle to be established by this bill, which was so important that honorable Senators would sacrifice their own opinions and principles upon other questions, in order to effect that object. My honorable friend from Missouri [Mr. Atchison] said that if the bill contained a thousand objectionable features, they would not prevent him from voting to get rid of that infamous Missouri compromise. If such views—if that was the only object—had been avowed at the outset of this proceeding, how many supporters do you think the bill would have had even from the South? I believe, though I am not certain, that the honorable Senator from South Carolina [Mr. Butler] expressed the same sentiments in his remarks upon the Nebraska bill, before it passed the Senate. That honorable Senator, said that to repeal the Missouri compromise would be plucking a thorn from his side which had been a long time rankling there, and that consideration recommended the bill to his favor.
I had no idea of provoking the honorable Senator from Georgia, with whom I have been on relations of friendship, to attack upon me when I called upon him to know what was the great principle which he saw in the bill. I believe he is the only Senator from the South with whom I ever conversed, who thought that this was a good thing in itself. Of all other southern Senators with whom I have ever conversed on the subject, I do not remember a single one besides who did not deprecate the introduction of this measure of repeal. But they thought that they could not go against it, presented, as it seemed to be, from the North; though they believed no practical good would come to the South from it.
Now, it seems that the great subject of the honorable Senator from Georgia in supporting the bill as sent from the House of Representatives, is to get clear of the restriction of 1820—which, by-the-by, I will say, gave the highest renown to the authors of it which a public man in this country can attain—which gave repose to the country and preserved the harmony of the sections for a period of thirty years; and which has been acquiesced in by both sections of the Union from 1820 up to a very recent period. Now it is said to be infamous, and gentlemen say they are quite willing to risk the boiling cauldron at the North alluded to by the Senator from Indiana [Mr. Pettit,] in order to get released from that odious restriction. Sir, did the honorable Senator, when he first gave his adhesion to the repeal of the Missouri compromise, anticipate such a state of things as now exists at the North? I did not believe myself, during the period of the initiation of this measure, that the excitement would be so great at the North. I spoke with northern gentlemen about it. They thought there would be a deep feeling implanted at the North against the measure, but no great excitement would be created, except, perhaps, at the meetings which might be got up in the populous cities. Did any gentleman of the South, however, believe that such a state of things as now appears to exist at the North would arise? It may be that excitement and agitation at the North may subside. The present bubbling of the cauldron may soon evaporate after the passage of the bill; but the cauldron certainly exhibits a very high degree of fermentation and excitement just now.
Now, does the Senator mean to say that, merely to get rid of that statute—the restriction of 1820—as a lover of the Union, he would risk all the mischievious consequences which the honorable Senator from Indiana has held up to our view as likely to arise in the North? Is there no locus poenitentia.1
Mr. Toombs—You have a right to change.
Mr. Bell—But the honorable Senator will not. I suppose that the honorable Senator from Indiana [Mr. Pettit] would be prepared to change his opinion in regard to the importance of establishing what he regards as a great principle of this bill, if he were to find the consequences, which he described to-day as likely to arise before another session of Congress, would follow the repeal of the Missouri compromise. I do not think he would be so stubborn and obstinate as to insist, at all hazards upon getting his great principle established—upon furnishing that white sheet of paper, the tabula rasa,2 upon which the people of the Territory might write what they pleased and thus inaugurate the doctrine of squatter sovereignty, as promulgated by the Senator from Michigan, amended and improved by the admission to the right of suffrage foreigners not Naturalized as well as natives. Would he convulse the country for the sake of establishing such a principle, in violation all our territorial legislation for sixty years? I think he would not be so obstinate as the honorable Senator from Georgia; nor do I think he would have the same vindictive feeling against others for any change of their views on this subject. However I might have thought at first that I should be forced under the circumstances, to support this measure, however much I disapproved it, yet I tho’t better afterwards, and when I became satisfied that the mischiefs were likely to be far greater that I at first supposed they would be.
