Mr. PRESIDENT, — I wish to speak to-day, not as a
Massachusetts man, nor as a Northern man, but as an American, and a member of
the Senate of the United States. It is fortunate that there is a
Senate of the United States; a body not yet moved from its propriety, not lost
to a just sense of its own dignity and its own high responsibilities, and a
body to which the country looks, with confidence, for wise, moderate, patriotic,
and healing counsels. It is not to be denied that we live in the
midst of strong agitations, and are surrounded by very considerable dangers to
our institutions and government. The imprisoned winds are let loose. The East,
the North, and the stormy South combine to throw the whole sea into commotion,
to toss its billows to the skies, and disclose its profoundest depths. I do not
affect to regard myself, Mr. President, as holding, or as fit to hold, the helm
in this combat with the political elements; but I have a duty to perform, and I
mean to perform it with fidelity, not without a sense of existing dangers,
but not without hope. I have a part to act, not for my own security
or safety, for I am looking out for no fragment upon which to float away from
the wreck, if wreck there must be, but for the good of the whole, and the
preservation of all; and there is that which will keep me
to my duty during this struggle, whether the sun and the stars shall
appear, or shall not appear for many days. I speak to-day for the preservation
of the Union. “Hear me for my cause." I speak to-day, out of a
solicitous and anxious heart, for the restoration to the country of that quiet
and that harmony which make the blessings of this Union so rich, and so dear to
us all. These are the topics that I propose to myself to discuss; these are the
motives, and the sole motives, that influence me in the wish to
communicate my opinions to the Senate and the country; and if I can
do any thing, however little, for the promotion of these ends, I shall have
accomplished all that I expect.
Mr. President, it may not be amiss to recur very briefly to
the events which, equally sudden and extraordinary, have brought the country
into its present political condition. In May, 1846, the United States declared war
against Mexico. Our armies, then on the frontiers, entered the provinces of
that republic, met and defeated all her troops, penetrated her mountain passes,
and occupied her capital. The marine force of the United States took possession
of her forts and her towns, on the Atlantic and on the Pacific. In less than
two years a treaty was negotiated, by which Mexico ceded to the United States a
vast territory, extending seven or eight hundred miles along the shores of the
Pacific, and reaching back over the mountains, and across the desert, until it
joins the frontier of the State of Texas. It so happened, in the distracted and
feeble condition of the Mexican government, that, before the declaration of war
by the United States against Mexico had become known in California, the people
of California, under the lead of American officers, overthrew the existing
Mexican provincial government, and raised an independent flag. When the news
arrived at San Francisco that war had been declared by the United States against
Mexico, this independent flag was pulled down, and the stars and
stripes of this Union hoisted in its stead. So, Sir, before the war
was over, the forces of the United States, military and naval, had possession
of San Francisco and Upper California, and a great rush of emigrants from
various parts of the world took place into California in 1846 and 1847. But now
behold another wonder.
In January of 1848, a party of Mormons made a discovery of
an extraordinarily rich mine of gold, or rather of a great quantity of gold,
hardly proper to be called a mine, for it was spread near the surface, on the
lower part of the south, or American, branch of the Sacramento. They attempted
to conceal their discovery for some time; but soon another discovery of gold,
perhaps of greater importance, was made, on another part of
the American branch of the Sacramento, and near Sutter's Fort, as
it is called. The fame of these discoveries spread far and wide. They
inflamed more and more the spirit of emigration towards California, which had
already been excited; and adventurers crowded into the country by hundreds, and
flocked towards the Bay of San Francisco. This, as I have said, took place in
the winter and spring of 1848. The Digging commenced in the spring of that
year, and from that time to this the work of searching for gold has been
prosecuted with a success not heretofore known in the history of this
globe. You recollect, Sir, how incredulous at first the American public
was at the accounts which reached us of these discoveries; but we all know,
now, that these accounts received, and continue to receive,
daily confirmation, and down to the present moment I suppose the
assurance is as strong, after the experience of these several months,
of the existence of deposits of gold apparently inexhaustible in the regions
near San Francisco, in California, as it was at any period of the earlier dates
of the accounts.
It so happened, Sir, that although, after the return of
peace, it became a very important subject for legislative consideration
and legislative decision to provide a proper territorial government for
California, yet differences of opinion between the two houses of Congress
prevented the establishment of any such territorial government at the last
session. Under this state of things, the inhabitants of California, already
amounting to a considerable number, thought it to be their duty, in the summer
of last year, to establish a local government. Under the proclamation of
General Riley, the people chose delegates to a convention, and that convention
met at Monterey. It formed a constitution for the State of California, which,
being referred to the people, was adopted by them in their primary assemblages.
Desirous of immediate connection with the United States, its Senators were
appointed and representatives chosen, who have come hither, bringing with them
the authentic constitution of the State of California; and they now present
themselves, asking, in behalf of their constituents, that it may be admitted
into this Union as one of the United States. This constitution, Sir,
contains an express prohibition of slavery, or involuntary servitude,
in the State of California. It is said, and I suppose truly, that, of
the members who composed that convention, some sixteen were natives of, and had
been residents in, the slave-holding States, about twenty-two were from the
nonslave-holding States, and the remaining ten members were either native
Californians or old settlers in that country. This prohibition of slavery,
it is said, was inserted with entire unanimity.
It is this circumstance, Sir, the prohibition
of slavery, which has contributed to raise, I do not say it has wholly raised,
the dispute as to the propriety of the admission of California into the Union
under this constitution. It is not to be denied, Mr. President,
nobody thinks of denying, that, whatever reasons were assigned at
the commencement of the late war with Mexico, it was prosecuted for
the purpose of the acquisition of territory, and under the alleged
argument that the cession of territory was the only form in which proper
compensation could be obtained by the United States from Mexico, for the
various claims and demands which the people of this country had against that
government. At any rate, it will be found that President Polk's message, at the
commencement of the session of December, 1847, avowed that the war was to be
prosecuted until some acquisition of territory should be made. As the
acquisition was to be south of the line of the United States, in warm climates
and countries, it was naturally, I suppose, expected by the South, that
whatever acquisitions were made in that region would be added to the
slave-holding portion of the United States. Very little of accurate information
was possessed of the real physical character, either of California or New
Mexico, and events have not turned out as was expected. Both California and New
Mexico are likely to come in as free States; and therefore some
degree of disappointment and surprise has resulted. In other words,
it is obvious that the question which has so long harassed the
country, and at some times very seriously alarmed the minds of wise and good
men, has come upon us for a fresh discussion; the question of slavery in these
United States.
Now, Sir, I propose, perhaps at the expense of
some detail and consequent detention of the Senate, to review historically this
question, which, partly in consequence of its own importance, and partly,
perhaps mostly, in consequence of the manner in which it has been discussed in different
portions of the country, has been a source of so much alienation and unkind
feeling between them.
We all know, Sir, that slavery has existed in the world from
time immemorial. There was slavery, in the earliest periods of history, among
the Oriental nations.
There was slavery among the Jews; the theocratic government
of that people issued no injunction against it. There was slavery among the
Greeks; and the ingenious philosophy of the Greeks found, or sought to find, a
justification for it exactly upon the grounds which have been assumed for such
a justification in this country; that is, a natural and original
difference among the races of mankind, and the inferiority of the black or
colored race to the white. The Greeks justified their system of slavery upon
that idea, precisely. They held the African and some of the Asiatic tribes to
be inferior to the white race; but they did not show, I think, by any close
process of logic, that, if this were true, the more intelligent and the
stronger had therefore a right to subjugate the weaker.
The more manly philosophy and jurisprudence of the Romans
placed the justification of slavery on entirely different grounds. The Roman
jurists, from the first and down to the fall of the empire, admitted that
slavery was against the natural law, by which, as they maintained, all men, of
whatsoever clime, color, or capacity, were equal; but they justified slavery,
first, upon the ground and authority of the law of nations, arguing, and
arguing truly, that at that day the conventional law of nations admitted that
captives in war, whose lives, according to the notions of the times, were at
the absolute disposal of the captors, might, in exchange for exemption from
death, be made slaves for life, and that such servitude might descend to their
posterity. The jurists of Rome also maintained, that, by the civil law, there
might be servitude or slavery, personal and hereditary; first, by the voluntary
act of an individual, who might sell himself into slavery; secondly, by his being
reduced into a state of slavery by his creditors, in satisfaction of his debts;
and, thirdly, by being placed in a state of servitude or slavery for crime. At
the introduction of Christianity, the Roman world was full of slaves, and
I suppose there is to be found no injunction against that relation
between man and man in the teachings of the Gospel of Jesus Christ or
of any of his Apostles. The object of the instruction imparted to
mankind by the founder of Christianity was to touch the heart, purify
the soul, and improve the lives of individual men.
That object went directly to the first fountain of all the political
and social relations of the human race, as well as of all true religious
feeling, the individual heart and mind of man.
