DELIVERED IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,
FEBRUARY 17, 1854.
The House being in the Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union.
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.
SOURCE: Henry Cleveland, Alexander
H. Stephens, in Public and Private, p. 394-416