Now, sir, with regard to the constitution or anything else, which is to be vindicated or established by this bill as it now stands, what is the great principle involved in it? Why, sir, if you should acquire Cuba, what is the first thing you have to do [to] conform to the doctrine proclaimed in this bill? The first step to be taken will be to abolish slavery as a legally established institution. How else can the great principle contended for by the Senator from Indiana be inaugurated or established? [Freedom] in the operation of squatter sovereignty would require that Cuba should first be made a free territory, as you have provided in this bill that Nebraska shall be. I voted for the amendment to which the Senator has referred. I had no idea that such a principle was intended to be established, but still I do not say that that consideration regulated my vote. The principle contended for, when carried out, requires that you shall take the stylus and rub out or eradicate everything that is written on the tablet, and leave the inhabitants free to prescribe what shall be written upon it, untrammeled by any existing institution. That is the great principle, in addition to the repeal of the Missouri compromise, which the South are now so much determined upon; so zealous and united in supporting, that they will sacrifice any other principle, however substantial and important to the grand object. The squatter sovereignty clause is the grand feature in the bill. What has the South to gain by all this? But the honorable Senator from Georgia says he is not merely legislating for the South in the advocacy of this bill. I know he is not. But this broad principle of squatter sovereignty was not the idea on which the repeal clause of this bill was inserted. I was assured then that the South had some interest in it; that it would secure, practically, a slave territory west of Missouri; that slavery would go into Kansas when the restriction of 1820 was removed. It was not dwelt on in argument; but my honorable friend from Missouri [Mr. Atchison] knows that that view was taken by him, and I differed from him in regard to it. I thought slavery could not go there; the honorable Senator though it could.
Mr. Atchison—And I still think so.
Mr. Bell.—Ay, more; the idea was diffused gradually throughout the south that another slave state might be secured west of Missouri. I said in my speech there would scarcely be a chance for it, as the bill then stood, or in any shape.
It is very well for the honorable Senator from Georgia to proclaim now that he is not legislating for any section; he certainly is not going for the South! I think that no southern man can show that the South has any particular interest in this bill, because it is not like the compromise of 1850; for in New Mexico and Utah you let the territory stand legally restricted or barred against slavery, as it was by public law. When that Territory was brought into the Union, Mr. Calhoun and some other honorable Senators contended that the Constitution would operate as a repeal of the Mexican law, abolishing slavery, and give protection to the slaveholder. Some other Senators doubted on that point. The honorable Senator from Mississippi [Mr. Brown] can, perhaps, explain the different doctrines which then were held in the South on this subject. At all events, the compromise acts of 1850 left the Territory as it was when annexed and allowed the people to interdict or establish slavery, as they please, when they should form their state constitution. That was the doctrine of the non-intervention then. What is it in this bill? I am in favor of the principle of non-intervention. Such non-intervention as would have given to the South Cuba as a slave state, should it ever be annexed to the United States; such non-intervention as that, if there had been no compact with regard to the admission of slave States to be carved out of Texas, would have secured to us those slave States, independent of the compact by which the United states are bound to admit them[.] But now, under the state of things now produced—under the feeling of distrust and resentment getting up at the North against the South—I predict—no, I will not predict, because it is too serious a subject—I will state that, if this state of thing shall not change essentially, the time will never come when a slave State can be admitted out of Texas. The non-intervention of 1850, was to let the Territories which come into the Union as slave territory be considered slave territory until the inhabitants determine, when they form a State constitution, that slavery should be abolished; and if it came in as a free territory, then the inhabitants to restrict or adopt slavery, at their discretion, when they form a State constitution. But by this bill you interpose to repeal the Missouri compromise, which would restore the territory to the condition of slave territory, as it was when annexed; but not content with that, you further interfere to make it a free territory. You then provide, without limitation of time or numbers, that the inhabitants shall decide in their Territorial Legislature to establish or prohibit slavery. Well, suppose the first Legislature shall admit slavery may not in the next abolish it, and thus keep up a perpetual struggle; while Congress, at the same time, may be agitated again by questions of further investigation? Yet this is a measure of peace to the country! It is to give quiet; all agitation is to cease under it!
I have further answer to make the honorable Senator from Georgia, though I find myself much exhausted. It was not my intention, when I rose to-day to explain the vote I should give on the amendment of the Senator from Maryland, [Mr. Pearce,] to provoke a debate upon the general merits or demerits of the bill, and still less had I any design to say anything offensive to any Senator; but the Senator from Georgia has thought proper to avail himself of the occasion to review my course in relation to this measure in a manner which calls for more special notice.