Now, Sir, upon the general nature and influence of slavery
there exists a wide difference of opinion between the northern
portion of this country and the southern. It is said on the one side,
that, although not the subject of any injunction or
direct prohibition in the New Testament, slavery is a
wrong; that it is founded merely in the right of the strongest; and
that it is an oppression, like unjust wars, like all those conflicts
by which a powerful nation subjects a weaker to its will; and that, in its
nature, whatever may be said of it in the modifications which have
taken place, it is not according to the meek spirit of the
Gospel. It is not “kindly affectioned"; it does not “seek
another's, and not its own”; it does not “let the oppressed go free.”
These are sentiments that are cherished, and of late with greatly augmented
force, among the people of the Northern States. They have taken hold of the
religious sentiment of that part of the country, as they have, more or less,
taken hold of the religious feelings of a considerable portion of mankind. The
South, upon the other side, having been accustomed to this relation between the
two races all their lives, from their birth, having been taught, in general, to
treat the subjects of this bondage with care and kindness, and I believe, in
general, feeling great kindness for them, have not taken the view of the
subject which I have mentioned. There are thousands of religious men, with
consciences as tender as any of their brethren at the North, who do not see the
unlawfulness of slavery; and there are more thousands, perhaps, that,
whatsoever they may think of it in its origin, and as a matter depending upon
natural right, yet take things as they are, and, finding slavery to be an
established relation of the society in which they live, can see no way in
which, let their opinions on the abstract question be what they may,
it is in the power of the present generation to
relieve themselves from this relation. And candor obliges me to say,
that I believe they are just as conscientious, many of them, and the religious
people, all of them, as they are at the North who hold different opinions.
The honorable Senator from South Carolina1 the
other day alluded to the separation of that great religious community, the
Methodist Episcopal Church. That separation was brought about by differences of
opinion upon this particular subject of slavery. I felt great concern, as that
dispute went on, about the result. I was in hopes that the difference of
opinion might be adjusted, because I looked upon that religious denomination as
one of the great props of religion and morals throughout the whole country,
from Maine to Georgia, and westward to our utmost
western boundary. The result was against my wishes and
against my hopes. I have read all their proceedings and all their
arguments; but I have never yet been able to come to the conclusion that there
was any real ground for that separation; in other words, that any good could be
produced by that separation. I must say I think there was some want of candor and
charity. Sir, when a question of this kind seizes on the religious
sentiments of mankind, and comes to be discussed in religious assemblies of the
clergy and laity, there is always to be expected, or always to
be feared, a great degree of excitement. It is in the nature of man,
manifested by his whole history, that religious disputes are apt to become warm
in proportion to the strength of the convictions which men entertain of the
magnitude of the questions at issue. In all such disputes, there will sometimes
be found men with whom every thing is absolute; absolutely wrong, or
absolutely right. They see the right clearly; they think others ought so to see
it, and they are disposed to establish a broad line of distinction between
what is right and what is wrong. They are not seldom
willing to establish that line upon their own convictions of truth and justice;
and are ready to mark and guard it by placing along it a series of dogmas, as
lines of boundary on the earth's surface are marked by posts and stones. There
are men who, with clear perceptions, as they think, of their own duty, do not
see how too eager a pursuit of one duty may involve them in the violation of
others, or how too warm an embracement of one truth may lead to a disregard of
other truths equally important. As I heard it stated strongly, not many days
ago, these persons are disposed to mount upon some particular duty, as upon a
war-horse, and to drive furiously on and upon and over all other duties that
may stand in the way. There are men who, in reference to disputes of that sort,
are of opinion that human duties may be ascertained with the exactness of
mathematics. They deal with morals as with mathematics; and they think
what is right may be distinguished from what is wrong with
the precision of an algebraic equation. They have, therefore, none too much
charity towards others who differ from them. They are apt, too, to think that
nothing is good but what is perfect, and that there are no
compromises or modifications to be made in consideration of difference of
opinion or in deference to other men's judgment. If their perspicacious vision
enables them to detect a spot on the face of the sun, they think that a good
reason why the sun should be struck down from heaven. They prefer the chance of
running into utter darkness to living in heavenly light, if that heavenly light
be not absolutely without any imperfection. There are impatient men; too
impatient always to give heed to the admonition of St. Paul, that we are not to
“do evil that good may come”; too impatient to wait for the slow progress of
moral causes in the improvement of mankind. They do not remember that the
doctrines and the miracles of Jesus Christ have, in eighteen hundred years,
converted only a small portion of the human race; and among the nations that
are converted to Christianity, they forget how many vices and crimes, public
and private, still prevail, and that many of them, public crimes especially,
which are so clearly offences against the Christian religion, pass without exciting
particular indignation. Thus wars are waged, and unjust wars. I do not deny
that there may be just wars. There certainly are; but it was the remark of an
eminent person, not many years ago, on the other side of the Atlantic, that
it is one of the greatest reproaches to human nature that wars are
sometimes just. The defence of nations sometimes causes a just war against the
injustice of other nations. In this state of sentiment upon the general nature
of slavery lies the cause of a great part of those unhappy divisions,
exasperations, and reproaches which find vent and support in different parts of
the Union.
But we must view things as they are. Slavery does exist in
the United States. It did exist in the States before the adoption of this
Constitution, and at that time. Let us, therefore, consider for a moment what
was the state of sentiment, North and South, in regard to slavery, at the time
this Constitution was adopted. A remarkable change has taken place since; but
what did the wise and great men of all parts of the country think of slavery
then? In what estimation did they hold it at the time when this
Constitution was adopted? It will be found, Sir, if we will carry
ourselves by historical research back to that day, and ascertain men's opinions
by authentic records still existing among us, that there was then no diversity
of opinion between the North and the South upon the subject of slavery. It will
be found that both parts of the country held it equally an evil, a moral and
political evil. It will not be found that, either at the North or at the South,
there was much, though there was some, invective against slavery as inhuman and
cruel. The great ground of objection to it was political; that it weakened the
social fabric; that, taking the place of free labor, society became less strong
and labor less productive; and therefore we find from all the eminent men
of the time the clearest expression of their opinion that
slavery is an evil. They ascribed its existence here, not without
truth, and not without some acerbity of temper and force of language, to the
injurious policy of the mother country, who, to favor the navigator, had
entailed these evils upon the Colonies. I need hardly refer, Sir,
particularly to the publications of the day. They are matters of history on the
record. The eminent men, the most eminent men, and nearly all the conspicuous
politicians of the South, held the same sentiments; that slavery was an evil, a
blight, a scourge, and a curse.
There are no terms of reprobation of slavery so vehement in
the North at that day as in the South. The North was not so much excited
against it as the South; and the reason is, I suppose, that there was much
less of it at the North, and the people did not see, or think they saw, the
evils so prominently as they were seen, or thought to be seen, at the South.
Then, Sir, when this Constitution was framed, this was
the light in which the Federal Convention viewed it. That body reflected the
judgment and sentiments of the great men of the South. A member of the other
house, whom I have not the honor to know, has, in a recent speech, collected
extracts from these public documents. They prove the truth of what I am saying,
and the question then was, how to deal with it, and how to deal with it as an
evil. They came to this general result. They thought that slavery could not be
continued in the country if the importation of slaves were made to cease, and
therefore they provided that, after a certain period, the importation might be
prevented by the act of the new government. The period of twenty years was
proposed by some gentleman from the North, I think, and many members of the
Convention from the South opposed it as being too long. Mr. Madison especially
was somewhat warm against it. He said it would bring too much of this mischief
into the country to allow the importation of slaves for such a period. Because
we must take along with us, in the whole of this discussion, when we are
considering the sentiments and opinions in which the constitutional provision
originated, that the conviction of all men was, that, if the importation of
slaves ceased, the white race would multiply faster than the black race, and
that slavery would therefore gradually wear out and expire. It may not be
improper here to allude to that, I had almost said, celebrated opinion of Mr.
Madison. You observe, Sir, that the term slave, or slavery, is not
used in the Constitution. The Constitution does not require that “fugitive
slaves” shall be delivered up. It requires that persons held to service in one
State, and escaping into another, shall be delivered up. Mr. Madison opposed
the introduction of the term slave, or slavery, into
the Constitution; for he said that he did not wish to see it recognized by the
Constitution of the United States of America that there could be property in
men.