Several Senators. Let us adjourn.
Mr. Bell. I will not give way for an adjournment.
Mr. Clayton. I hope the Senator will give way.
Mr. Bell. I cannot give way for an adjournment now. I must answer the honorable Senator. I was inquiring of honorable Senators what the great principle of the bill really was, which they had stated to be of so much importance to the country, but which none of them stated distinctly. I wished to see how far they agreed, or whether they could be reconciled, one with the other. The honorable Senator from Georgia said I ought to know what the principles of the bill were; that I had consultations with the friend of the measure at divers[e] times; that I met with them, heard everything discussed, and concurred with them. I do not know what meeting it was to which the Senator referred, and at which he supposes that I concurred in, authorizing the Senator from North Carolina to make his Statement.
Mr. Toombs. I said that the southern Senators who were present authorized the Senator from North Carolina to make the statement which he did. I did not say that the Senator from Tennessee expressed any opinion; but he was present at the meeting.
Mr. Bell. I was invited to attend meetings of the friends of the Nebraska bill. I went with pleasure to hear their discussions, because I had not made up my mind as to what course I could take upon the subject; but all the discussion which I heard at the two meetings which I attended was to the phraseology or form in which the Missouri compromise should be repealed or made inoperative, and the principle of popular sovereignty recognized, or how far it should be recognized or whether it should be recognized at all. The distinguished Senator from Michigan [Mr. Cass,] the Senator from Mississippi, [Mr. Brown,] and the Senator from Indiana, [Mr. Pettit,] were the principal speakers, and spoke of what they would or would not accept. I do not like to tell tales out of school; but as I have been arraigned, I think I may speak of such facts as may be pertinent to my case. Those points, as I remember, were not settled at the first meeting. I attended a second meeting, at which the differences appeared to be settled. The discussion at the two meetings when I attend did not enlighten me in the least. My mind was on the question whether there was anything in those featured of the bill which I ought to support, or which ought to be supported. I took no part in the discussion. It is true that at the same time I thought I might be forced to go for the measure; but the mere phraseology of the bill was then indifferent to me. Those meetings were held, if I am not mistaken, within a few days after the discussion opened in the Senate, and when the debate between the Senator from Illinois [Mr. Douglas] and the Senator from Ohio [Mr. Chase] were having their full effect. In commencing the discussion, the Senator from Illinois displayed admirable tact in pouring such a fire as he did upon the Senators from Ohio, [Mr. Chase] and Massachusetts, [Mr. Sumner] and, as a consequence, exerting from them a response in sentiment so repugnant and offensive to southern Senators as was well calculated to stir the blood of every southern man, and to [diffuse] the impression through the country that the issue presented by the bill was between the advocates of southern rights and the ultra Free Soilers and Abolitionists of the North. I repeat, that I never saw a higher degree of parliamentary tact displayed than by the Senator from Illinois upon that occasion. The honorable Senator knows that I happened to see the inflammatory publication, on which he commented with such severity in his opening speech, before he did, and called his attention to it. It was of such a nature as to strongly incline the feelings and sympathies of southern Senators to the support of the bill, whatever they might think of its wisdom.
Mr. President, honorable Senators will perceive that this obtrusion of any matter personal to myself is not volunteered by me on this occasion. I have generally, heretofore, rested on my character, humble as it may be, to shield me from all imputations of gross impropriety or inconsistency, without troubling myself with attacks aliunde, or not arising directly out of the proceedings in the body to which I belong. The honorable Senator from Georgia has done me the honor, however, to notice me personally on this floor, and to arraign my conduct, as did a colleague of mine, [Mr. Churchwell,] in the other house, a few days ago. I have not the printed speech of that member. I do not know that it has been printed. I do not know whether his attack was so forcible, or eloquent, or so much to the satisfaction of gentlemen who would like to see me writhing under such personal charges, as the attack of the honorable Senator from Georgia; but I understood he was, in his manner, quite as offensive as in the matter of his attack. He produced and read from a paper, as I learn, which purported to be a copy of the proceedings of a meeting of southern Whig Senators, by which it appeared that a resolution was adopted declaring that the course of the National Intelligencer on the Nebraska bill was in opposition to the sentiment and interest of the South, and in opposition to the views of Southern Whig Senators; and that a committee was appointed to remonstrate or confer with the editors upon the subject. The paper also contained a statement of the southern Senators present, and that I was appointed chairman of a committee of three—all certified by the secretary of this meeting. When he was called upon for the name of the person who certified it, he said it would appear in print.
I will state the circumstances of the meeting, so far as I was connected to it. On the adjournment of the Senate, on the day of the meeting, a Senator took me by the arm, and asked me to walk into the ante-room. I asked him the object. He replied that there was to be a meeting of southern Whig Senators, upon some motion of a Senator, (naming him.) I went into the room with the gentlemen, and while standing with my hat in my hand, was surprised at hearing a Senator state that he thought some step should be taken in relation to the course of the Intelligencer, on the Nebraska bill, stating his reasons briefly. Another Senator made a few remarks, and on the suggestion of some one present, a resolution was drawn up, read and adopted. The voices of two or three, perhaps, were heard in assenting to it, but no one openly objected. Two Senators were named to be of the committee, one of whom objected, and named me in his place. On the question put by a senator, “Should the gentlemen named be the committee?” the proposition was acquiesced in. When the question was put on the committee, several Senators were on their feet, and I supposing that the meeting was over left the room. I had not taken my seat during the meeting.
My colleague [Mr. Churchwell] paraded, as I understand, a certified transcript of the resolution adopted at the meeting, and of the order appointing the committee, from which it would seem that all the proceedings were in regular form. I was made prominent on the committee as its chairman. A committee of three was certified. I know that was not true. Whoever gave the certificate of the proceedings, or drew it up, but have been mistaken—I will use no harsher term. I was not present at the meeting more than 10 minutes, or fifteen at the farthest. I regarded the whole proceeding, at the time, as I have treated it since, without feeling, and without and resentment against honorable Senators, as having been gotten up or suggested for some other object than the one I heard avowed. I believed that there were some present who thought they would be doing a very great service if they could get me committed on the Nebraska bill in such a way as to make it impossible for me to retrace my steps; and some of those present knew that I did not consider myself committed to the support of the bill. I suppose there were not more than seven or eight Senators present when I went into the room. I heard no roll called; I heard of the appointment of no secretary, no chairman. I was the last nominated on the committee; but before that, I had made up my mind as to the probable object of the meeting, or, at least of whoever prompted it. I know I should soon ascertain whether I was right or wrong in my conjecture as to the object of that meeting; but the only revenge I meditated was that no one should be the wiser from what they might hear from me in relation to it.
I have to sate further on this point, that although I have been almost daily associating on friendly terms with the gentlemen who attended the meeting in question, yet not one of the number has mentioned to me anything about the meeting since the day it took place. Not even after my colleague in the House arraigned me on the subject, has any honorable Senator, who was present at the meeting referred to, lisped to me anything about it. Nor was any resolution ever put into my hand as one of the committee by a secretary or any one else. No Senator ever inquired of me if I had executed the commission to which I was appointed at the meeting. No one ever asked me whether there was any change to be expected in the course of the National Intelligencer upon the subject.
But, sir, I had sufficient confirmation, a short time after the meeting, of the correctness of my conclusion as to the object of it. I allude to the speech of the honorable Senator from North Carolina, [Mr. Badger.] I am sorry that he is not now in his seat; but I will proceed, for I will not say anything personally offensive to him in his absence. The honorable Senator from North Carolina, who had been in that meeting of southern Whigs, when he came to make his speech, announced, at the close of it, that however southern Whig Senators might differ as to the reasoning on the doctrines which were involved in the discussion, he was authorized to say they were a unit on the main feature of the bill. Now, sir, that Senator could, by asking me, at any stage of the discussion, have ascertained my position. Soon after the commencement of the discussion, I was under the impression that I should be forced to go for the measure, whether I approved it or not, because I did not see how I could separate from my southern Whig friends and the southern delegation in Congress. If the Senator had asked me then what my course would be on the bill, I would have said to him frankly what I said to others, when they made the inquiry, that though I disapproved the measure, yet I did not see how I could separate from the southern delegation. At a later stage of the discussion I would have replied, that I was strongly disposed to oppose the measure; but, that still I would not commit myself to that course. The violation of Indian treaties proposed by the provisions of the bill would, at any time, have made it impossible that I could vote for it. The honorable Senator from Missouri [Mr. Atchison] knows better than any other Senator, that I could not vote for the bill with its present provisions, with any consistency of character or principle, but at the commencement of the discussion, I supposed that that difficulty would be removed by postponing the operation of the bill until the President could have time to make new treaties with the Indian tribes and, at least, qualify the wrong which was proposed to be done to them.