Now, Sir, all this took place in the Convention in
1787; but connected with this, concurrent and
contemporaneous, is another important transaction, not sufficiently
attended to. The Convention for framing this Constitution assembled in
Philadelphia in May, and sat until September, 1787. During all that time the
Congress of the United States was in session at New York. It was a matter of
design, as we know, that the Convention should not assemble in the same city
where Congress was holding its sessions. Almost all the public men of the
country, therefore, of distinction and eminence, were in one or the other of
these two assemblies; and I think it happened, in some instances, that the same
gentlemen were members of both bodies. If I mistake not, such was the case with
Mr. Rufus King, then a member of Congress from Massachusetts. Now, at the very
time when the Convention in Philadelphia was framing this Constitution, the
Congress in New York was framing the Ordinance of 1787, for the organization
and government of the territory northwest of the Ohio. They passed that
Ordinance on the 13th of July, 1787, at New York, the very month, perhaps the
very day, on which these questions about the importation of slaves and the
character of slavery were debated in the Convention at Philadelphia. So far as
we can now learn, there was a perfect concurrence of opinion between these two
bodies; and it resulted in this Ordinance of 1787, excluding slavery from all
the territory over which the Congress of the United States had jurisdiction,
and that was all the territory northwest of the Ohio. Three years before,
Virginia and other States had made a cession of that great territory to the
United States; and a most munificent act it was. I never reflect upon it
without a disposition to do honor and justice, and justice would be the highest
honor, to Virginia, for the cession of her northwestern territory. I will
say, Sir, it is one of her fairest claims to the respect and
gratitude of the country, and that, perhaps, it is only second to
that other claim which belongs to her; that from her counsels, and
from the intelligence and patriotism of her leading statesmen, proceeded the
first idea put into practice of the formation of a general constitution of the
United States. The Ordinance of 1787 applied to the whole territory over which
the Congress of the United States had jurisdiction. It was adopted two years
before the Constitution of the United States went into operation; because the Ordinance
took effect immediately on its passage, while the Constitution of the United
States, having been framed, was to be sent to the States to be adopted by their
Conventions; and then a government was to be organized under it. This
Ordinance, then, was in operation and force when the Constitution was adopted,
and the government put in motion, in April, 1789.
Mr. President, three things are quite clear as historical
truths. One is, that there was an expectation that, on the ceasing of the
importation of slaves from Africa, slavery would begin to run out here. That
was hoped and expected. Another is, that, as far as there was any power in
Congress to prevent the spread of slavery in the United States, that power was
executed in the most absolute manner, and to the fullest extent. An honorable
member,2 whose health does not allow him to be here to-day—
A SENATOR. He is here.
I am very happy to hear that he is; may he long be
here, and in the enjoyment of health to serve his country! The honorable member
said, the other day, that he considered this Ordinance as the first in the
series of measures calculated to enfeeble the South, and deprive them of their
just participation in the benefits and privileges of this government. He says,
very properly, that it was enacted under the old Confederation, and before
this Constitution went into effect; but my present purpose
is only to say, Mr. President, that it was established with the
entire and unanimous concurrence of the whole South. Why, there it stands! The
vote of every State in the Union was unanimous in favor of the Ordinance, with
the exception of a single individual vote, and that individual vote was given
by a Northern man. This Ordinance prohibiting slavery for ever northwest of the
Ohio has the hand and seal of every Southern member in Congress. It was
therefore no aggression of the North on the South. The other and third clear
historical truth is, that the Convention meant to leave slavery in the
States as they found it, entirely under the authority and control of the States
themselves.
This was the state of things, Sir, and this the state
of opinion, under which those very important matters were arranged, and those
three important things done; that is, the establishment of the
Constitution of the United States with a recognition of slavery as it existed
in the States; the establishment of the ordinance for the government of the
Northwestern Territory, prohibiting, to the full extent of all territory owned
by the United States, the introduction of slavery into that territory, while
leaving to the States all power over slavery in their own limits; and creating
a power, in the new government, to put an end to the importation of slaves,
after a limited period. There was entire coincidence and concurrence of sentiment
between the North and the South, upon all these questions, at the period of the
adoption of the Constitution. But opinions, Sir, have changed,
greatly changed; changed North and changed South.
Slavery is not regarded in the South now as it was then. I see an
honorable member of this body paying me the honor of listening to my remarks;3
he brings to my mind, Sir, freshly and vividly, what I have
learned of his great ancestor, so much distinguished in his day and generation,
so worthy to be succeeded by so worthy a grandson, and of the sentiments he
expressed in the Convention in Philadelphia.4
Here we may pause. There was, if not an entire unanimity, a
general concurrence of sentiment running through the whole community, and
especially entertained by the eminent men of all parts of the country. But soon
a change began, at the North and the South, and a difference of opinion showed
itself; the North growing much more warm and strong against slavery, and the
South growing much more warm and strong in its support. Sir, there is no
generation of mankind whose opinions are not subject to be influenced by what
appear to them to be their present emergent and exigent interests. I impute to
the South no particularly selfish view in the change which has come over her. I
impute to her certainly no dishonest view. All that has happened has been
natural. It has followed those causes which always influence the human mind and
operate upon it. What, then, have been the causes which have created so new a
feeling in favor of slavery in the South, which have changed the whole
nomenclature of the South on that subject, so that, from being thought and
described in the terms I have mentioned and will not repeat, it has now become
an institution, a cherished institution, in that quarter; no evil, no scourge,
but a great religious, social, and moral blessing, as I think I have heard it
latterly spoken of? I suppose this, Sir, is owing to the rapid
growth and sudden extension of the cotton plantations of the South.
So far as any motive consistent with honor, justice, and general judgment could
act, it was the cotton interest that gave a new desire to promote slavery, to
spread it, and to use its labor. I again say that this change was produced by
causes which must always produce like effects. The whole interest of the South
became connected, more or less, with the extension of slavery. If we look back
to the history of the commerce of this country in the early years of this government,
what were our exports? Cotton
was hardly, or but to a very limited extent, known. In 1791 the first parcel of
cotton of the growth of the United States was exported, and amounted only to
19,200 pounds.5 It has gone on increasing rapidly, until the whole
crop may now, perhaps, in a season of great product and high prices, amount to
a hundred millions of dollars. In the years I have mentioned, there was more of
wax, more of indigo, more of rice, more of almost every article of export from
the South, than of cotton. When Mr. Jay negotiated the treaty of 1794
with England, it is evident from the twelfth article of the treaty,
which was suspended by the Senate, that he did not know that cotton was
exported at all from the United States.
Well, Sir, we know what followed. The age of cotton
became the golden age of our Southern brethren. It gratified their desire for
improvement and accumulation, at the same time that it excited it. The desire
grew by what it fed upon, and there soon came to be an eagerness for other
territory, a new area or new areas for the cultivation of the cotton crop; and
measures leading to this result were brought about rapidly, one after another,
under the lead of Southern men at the head of the government, they having a
majority in both branches of Congress to accomplish their ends. The honorable
member from South Carolina6 observed that there has been a majority
all along in favor of the North. If that be true, Sir, the North has acted
either very liberally and kindly, or very weakly; for they never exercised that
majority efficiently five times in the history of the government, when a
division or trial of strength arose. Never. Whether they were out-generalled,
or whether it was owing to other causes, I shall not stop to consider; but no
man acquainted with the history of the Union can deny that the general lead in
the politics of the country, for three fourths of the period that has elapsed
since the adoption of the Constitution, has been a Southern lead.
In 1802, in pursuit of the idea of opening a new cotton
region, the United States obtained a cession from Georgia of the whole of her
western territory, now embracing the rich and growing States of Alabama and
Mississippi. In 1803 Louisiana was purchased from France, out of which the
States of Louisiana, Arkansas, and Missouri have been framed, as slave-holding
States. In 1819 the cession of Florida was made, bringing in another region
adapted to cultivation by slaves. Sir, the honorable member from
South Carolina thought he saw in certain operations of the
government, such as the manner of collecting the revenue, and the tendency of
measures calculated to promote emigration into the country, what accounts for
the more rapid growth of the North than the South. He ascribes that more rapid
growth, not to the operation of time, but to the system of government and
administration established under this Constitution. That is matter of
opinion. To a certain extent it may be true; but it does seem to me that, if
any operation of the government can be shown in any degree to have promoted the
population, and growth, and wealth of the North, it is much more sure
that there are sundry important and distinct operations of the government,
about which no man can doubt, tending to promote, and which absolutely have
promoted, the increase of the slave interest and the slave territory of the
South. It was not time that brought in Louisiana; it was the act of men. It was
not time that brought in Florida; it was the act of men. And lastly, Sir,
to complete those acts of legislation which have contributed so much to enlarge
the area of the institution of slavery, Texas, great and vast and illimitable
Texas, was added to the Union as a slave State in 1845; and that, Sir,
pretty much closed the whole chapter, and settled the whole account.
That closed the whole chapter and settled the whole account,
because the annexation of Texas, upon the conditions and under the guaranties
upon which she was admitted, did not leave within the control of this
government an acre of land, capable of being cultivated by slave labor, between
this Capitol and the Rio Grande or the Nueces, or whatever is the
proper boundary of Texas; not an acre. From that moment, the whole country,
from this place to the western boundary of Texas, was fixed, pledged, fastened,
decided, to be slave territory for ever, by the solemn guaranties of law. And I
now say, Sir, as the proposition upon which I stand this day, and
upon the truth and firmness of which I intend to act until
it is overthrown, that there is not at this moment within
the United States, or any territory of the United States, a single foot of
land, the character of which, in regard to its being free territory
or slave territory, is not fixed by some law, and some irrepealable
law, beyond the power of the action of the government. Is it not so with
respect to Texas? It is most manifestly so. The honor able member
from South Carolina, at the time of the admission of Texas, held an
important post in the executive department of the government; he was Secretary
of State. Another eminent person of great activity and adroitness in affairs, I
mean the late Secretary of the Treasury,7 was a conspicuous member
of this body, and took the lead in the business of annexation, in coöperation
with the Secretary of State; and I must say that they did their business
faithfully and thoroughly; there was no botch left in it. They rounded it off,
and made as close joiner-work as ever was exhibited. Resolutions of annexation
were brought into Congress, fitly joined together, compact,
efficient, conclusive upon the great object which they had in view,
and those resolutions passed.
Allow me to read a part of these resolutions.
It is the third clause of the second section of the resolution of the
1st of March, 1845, for the admission of Texas, which applies to this part of
the case.
That clause is as follows:
“New States, of convenient size, not
exceeding four in number, in addition to said State of Texas, and having
sufficient population, may hereafter, by the consent of said State, be formed
out of the territory thereof, which shall be entitled to admission under the
provisions of the Federal Constitution. And such States as may be formed out of
that portion of said territory lying south of thirty-six degrees thirty minutes
north latitude, commonly known as the Missouri Compromise line, shall be
admitted into the Union with or without slavery, as the people of each State
asking admission may desire; and in such State or States as shall be formed out
of said territory north of said Missouri Compromise line, slavery or involuntary
servitude (except for crime) shall be prohibited.”
Now, what is here stipulated, enacted, and
secured? It is, that all Texas south of 36° 30', which is nearly
the whole of it, shall be admitted into the Union as a slave State.
It was a slave State, and therefore came in as a slave
State; and the guaranty is, that new States shall be made out of it, to
the number of four, in addition to the State then in existence and admitted at
that time by these resolutions, and that such States as are formed out of that
portion of Texas lying south of 36° 30' may come in as slave States. I know no
form of legislation which can strengthen this. I know no mode of recognition
that can add a tittle of weight to it. I listened respectfully to the
resolutions of my honorable friend from Tennessee.8 He
proposed to recognize that stipulation with Texas. But any additional
recognition would weaken the force of it; because it stands here on the ground
of a contract, a thing done for a consideration. It is a law founded
on a contract with Texas, and designed to carry that contract into
effect. A recognition
now, founded not on any consideration or any contract, would not be so strong
as it now stands on the face of the resolution. I know no way, I candidly
confess, in which this government, acting in good faith, as I trust it always
will, can relieve itself from that stipulation and pledge, by any honest course
of legislation whatever. And therefore I say again, that, so far as
Texas is concerned, in the whole of that State south of 36° 30,
which, I suppose, embraces all the territory capable of slave cultivation,
there is no land, not an acre, the character of
which is not established by law; a law which cannot be repealed
without the violation of a contract, and plain disregard of the
public faith.
I hope, Sir, it is now apparent
that my proposition, so far as it respects Texas, has been
maintained, and that the provision in this article is clear and absolute;
and it has been well suggested by my friend from Rhode Island,9
that that part of Texas which lies north of 36° 30' of north latitude, and
which may be formed into free States, is dependent, in like manner,
upon the consent of Texas, herself a slave State.
Now, Sir, how came this? How came it to pass that
within these walls, where it is said by the honorable member from
South Carolina that the free States have always had a majority, this resolution
of annexation, such as I have described it, obtained a majority in both
houses of Congress? Sir, it obtained that majority by the great number of
Northern votes added to the entire Southern vote, or at least nearly
the whole of the Southern vote. The aggregate was made up of Northern and
Southern votes. In the House of Representatives there were about eighty
Southern votes and about fifty Northern votes for the admission of Texas. In
the Senate the vote for the admission of Texas was twenty-seven, and twenty-five
against it; and of those twenty-seven votes, constituting the majority, no less
than thirteen came from the free States, and four of them were from New
England. The whole of these thirteen Senators, constituting within a fraction,
you see, one half of all the votes in this body for the admission of this
immeasurable extent of slave territory, were sent here by free States.
Sir, there is not so remarkable a chapter in
our history of political events, political parties, and political men
as is afforded by this admission of a new slave-holding territory, so
vast that a bird cannot fly over it in a week. New England, as I have said,
with some of her own votes, supported this measure. Three fourths of the votes
of liberty-loving Connecticut were given for it in the other house, and one
half here. There was one vote for it from Maine, but, I am happy to say, not
the vote of the honorable member who addressed the Senate the day before
yesterday,10 and who was then a Representative from Maine in the
House of Representatives; but there was one vote from Maine, ay, and there was
one vote for it from Massachusetts, given by a gentleman then representing, and
now living in, the district in which the prevalence of Free Soil sentiment for
a couple of years or so has defeated the choice of any member to represent it
in Congress. Sir, that body of Northern and Eastern men who gave those
votes at that time are now seen taking upon themselves, in the nomenclature of
politics, the appellation of the Northern Democracy. They undertook to wield
the destinies of this empire, if I may give that name to a republic, and their
policy was, and they persisted in it, to bring into this country and under this
government all the territory they could. They did it, in the case of Texas,
under pledges, absolute pledges, to the slave interest, and they afterwards
lent their aid in bringing in these new conquests, to take their chance for
slavery or freedom. My honorable friend from Georgia,11 in
March, 1847, moved the Senate to declare that the war ought not to be
prosecuted for the conquest of territory, or for the dismemberment of Mexico.
The whole of the Northern Democracy voted against it. He did not get a vote
from them. It suited the patriotic and elevated sentiments of the Northern
Democracy to bring in a world from among the mountains and valleys of
California and New Mexico, or any other part of Mexico, and then quarrel about
it; to bring it in, and then endeavor to put upon it the saving grace of the
Wilmot Proviso. There were two eminent and highly respectable gentlemen from
the North and East, then leading gentlemen in the Senate, (I refer, and I do so
with entire respect, for I entertain for both of those gentlemen, in general,
high regard, to Mr. Dix of New York and Mr. Niles of Connecticut,) who both
voted for the admission of Texas. They would not have that vote any other way
than as it stood; and they would have it as it did stand. I speak of the vote
upon the annexation of Texas. Those two gentlemen would have the
resolution of annexation just as it is, without amendment; and they voted
for it just as it is, and their eyes were all open to its true character.
The honorable member from South Carolina who addressed us the other day was
then Secretary of State. His correspondence with Mr. Murphy, the Chargé
d'Affaires of the United States in Texas, had been published. That
correspondence was all before those gentlemen, and the Secretary had
the boldness and candor to avow in that correspondence, that the
great object sought by the annexation of Texas was to
strengthen the slave interest of the South, Why, Sir, he said so
in so many words
MR. CALHOUN. Will the honorable Senator permit me to
interrupt him for a moment?
[MR. WEBSTER.] Certainly.
MR. CALHOUN. I am very reluctant to interrupt the honorable
gentleman; but, upon a point of so much importance, I deem it right to put
myself rectus in curia. I did not put it upon the
ground assumed by the Senator. I put it upon this ground: that Great Britain
had announced to this country, in so many words, that her object was
to abolish slavery in Texas, and, through Texas, to accomplish the
abolition of slavery in the United States and the world. The ground I put it on
was, that it would make an exposed frontier, and, if Great Britain succeeded in
her object, it would be impossible that that frontier could be secured
against the aggressions of the Abolitionists; and that this government was
bound, under the guaranties of the Constitution, to protect us against such a
state of things.
[MR. WEBSTER.] That comes, I suppose, Sir, to exactly
the same thing. It was, that Texas must be obtained for the security of the
slave interest of the South.
MR. CALHOUN. Another view is very distinctly
given.
[MR. WEBSTER.] That was the object set forth in
the correspondence of a worthy gentleman not now living,12 who
preceded the honorable member from South Carolina in the Department of State.
There repose on the files of the Department, as I have occasion to know, strong
letters from Mr. Upshur to the United States minister in England, and I believe
there are some to the same minister from the honorable Senator himself,
asserting to this effect the sentiments of this government; namely, that Great Britain
was expected not to interfere to take Texas out of the hands of its then
existing government and make it a free country. But my argument, my suggestion,
is this; that those gentlemen who composed the Northern Democracy when Texas was
brought into the Union saw clearly that it was brought in as a slave country,
and brought in for the purpose of being maintained as slave
territory, to the Greek Kalends. I rather think the honorable gentleman
who was then Secre. tary of State might, in some of his correspondence with Mr.
Murphy, have suggested that it was not expedient to say too much
about this object, lest it should create some alarm. At any rate, Mr.
Murphy wrote to him that England was anxious to get rid of the constitution of
Texas, because it was a constitution establishing slavery; and that what the
United States had to do was to aid the people of Texas in upholding their
constitution; but that nothing should be said which should offend the fanatical
men of the North. But, Sir, the honorable member did avow
this object himself, openly, boldly, and manfully; he did
not disguise his conduct or his motives.
MR. CALHOUN. Never, never.