Mr. Atchison. I will state now, that I understood from the honorable Senator from Tennessee, at the last session, when this question was pending before the Senate, as well as at the present session, that his great objections to the organization of territorial governments in Kansas and Nebraska, were, first, that there was no necessity, there being no white population there; and secondly, that it could not be without greatly disturbing our Indian relations.
Mr. Bell. And then will not the honorable Senator say that I thought the territory of west of Missouri was obliged to become a free state?
Mr. Atchison. Most assuredly; but I told the honorable Senator that my opinion as to Kansas was different.
Mr. Bell. I repeat, that I supposed, at one time, that the difficulty on the score of Indian compacts cold be obviated by an amendment postponing the operation of the bill till new treaties could be formed. I consulted the Senator from Missouri on the subject; but he said that no such amendment could be carried; that the people could not be restrained from entering the Indian country. That was when I supposed I should have to yield to the pressure of the storm of feeling which was excited on the question in the Senate; and it required all the nerve I had afterwards to resist its force.
But, sir, I was going on to say that the honorable Senator from North Carolina, standing in the relation of a personal friend to me should have ascertained from my own lips what course I proposed to adopt in relation to the bill, before he made the declaration he did at the close of his speech. He could scarcely have supposed that I was so dull and stupid as not to comprehend the true purpose of the meeting out southern Whigs which I attended, or a test of the bill by anything which took place there. I have said before, that I had no unkind feelings againse the members of that meeting, for some of them told me over and over again, that I would be dead politically, that my standing as a public man would be utterly destroyed, if I should vote against the bill. I was told again and again, that no southern men could vote with the northern Abolitionists upon this bill without losing the confidence of the South, as it was all-important that the South should present an unbroken front on such a question. That was one reason why I pressed so strongly to-day to know what was the great fundamental principle in the bill so much affecting the southern interests; what was the greater and larger principle which had loomed up to imposingly before the visions of southern gentlemen, that every other principle or consideration of policy should yield to it.
The honorable Senator from North Carolina is now present, and I will repeat what I have said in relation to his statement, at the close of his speech. I thought I had a right to complain of him, as a friend, that he did not inquire of me what course I had determined to pursue, when I could have done it so conveniently, before making the announcement that the southern Whigs were a unit on the Nebraska bill. That senator and myself had occupied seats very near each other during the whole discussion. Our relations, personally and socially, were kind and friendly; notwithstanding, he did not think proper to ask my opinion, but, at the close of his speech, said he was authorized to say every Whig Senator from the south concurred in the conclusion to support the bill.
Mr. Badger. Will the Senator allow me to explain?
Mr. Bell. I am willing that the Senator shall explain, but I do not wish any material interruption for I have a great deal more to say.
Mr. Badger. My dear sir, I do not want a statement of that kind, as to a matter of fact, to go out without having an opportunity of stating what the fact is, as I understand it.
The Presiding Officer. (Mr. Weller is in the chair.) Unless the honorable Senator from Tennessee yields the floor, the Senator from North Carolina is not entitled to proceed.
Mr. Bell. I yield the floor.