[MR. WEBSTER.] What he means he is very apt to say.
MR. CALHOUN Always, always.
[MR. WEBSTER.] And I honor him for it.
This admission of Texas was in 1845. Then, in 1847, flagrante bello between
the United States and Mexico, the proposition I have mentioned was
brought forward by my friend from Georgia, and the Northern Democracy
voted steadily against it. Their remedy was to apply to the acquisitions,
after they should come in, the Wilmot Proviso. What follows? These
two gentlemen,13 worthy and honorable and influential men, (and if
they had not been they could not have carried the measure,) these two
gentlemen, members of this body, brought in Texas, and by their votes they also
prevented the passage of the resolution of the honorable member from Georgia,
and then they went home and took the lead in the Free Soil party. And there
they stand, Sir! They leave us here, bound in honor and conscience by the
resolutions of annexation; they leave us here, to take the odium of fulfilling
the obligations in favor of slavery which they voted us into, or else the
greater odium of violating those obligations, while they are at home making
capital and rousing speeches for free soil and no slavery. And therefore I
say, Sir, that there is not a chapter in our history, respecting
public measures and public men, more full of what would create surprise,
more full of what does create, in my mind, extreme mortification,
than that of the conduct of the Northern Democracy on this subject.
Mr. President, sometimes, when a man is found in a
new relation to things around him and to other men, he says the world has
changed, and that he has not changed. I believe, Sir, that our
self-respect leads us often to make this declaration in regard to ourselves
when it is not exactly true. An individual is more apt to
change, perhaps, than all the world around him. But, under the present
circumstances, and under the responsibility which I know I incur by what I am
now stating here, I feel at liberty to recur to
the various expressions and statements, made at various times,
of my own opinions and resolutions respecting the admission
of Texas, and all that has followed. Sir, as early as 1836, or in the
early part of 1837, there was conversation and correspondence between myself
and some private friends on this project of annexing Texas to the United
States; and an honorable gentleman with whom I have had a long acquaintance, a
friend of mine, now perhaps in this chamber, I mean General Hamilton, of South
Carolina, was privy to that correspondence. I had voted for the recognition of
Texan independence, because I believed it to be an existing fact, surprising
and astonishing as it was, and I wished well to the new republic; but I
manifested from the first utter opposition to bringing her, with her slave
territory, into the Union. I happened, in 1837, to make a
public address to political friends in New York, and I then
stated my sentiments upon the subject. It was the first time that I
had occasion to advert to it; and I will ask a friend near me to have the kindness
to read an extract from the speech made by me on that occasion. It was
delivered in Niblo's Garden, in 1837.
[Mr. Greene then read the following extract from the speech
of Mr. Webster to which he referred:]
“Gentlemen, we all see that, by
whomsoever possessed, Texas is likely to be a slave-holding country;
and I frankly avow my entire unwillingness to do any thing which
shall extend the slavery of the African race on this continent, or add other
slave-holding States to the Union. When I say that I regard slavery in itself
as a great moral, social, and political evil, I only use language which has
been adopted by distinguished men, themselves citizens of slave-holding States.
I shall do nothing, therefore, to favor or encourage its further extension. We
have slavery already amongst us. The Constitution found it in the Union; it
recognized it, and gave it solemn guaranties. To the full extent of these
guaranties we are all bound, in honor, in justice, and by the Constitution. All
the stipulations contained in the Constitution in favor of the slave-holding
States which are already in the Union ought to be fulfilled, and, so far as
depends on me, shall be fulfilled, in the fulness of their spirit, and to the
exactness of their letter. Slavery, as it exists in the
States, is beyond the reach of Congress. It is a concern of
the States themselves; they have never submitted it to Congress, and Congress
has no rightful power over it. I shall concur, therefore, in no act, no
measure, no menace, no indication of purpose, which shall interfere or
threaten to interfere with the exclusive authority of the several States over
the subject of slavery as it exists within their respective limits. All this
appears to me to be matter of plain and imperative duty.
“But when we come to speak of admitting
new States, the subject assumes an entirely different aspect. Our rights and
our duties are then both different. . . .
“I see, therefore, no political
necessity for the annexation of Texas to the Union; no advantages to be derived
from it; and objections to it of a strong, and, in my judgment,
decisive character.”
I have nothing, Sir, to add to, or to take from, those
sentiments. That speech, the Senate will perceive, was made in 1837.
The purpose of immediately annexing Texas at that time was abandoned
or postponed; and it was not revived with any vigor for some years. In the mean
time it happened that I had become a member of the executive administration,
and was for a short period in the Department of State. The annexation of Texas
was a subject of conversation, not confidential, with the President and heads
of departments, as well as with other public men. No serious attempt was then
made, however, to bring it about. I left the Department of State in May, 1843,
and shortly after I learned, though by means which were no way connected with
official information, that a design had been taken up of bringing Texas, with
her slave territory and population, into this Union. I was in Washington at the
time, and persons are now here who will remember that we had an arranged
meeting for conversation upon it. I went home to Massachusetts and proclaimed
the existence of that purpose, but I could get no audience and but little
attention. Some did not believe it, and some were too much engaged in their own
pursuits to give it any heed. They had gone to their farms or to their
merchandise, and it was impossible to arouse any feeling in New England, or in
Massachusetts, that should combine the two great political parties against this
annexation; and, indeed, there was no hope of bringing the Northern Democracy into that
view, for their leaning was all the other way. But, Sir, even with Whigs,
and leading Whigs, I am ashamed to say, there was a great indifference towards
the admission of Texas, with slave territory, into this Union.
The project went on. I was then out of Congress. The
annexation resolutions passed on the 1st of March, 1845; the legislature of Texas
complied with the conditions and accepted the guaranties; for the language of
the resolution is, that Texas is to come in “upon the conditions and under the
guaranties herein prescribed.” I was returned to the Senate in March, 1845, and
was here in December following, when the acceptance by Texas of the conditions
proposed by Congress was communicated to us by the President, and an act for
the consummation of the union was laid before the two houses. The connection
was then not completed. A final law, doing the deed of annexation ultimately,
had not been passed; and when it was put upon its final passage here,
I expressed my opposition to it, and recorded my vote in the negative; and
there that vote stands, with the observations that I made upon that occasion.14
Nor is this the only occasion on which I have expressed myself to the same
effect. It has happened that, between 1837 and this time, on various occasions,
I have expressed my entire opposition to the admission of slave
States, or the acquisition of new slave territories, to be added to the United
States. I know, Sir, no change in my own sentiments,
or my own purposes, in that respect. I will now
ask my friend from Rhode Island to read another extract from a speech
of mine made at a Whig Convention in Springfield, Massachusetts, in the month
of September, 1847.
[Mr. Greene here read the following extract:]
“We hear much just now of a panacea for
the dangers and evils of slavery and slave annexation,
which they call the “Wilmot Proviso.' That
certainly is a just sentiment, but it is not a
sentiment to found any new party upon. It is not a
sentiment on which Massachusetts Whigs differ. There is not a man in
this hall who holds to it more firmly than I do, nor one who adheres to it more
than another.
“I feel some little interest in this
matter, Sir. Did not I commit my self in 1837 to the whole
doctrine, fully, entirely? And I must be per mitted to say that I cannot quite
consent that more recent discoverers should claim the merit and take out a
patent.
“I deny the priority of their
invention. Allow me to say, Sir, it is not their thunder.
“We are to use the first and the last
and every occasion which offers to oppose the extension of slave power.
“But I speak of it here, as in
Congress, as a political question, a question for statesmen to act upon. We
must so regard it. I certainly do not mean to say that
it is less important in a moral point of view, that
it is not more important in many other points of view; but as a
legislator, or in any official capacity, I must look at it, consider it, and
decide it as a matter of political action.”
On other occasions, in debates here, I have
expressed my determination to vote for no acquisition, or cession,
or annexation, north or south, east or west. My opinion has
been, that we have territory enough, and that we should follow the Spartan
maxim, “Improve, adorn what you have,” seek no further. I think that it was in
some observations that I made on the three million loan bill that I avowed this
sentiment. In short, Sir, it has been avowed quite as often, in as many
places, and before as many assemblies, as any humble opinions of mine ought to
be avowed.
But now that, under certain conditions,
Texas is in the Union, with all her territory, as a slave State, with
a solemn pledge, also, that, if she shall be divided into many States, those
States may come in as slave States south of 36° 30', how are we to deal with
this subject? I know no way of honest legislation, when the proper time comes
for the enactment, but to carry into effect all that we have stipulated to do.
I do not entirely agree with my honorable friend from
Tennessee,15 that, as soon as the time comes when
she is entitled to another representative, we should create a new
State. On former occasions, in creating new States out of territories, we have
generally gone upon the idea that, when the population of the territory amounts
to about sixty thousand, we would consent to its admission as a State. But
it is quite a different thing when a State is divided, and
two or more States made out of it. It does not follow in such a case that
the same rule of apportionment should be applied. That,
however, is a matter for the consideration of Congress, when the
proper time arrives. I may not then be here; I may have no vote to give on the
occasion; but I wish it to be distinctly understood, that,
according to my view of the matter, this
government is solemnly pledged, by law and contract, to create new
States out of Texas, with her consent, when her population shall justify and
call for such a proceeding, and, so far as such States are formed out of Texan
territory lying south of 36° 30', to let them come in as slave States.
That is the meaning of the contract which our friends, the Northern
Democracy, have left us to fulfil; and I, for one, mean to fulfil it, because I
will not violate the faith of the government. What I mean to
say is, that the time for the admission of new States formed out of Texas,
the number of such States, their boundaries, the requisite amount of
population, and all other things connected with the admission, are in the free
discretion of Congress, except this; to wit, that, when new States formed out
of Texas are to be admitted, they have a right, by legal stipulation and
contract, to come in as slave States.
Now, as to California and New Mexico, I hold slavery to be
excluded from those territories by a law even superior to that which admits and
sanctions it in Texas. I mean the law of nature, of physical geography, the law
of the formation of the earth. That law settles for ever, with a strength
beyond all terms of human enactment, that slavery cannot exist in California or
New Mexico. Understand me, Sir; I mean slavery as we regard it; the
slavery of the colored race as it exists in the Southern States. I shall not
discuss the point, but leave it to the learned gentlemen who have undertaken to
discuss it; but I suppose there is no slavery of that description in
California now. I understand that peonism, a sort of penal
servitude, exists there, or rather a sort of voluntary sale of a man and his
offspring for debt, an arrangement of a peculiar nature known to the law of
Mexico. But what I mean to say is, that it is as impossible that
African slavery, as we see it among us, should find its way, or be introduced,
into California and New Mexico, as any other natural impossibility. California
and New Mexico are Asiatic in their formation and scenery. They are composed of
vast ridges of mountains, of great height, with broken ridges and deep valleys.
The sides of these mountains are entirely barren; their tops capped by
perennial snow. There may be in California, now made free by its constitution,
and no doubt there are, some tracts of valuable land. But it is not
so in New Mexico. Pray, what is the evidence which every gentleman
must have obtained on this subject, from information sought by himself or
communicated by others? I have inquired and read all I could find,
in order to acquire information on this important subject.
What is there in New Mexico that could, by any possibility, induce
any body to go there with slaves? There are some narrow strips of tillable land
on the borders of the rivers; but the rivers themselves dry up
before midsummer is gone. All that the people can do in that
region is to raise some little articles, some little wheat
for their tortillas, and that by irrigation. And who expects to see
a hundred black men cultivating tobacco, corn, cotton, rice, or any thing else,
on lands in New Mexico, made fertile only by irrigation?
I look upon it, therefore, as a fixed fact, to use the
current expression of the day, that both California and New Mexico are destined
to be free, so far as they are settled at all, which I believe, in regard to
New Mexico, will be but partially for a great length of time; free by the
arrangement of things ordained by the Power above us. I have therefore to
say, in this respect also, that this country is fixed for freedom, to
as many persons as shall ever live in it, by a less repealable law than that
which attaches to the right of holding slaves in Texas; and I will say further,
that, if a resolution or a bill were now before us, to provide a territorial
government for New Mexico, I would not vote to put any prohibition into it
whatever. Such a prohibition would be idle, as it respects any effect it would
have upon the territory; and I would not take pains uselessly to reaffirm an
ordinance of nature, nor to reënact the will of God. I would put in no Wilmot
Proviso for the mere purpose of a taunt or a reproach. I would put
into it no evidence of the votes of superior power, exercised for no purpose but
to wound the pride, whether a just and a rational pride, or an irrational
pride, of the citizens of the Southern States. I have no
such object, no such purpose. They would think it a taunt, an
indignity; they would think it to be an act taking away from them what they
regard as a proper equality of privilege. Whether they expect to realize any
benefit from it or not, they would think it at least a plain theoretic wrong;
that something more or less derogatory to their character and their rights had
taken place. I propose to inflict no such wound upon any body, unless something
essentially important to the country, and efficient to the preservation of
liberty and freedom, is to be effected. I repeat,
therefore, Sir, and, as I do not propose to address the Senate often on
this subject, I repeat it because I wish it to be distinctly understood, that,
for the reasons stated, if a proposition were now here to establish a
government for New Mexico, and it was moved to insert a provision for a
prohibition of slavery, I would not vote for it.
Sir, if we were now making a government for New Mexico, and
any body should propose a Wilmot Proviso, I should treat it exactly as Mr. Polk
treated that provision for excluding slavery from Oregon. Mr. Polk was known to
be in opinion decidedly averse to the Wilmot Proviso; but he felt the necessity
of establishing a government for the Territory of Oregon. The proviso was in
the bill, but he knew it would be entirely nugatory; and, since it must be
entirely nugatory, since it took away no right, no describable, no tangible, no
appreciable right of the South, he said he would sign the bill for the sake of
en. acting a law to form a government in that Territory, and let that
entirely useless, and, in that connection, entirely senseless,
proviso remain. Sir, we hear occasionally of the annexation of
Canada; and if there be any man, any of the Northern Democracy, or any one of
the Free Soil party, who supposes it necessary to insert a Wilmot Proviso in a
territorial government for New Mexico, that man would of course be of opinion
that it is necessary to protect the everlasting snows of Canada
from the foot of slavery by the same overspreading wing of
an act of Congress. Sir, wherever there is a substantive good to
be done, wherever there is a foot of land to be prevented from
becoming slave territory, I am ready to assert the principle of the exclusion
of slavery. I am pledged to it from the year 1837; I have been pledged to it
again and again; and I will perform those pledges; but I will not do a thing
unnecessarily that wounds the feelings of others, or that does discredit
to my own understanding
Now, Mr. President, I have established, so far as I proposed
to do so, the proposition with which I set out, and upon which I intend to
stand or fall; and that is, that the whole territory within the former
United States, or in the newly acquired Mexican provinces, has a fixed and
settled character, now fixed and settled by law which cannot be repealed; in
the case of Texas without a violation of public faith, and by no human power in
regard to California or New Mexico; that, therefore, under one or other of
these laws, every foot of land in the States or in the Territories has already
received a fixed and decided character.
Mr. President, in the excited times in which we live,
there is found to exist a state of crimination and recrimination
between the North and South. There are lists of grievances produced by each;
and those grievances, real or supposed, alienate the minds of one portion of
the country from the other, exasperate the feelings, and subdue the sense of
fraternal affection, patriotic love, and mutual regard. I shall bestow a
little attention, Sir, upon these various grievances existing on the
one side and on the other. I begin with complaints of the South. I will not
answer, further than I have, the general statements of the honorable Senator
from South Carolina, that the North has prospered at the expense of the South
in consequence of the manner of administering this government, in the
collecting of its
revenues, and so forth. These are disputed topics, and have no inclination to
enter into them. But I will allude to other complaints of the South, and
especially to one which has in my opinion just foundation;
and that is, that there has been found at the North, among
individuals and among legislators, a disinclination to perform fully their
constitutional duties in regard to the return of persons bound to service who
have escaped into the free States. In that respect, the South,
in my judgment, is right,
and the North is wrong. Every member
of every Northern legislature is bound by oath,
like every other officer in the country, to support the Constitution of the
United States; and the article of the Constitution16 which says to these
States that they shall deliver up fugitives from service is as
binding in honor and conscience as any other article. No man fulfils
his duty in any legislature who sets himself to find excuses, evasions, escapes
from this constitutional obligation. I have always thought that the
Constitution addressed itself to the legislatures of the States or to the
States themselves. It says that those persons escaping to other States “shall
be delivered up,” and I confess I have always been of the opinion that it
was an injunction upon the States themselves. When it is said that a
person escaping into another State, and coming therefore within the
jurisdiction of that State, shall be delivered up, it seems to me the import of
the clause is, that the State itself, in obedience to the Constitution,
shall cause him to be delivered up. That is my judgment. I have
always entertained that opinion, and I entertain it now. But when the subject,
some years ago, was before the Supreme Court of the United States, the majority
of the judges held that the power to cause fugitives from service to be
delivered up was a power to be exercised under the authority of this
government. I do not know, on the whole, that it may not have been a
fortunate decision. My habit is to respect the result of
judicial deliberations and the solemnity of judicial decisions. As it now
stands, the business of seeing that these fugitives are delivered up resides in
the power of Congress and the national judicature, and my friend at
the head of the Judiciary Committee17 has a bill on the
subject now before the Senate, which, with some amendments to it, I propose to
support, with all its provisions, to the fullest extent. And I desire to call
the attention of all sober-minded men at the North, of all conscientious men,
of all men who are not carried away by some fanatical idea or some false
impression, to their constitutional obligations. I put it to all the sober and
sound minds at the North as a question of morals and a question of conscience.