Mr. Badger. The statement which I made at the close of the remarks which I submitted to the Senate, on the Nebraska bill, I believe was to this effect that, although I did not hold my southern Whig friends responsible for the course of argument which I had adopted, yet, I thought I was authorized to say, that as to the conclusion at which I had arrived, we all stood as one man; and that I thought I had their authority for saying so. That was the statement which I made. I must say, sir, without going into particulars, that I thought, at that time, I had just the same reason to suppose that my fried from Tennessee was going for the bill, as I had to suppose that I was. In the meeting which has been alluded to by my friend from Georgia, it was suggested that the southern Whig members of this body were liable to this difficulty; that no vote was being taken, it was a matter of doubt in the country, what course they would pursue in regard to this subject, and that inconvenient consequences were resulting from that position. It was understood that I had the floor, to speak either on that day, or the next. I forget which, and I said: “Well, then, gentlemen, I had better take the occasion to say, in the course of my remarks that we are all agreed in the support of this bill.” I heard a general response: “Yes, do so by all means.” Whether my friend from Tennessee joined in this response or not, I do not know; because as witnesses very frequently say, when they are called upon to state particulars, in courts of justice, as all of us know, “I cannot answer that precisely, as I did not expect to be called upon.” [Laughter.] I certainly thought I was requested by the meeting of Whig Senators, then and there present, of whom my friend from Tennessee was one—not only authorized, but requested—in order to anticipate the delay which must take place before they could either vote or speak on the subject, that whatever course of reasoning we might adopt in bringing us to the conclusion, in support of the bill, we were all united.
Mr. Bell. In consequence of that meeting?
Mr. Badger. I made that remark in the conclusion of my speech. My honorable fried from Tennessee sat immediately before me. He said nothing by way of dissent, after I had concluded my speech, and passed out—
Mr. Bell. Passed out where?
Mr. Badger. Right there, just out of my seat. The Senator came to me and said: “why have you committed me to support this bill.”
Mr. Bell. I said no such thing.
Mr. Badger. Something of that sort.
Mr. Bell. What I said was: “Mr. Badger, you had no right to commit me to support of the bill.”
Mr. Badger. Probably that was it.
Mr. Clayton. Let me interfere between my friends?
Mr. Badger. Not yet. I am willing to make any statement about the language, because, as I said, I did not expect to be called upon; but only say, a remark of that kind was made by my friend, which attracted my attention, because I had supposed I was speaking, not only by his authority, but at his instance, in making that remark.
Mr. Bell. On what occasion?
Mr. Badger. This very occasion now referred to.
Mr. Bell. That is what I suppose, and I consider it full confirmation of my conjectures in regard to that transaction.
Mr. Clayton. Will my friend now give me the floor for a moment?
Mr. Bell. Certainly.
Mr. Clayton. These are my friends, and I think I understand exactly the state of the case. There is a misapprehension between them, that I am anxious to correct it. There is no reason whatever for any feeling between them, and whom I have made the explanation which I am about to make, I think they will both agree that neither of them has any occasion whatever to complain of the other.
Mr. Badger. I have no feeling whatever about it.
Mr. Clayton. The facts were these. The southern Whigs in this body were unanimous in favor of the repeal of the Missouri compromise. They had consulted with each other, not in a caucus, but we understood from private conversations with each other, that we all thought that the Missouri compromise line ought to be repealed.
Mr. Badger. That we were all in favor of the provision as it stood in the bill. That is what I understood.
Mr. Clayton. Then the Intelligencer paper took ground hostile to the position—
Mr. Bell. I must stop the Senator from Delaware. I cannot admit his statement. We should soon get into a quarrel.
Mr. Clayton. If that is the case I will give up. I do not wish to get into a quarrel with my friend from Tennessee.
Mr. Bell. The Senator says we were all agreed that the Missouri compromise shold be repealed. That is the statement of the honorable Senator from Delaware.
Mr. Clayton. Did not the honorable Senator himself take that ground in his speech?
Mr. Bell. I never did.
Mr. Clayton. Then I entirely misunderstood the honorable Senator, and beg his pardon.
Mr. Bell. I know that the honorable Senator from Delaware did not intend to misrepresent me.
Mr. Clayton. Not at all.
Mr. Bell. But the honorable Senator from North Carolina, though it was so easy for him to have ascertained my opinion, spoke of the opinion of all the Southern Whigs. He did not ask me about it.
Mr. Badger. I thought I had the Senator’s authority already.
Mr. Bell. From anything I ever said?