What right have they, in their legislative capacity or any other capacity, to
endeavor to get round this Constitution, or to embarrass the free exercise of
the rights secured by the Constitution to the persons whose slaves escape from
them? None at all; none at all. Neither in the forum of conscience,
nor before the face of the Constitution, are they, in my opinion,
justified in such an attempt. Of course it is a matter for their
consideration. They probably, in the excitement of the times, have not stopped
to consider of this. They have followed what seemed to be the current of
thought and of motives, as the occasion arose, and they have neglected to
investigate fully the real question, and to consider their constitutional obligations;
which, I am sure, if they did consider, they would fulfil with alacrity. I
repeat, therefore, Sir, that here is a well-founded ground of
complaint against the North, which ought to be removed,
which it is now in the power of the different departments of this
government to remove; which calls for the enactment of proper laws authorizing
the judicature of this government, in the several States, to do all
that is necessary for the recapture of fugitive slaves and for
their restoration to those who claim them. Wherever I go, and whenever I
speak on the subject, and when I speak here I desire to speak to the whole
North, I say that the South has been injured in this respect, and has a right
to complain; and the North has been too careless of what I think the
Constitution peremptorily and emphatically enjoins upon her as a duty.
Complaint has been made against certain resolutions that
emanate from legislatures at the North, and are sent here to us, not only on
the subject of slavery in this District, but sometimes recommending Congress to
consider the means of abolishing slavery in the States. I should be sorry to be
called upon to present any resolutions here which could not be referable to any
committee or any power in Congress; and therefore I should be unwilling to
receive from the legislature of Massachusetts any instructions to present
resolutions expressive of any opinion whatever on the subject of slavery, as it
exists as the present moment in the States, for two reasons: first, because I
do not consider that the legislature of Massachusetts has any thing to do with
it; and next, because I do not consider that I, as her representative here,
have any thing to do with it. It has become, in my opinion, quite too
common; and if the legislatures of the States do not like that opinion, they
have a great deal more power to put it down than I have to uphold it;
it has become, in my opinion, quite too common a practice for the
State legislatures to present resolutions here on all subjects and to instruct
us on all subjects. There is no public man that requires instruction
more than I do, or who requires information more than I do, or
desires it more heartily; but I do not like to have it in too imperative a
shape. I took notice, with pleasure, of some remarks made upon this subject,
the other day, in the Senate of Massachusetts, by a young man of talent and
character, of whom the best hopes may be entertained. I mean Mr. Hillard. He
told the Senate of Massachusetts that he would vote for no instructions whatever
to be forwarded to members of Congress, nor for any resolutions to be offered
expressive of the sense of Massachusetts as to what her members of Congress
ought to do. He said that he saw no propriety in one set of public servants
giving instructions and reading lectures to another set of public servants. To
his own master each of them must stand or fall, and that
master is his constituents. I wish these sentiments could become more
common. I have never entered into the question, and never shall, as to the binding
force of instructions. I will, however, simply say this: if there be any matter
pending in this body, while I am a member of it, in which Massachusetts has an
interest of her own not adverse to the general interests of the country, I
shall pursue her instructions with gladness of heart and with all the
efficiency which I can bring to the occasion. But if the question be one which
affects her interest, and at the same time equally affects the interests of all
the other States, I shall no more regard her particular wishes or instructions
than I should regard the wishes of a man who might appoint me an arbitrator or
referee to decide some question of important private right between him and his
neighbor, and then instruct me to decide in his favor. If ever
there was a government upon earth it is this government, if ever
there was a body upon earth it is this body, which should consider
itself as composed by agreement of all, each member appointed by some, but
organized by the general consent of all, sitting here, under the solemn
obligations of oath and conscience, to do that which they think to be best for
the good of the whole.
Then, Sir, there are the Abolition societies, of which
I am unwilling to speak, but in regard to which I have very clear notions and
opinions. I do not think them useful. I think their operations for the last
twenty years have produced nothing good or valuable. At the same time, I
believe thousands of their members to be honest and good men, perfectly well meaning
men. They have excited feelings; they think they must do something for the
cause of liberty; and, in their sphere of action, they do not see what else
they can do than to contribute to an Abolition press, or an Abolition society,
or to pay an Abolition lecturer. I do not mean to impute gross motives even to
the leaders of these societies, but I am not blind to the consequences of their
proceedings. I cannot but see what mischiefs their interference with the South
has produced. And is it not plain to every man? Let any gentleman
who entertains doubts on this point recur to the debates in the
Virginia House of Delegates in 1832, and he will see with what freedom a
proposition made by Mr. Jefferson Randolph for the gradual abolition of slavery
was discussed in that body. Every one spoke of slavery as he thought; very
ignominious and disparaging names and epithets were applied to it. The debates
in the House of Delegates on that occasion, I believe, were all published. They
were read by every colored man who could read, and to those who could not read,
those debates were read by others. At that time Virginia was not unwilling or
afraid to discuss this question, and to let that part of her population know as
much of the discussion as they could learn. That was in 1832. As has been said
by the honorable member from South Carolina, these Abolition societies
commenced their course of action in 1835. It is said, I do not know
how true it may be, that they sent incendiary publications into the slave
States; at any rate, they attempted to arouse, and did arouse, a very strong
feeling; in other words, they created great agitation the North against
Southern slavery. Well, what was the result? The bonds of the slaves were bound
more firmly than before, their rivets were more strongly fastened. Public
opinion, which in Virginia had begun to be exhibited against slavery, and was
opening out for the discussion of the question, drew back and shut itself up in
its castle. I wish to know whether any body in Virginia can now talk openly as
Mr. Randolph, Governor McDowell, and others talked in 1832, and sent their
remarks to the press? We all know the fact, and we all know the cause; and
every thing that these agitating people have done has been, not to enlarge, but
to restrain, not to set free, but to bind faster, the slave
population of the South.18
Again, Sir, the violence of the Northern press
is complained of. The press violent! Why, Sir, the
press is violent everywhere. There are outrageous reproaches in the
North against the South, and there are reproaches as vehement in the South
against the North. Sir, the extremists of both parts of this country are
violent; they mistake loud and violent talk for eloquence and for reason. They
think that he who talks loudest reasons best. And this we must expect, when the
press is free, as it is here, and I trust always will be;
for, with all its licentiousness and all its evil, the entire and
absolute freedom of the press is essential to the preservation of
government on the basis of a free constitution. Wherever it exists
there will be foolish and violent paragraphs in the newspapers, as there are, I
am sorry to say, foolish and violent speeches in both houses of
Congress. In truth, Sir, I must say that, in my opinion, the
vernacular tongue of the country has become greatly vitiated, depraved, and
corrupted by the style of our Congressional debates. And if it were possible
for those debates to vitiate the principles of the people as much as they have
depraved their tastes, I should cry out, “God save the Republic!”
Well, in all this I see no solid grievance, no grievance
presented by the South, within the redress of the government, but the single
one to which I have referred; and that is, the want of a proper regard to
the injunction of the Constitution for the delivery of fugitive
slaves.
There are also complaints of the North against the
South. I need not go over them particularly. The first and
gravest is, that the North adopted the Constitution, recognizing
the existence of slavery in the States, and recognizing the right, to a
certain extent, of the representation of slaves in Congress, under a state of
sentiment and expectation which does not now exist; and that, by events, by
circumstances, by the eagerness of the South to acquire territory and extend
her slave population, the North finds itself, in regard to the relative
influence of the South and the North, of the free States and the slave States,
where it never did expect to find itself when they agreed to the compact of the
Constitution. They complain, therefore, that, instead of slavery being regarded
as an evil, as it was then, an evil which all hoped would be extinguished
gradually, it is now regarded by the South as an institution to be
cherished, and preserved, and extended ; an institution which the South has
already extended to the utmost of her power by the acquisition of new
territory.
Well, then, passing from that, every body in the North
reads; and every body reads whatsoever the newspapers contain; and the newspapers,
some of them, especially those presses to which I have alluded, are careful to
spread about among the people every reproachful sentiment uttered by
any Southern man bearing at all against the North; every thing
that is calculated to exasperate and to alienate; and there are many
such things, as every body will admit, from the South, or some portion of it,
which are disseminated among the reading people; and they do exasperate, and
alienate, and produce a most mischievous effect upon the public mind at the
North. Sir, I would not notice things of this sort appearing in
obscure quarters; but one thing has occurred in this debate which struck me
very forcibly. An honorable member from Louisiana addressed us the other day on
this subject. I suppose there is not a more amiable and worthy
gentleman in this chamber, nor a gentleman who would be more slow to give
offence to any body, and he did not mean in his remarks to give
offence. But what did he say? Why, Sir, he took pains to run a
contrast between the slaves of the South and the laboring people of
the North, giving the preference, in all points of condition, and comfort, and
happiness, to the slaves of the South. The honorable member, doubtless, did not
suppose that he gave any offence, or did any injustice. He was merely
expressing his opinion. But does he know how remarks of that sort will be
received by the laboring people of the North? Why, who are the laboring people
of the North? They are the whole North. They are the people who till their own farms
with their own hands; freeholders, educated men, independent men. Let me
say, Sir, that five sixths of the whole property of the
North is in the hands of the laborers of the North; they cultivate
their farms, they educate their children, they provide the means of
independence. If they are not freeholders, they earn wages; these wages
accumulate, are turned into capital, into new freeholds, and small capitalists
are created. Such is the case, and such the course of things, among
the industrious and frugal. And what can these people think when so respectable
and worthy a gentleman as the member from Louisiana undertakes to prove that
the absolute ignorance and the abject slavery of the South are more in
conformity with the high purposes and destiny of immortal, rational human
beings, than the educated, the independent free labor of the North?