Mr. Badger. I have already said that we had a meeting, at which the Senator from Tennessee was present; and, when I suggested this, there was a general expression of approbation that I should—
Mr. Bell. Do what?
Mr. Badger. That I should state we were all agreed in support of the bill.
Mr. Bell. That all the southern Whigs were agreed upon it?
Mr. Badger. Yes. That is what I understood. It was a meeting of the southern Whigs.
Mr. Bell. I could not make such a declaration. Did the honorable Senator from Delaware hear such a proposition?
Mr. Clayton. I was proceeding to explain, but the Senator would not permit me.
Mr. Bell. I pronounce that there was no such question put. The honorable Senator from North Carolina is mistaken.
Mr. Badger. I do not say there was any question put.
Mr. Bell. Nor was it asked in my hearing.
Mr. Badger. As we were breaking up, the suggestion was thrown out that it was uncertain in the country, how southern Whig Senators stood on this bill; and I then suggested that, as I was to make a speech, it would perhaps be well for me to take the occasion of saying we were all agreed. I think my friend from Louisiana [Mr. Benjamin,] was at that meeting, and he can say whether I am right or not. There was a general declaration, “By all means do it!”
Mr. Bell. Then I was not at that meeting.
Mr. Badger. I will not say the Senator from Tennessee was there but I thought he was.
Mr. Bell. Now, sir, the honorable Senator from North Carolina could easily have ascertained my sentiments at any moment.
Mr. Badger. I thought I knew these already.
Mr. Bell. I say that no such question as that stated by the honorable Senator was asked at that meeting when I was present. If it were, it was out of my hearing. I have before referred to the course of one of my colleagues in the House [Mr. Churchwell] on this subject. My colleagues stated that I was the chairman of the committee appointed at the meeting of the southern Whig Senators, and, as I was present and did not object, he very naturally and rationally inferred that I was in favor of the repeal of the Missouri compromise at that time, so upon no other supposition would I have undertaken such a commission to remonstrate with the editors of an independent journal against their course on the Nebraska bill. I therefore have no feeling against him on that ground; but I have some faults to find with him on the same ground that I found with the honorable Senator from North Carolina.
The honorable gentleman to whom I allude had my confidence, and was well informed as to my views and opinions on the subject of the Nebraska bill from the time of its introduction in the Senate. He professed to be my personal friend during the whole period of the pendency of the bill in the Senate; and conferred with me frequently on the subject before the meeting of the southern Whig Senators, and afterwards. In one of those conferences he was pleased to say that he had more confidence in my judgment, on questions of this description than in that of any other public man he knew; and that he should defer very much to my views, though he did not say he would be guided by them.
Some few days, or a week, after the discussion on the bill commenced, he came to my seat in the Senate, while the debate was going on, and asked me if I had made up my mind on the question. I replied that I had not. He then said that he was going home for his family, and, as the people would be making inquiries of him as to my course on the subject, he wished to know what to say to them and he wished to know on his own account. I then told him that I would not decide on my course until he returned, unless the bill should be brought to a vote before he got back. During his absence, in my conversations with other colleagues of mine in the House, I told them repeatedly that if I took ground in opposition to the measure, I thought I might rely on having our colleague [Mr. Churchwell] with me; and I told them, confidentially, the grounds upon which my confidence was based. After he returned I met him, and told him that I had determined to oppose the bill, and I then asked him what he thought he should do. He said he would reserve his decision as long as he could; perhaps until the close of the debate in the House.
I do not think that I would be mistaken in stating that not more than three or four days or a week elapsed, from that time until he made his speech in the House, without my having some conversation with him, as to the course he proposed to take on the Nebraska bill, and I was left in doubt as to what it would be until the evening before he made his speech when he informed me that he would vote for the bill. I said to him: “You are surely not sincere?” He replied that he was.”
At this point the honorable Senator yielded, at the solicitation of several Senators, and the Senate adjourned.
_______________
1 Place of repentance.
2 Clean slate.
SOURCE: “Speech of Hon. John Bell of Tennessee,” The Tennessean, Nashville, Tennessee, Tuesday, June 13, 1854, p. 2
No comments:
Post a Comment