There is a more tangible and irritating cause of
grievance at the North. Free blacks are constantly employed in the vessels of
the North, generally as cooks or stewards. When the vessel arrives at a
Southern port, these free colored men are taken on shore, by the police
or municipal authority, imprisoned, and kept in prison till
the vessel is again ready to sail. This is not only
irritating, but exceedingly unjustifiable and oppressive. Mr.
Hoar's mission, some time ago, to South Carolina, was a well-intended effort to
remove this cause of complaint. The North thinks such imprisonments illegal and
unconstitutional; and as the cases occur constantly and frequently, they regard
it as a great grievance.
Now, Sir, so far as any of these grievances have their
foundation in matters of law, they can be redressed, and ought to be
redressed; and so far as they have their foundation in matters of opinion, in
sentiment, in mutual crimination and recrimination, all that we can
do is to endeavor to allay the agitation, and cultivate a better
feeling and more fraternal sentiments between the South and the North.
Mr. President, I should much prefer to have heard from every
member on this floor declarations of opinion that this Union could never be
dissolved, than the declaration of opinion by any body, that, in any case,
under the pressure of any circumstances, such a dissolution was possible. I
hear with distress and anguish the word “secession,” especially when it falls
from the lips of those who are patriotic, and known to the country, and known
all over the world, for their political services. Secession!
Peaceable secession! Sir, your eyes and mine are never destined to see
that miracle. The dismemberment of this vast country without convulsion! The
breaking up of the fountains of the great deep without ruffling the
surface! Who is so foolish, I beg every body's pardon, as
to expect to see any such thing? Sir, he who sees these States, now
revolving in harmony around a common centre, and expects to see them quit their
places and fly off without convulsion, may look the next hour to see the
heavenly bodies rush from their spheres, and jostle against each other in the
realms of space, without causing the wreck of the universe. There can be no
such thing as a peaceable secession. Peaceable
secession is an utter impossibility. Is the
great Constitution under which we live, covering this whole country, is it
to be thawed and melted away by secession, as the snows on the
mountain melt under the influence of
a vernal sun, disappear almost unobserved, and run off?
No, Sir!
No, Sir! No, Sir! I will not state what might
produce the disruption of the Union; but, Sir, I see as plainly as I see
the sun in heaven what that disruption itself must produce; I see that it must
produce war, and such a war as I will not describe, in its twofold character.
Peaceable secession! Peaceable secession! The concurrent
agreement of all the members of this great republic to separate! A voluntary
separation, with alimony on one side and on the other. Why, what
would be the result? Where is the line to be drawn? What States are
to secede? What is to remain American? What am I to be? An
American no longer? Am I to become a sectional man, a local man, a
separatist, with no country in common with the gentlemen who sit around me
here, or who fill the other house of Congress? Heaven
forbid! Where is the flag of the republic to remain?
Where is the eagle still to tower? or is he to cower, and
shrink, and fall to the ground?
Why, Sir, our ancestors, our fathers and our
grandfathers, those of them that are yet living amongst us with prolonged
lives, would rebuke and reproach us; and our children and our grandchildren
would cry out shame upon us, if we of this generation should dishonor these
ensigns of the power of the government and the harmony of that Union
which is every day felt among us with so much joy and
gratitude. What is to become of the army? What is to
become of the navy? What is to become of the
public lands? How is each of the thirty States to defend itself? I
know, although the idea has not been stated distinctly, there is to
be, or it is supposed possible that there will be, a Southern
Confederacy. I do not mean, when I allude to this statement, that any one
seriously contemplates such a state of things. I do not mean to say that
it is true, but I have heard it suggested elsewhere, that the idea
has been entertained, that, after the dissolution of this Union, a
Southern Confederacy might be formed. I am sorry, Sir, that it has
ever been thought of, talked of, or dreamed of, in the wildest flights of human
imagination. But the idea, so far as it exists, must be of a separation,
assigning the slave States to one side and the free States to the
other. Sir, I may express myself too strongly, perhaps, but there are
impossibilities in the natural as well as in the physical world, and I hold the
idea of a separation of these States, those that are free to form one government,
and those that are slave-holding to form another, as such an impossibility. We
could not separate the States by any such line, if we were to draw it. We could
not sit down here to-day and draw a line of separation that would satisfy any
five men in the country. There are natural causes that would keep and tie us
together, and there are social and domestic relations which we could not break
if we would, and which we should not if we could.
Sir, nobody can look over the face of this country at the
present moment, nobody can see where its population is the most dense
and growing, without being ready to admit, and compelled to admit, that ere
long the strength of America will be in the Valley of the Mississippi.
Well, now, Sir, I beg to inquire what the wildest enthusiast has to say on
the possibility of cutting that river in two, and leaving free States at its
source and on its branches, and slave States down near its mouth, each forming
a separate government? Pray, Sir, let ne say to the people of this
country, that these things are worthy of their pondering and of their
consideration. Here, Sir, are five millions of freemen in the free
States north of the river Ohio. Can any body suppose that this population can
be severed, by a line that divides them from the territory of a foreign and an
alien government, down somewhere, the Lord knows where, upon the lower banks of
the Mississippi? What
would become of Missouri? Will she join the arrondissement of
the slave States? Shall
the man from the Yellow Stone and the Platte be connected, in the new republic,
with the man who lives on the southern extremity of the Cape of Florida? Sir,
I am ashamed to pursue this line of remark. I dislike it, I have an
utter disgust for it. I would rather hear of natural blasts and mildews, war,
pestilence, and famine, than to hear gentlemen talk of secession. To break up
this great government! to dismember this glorious country! to astonish Europe
with an act of folly such as Europe for two centuries has never beheld in any
government or any people! No, Sir! no, Sir! There will be no
secession! Gentlemen are not serious when they talk of secession.
Sir, I hear there is to be a convention held at
Nashville. I am bound to believe that, if worthy gentlemen meet at Nashville in
convention, their object will be to adopt conciliatory counsels; to
advise the South to forbearance and moderation, and to advise the North to
forbearance and moderation; and to inculcate principles of brotherly love
and affection, and attachment to the Constitution of the country as
it now is. I believe, if the convention meet at all, it
will be for this purpose; for certainly, if they meet for
any purpose hostile to the Union, they have been singularly inappropriate
in their selection of a place. I remember, Sir, that, when the treaty of
Amiens was concluded between France and England, a sturdy Englishman
and a distinguished orator, who regarded the conditions of the peace as
ignominious to England, said in the House of Commons, that, if King William
could know the terms of that treaty, he would turn in his coffin! Let me
commend this saying of Mr. Windham, in all its emphasis and in all its
force, to any persons who shall meet at Nashville for the purpose of
concerting measures for the overthrow of this Union over the bones of Andrew
Jackson!
Sir, I wish now to make two remarks, and hasten to a
conclusion. I wish to say, in regard to Texas, that if it should be hereafter,
at any time, the pleasure of the government of Texas to cede to the United
States a portion, larger or smaller, of her territory which lies adjacent to
New Mexico, and north of 36° 30' of north latitude, to be formed into free
States, for a fair equivalent in money or in the payment of her debt,
I think it an object well worthy the consideration of Congress, and I
shall be happy to concur in it myself, if I should have a connection with the
government at that time.
I have one other remark to make.
In my observations upon slavery as it has existed in this
country, and as it now exists, I have expressed no opinion of the
mode of its extinguishment or melioration. I will say, however, though I have
nothing to propose, because I do not deem myself so competent as other
gentlemen to take any lead on this subject, that if any gentleman from the
South shall propose a scheme, to be carried on by this government upon a large
scale, for the transportation of free colored people to any colony or any place
in the world, I should be quite disposed to incur almost any degree
of expense to accomplish that object. Nay, Sir, following
an example set more than twenty years ago by a great man,19
then a Senator from New York, I would return to Virginia, and through her to
the whole South, the money received from the lands and territories ceded by her
to this government, for any such purpose as to remove, in whole or in
part, or in any way to diminish or deal beneficially with, the free colored
population of the Southern States. I have said that I honor Virginia for her
cession of this territory. There have been received into the treasury of the
United States eighty millions of dollars, the proceeds of the sales of the
public lands ceded by her. If the residue should be sold at the same rate, the
whole aggregate will exceed two hundred millions of dollars. If Virginia and
the South see fit to adopt any proposition to relieve themselves from the free
people of color among them, or such as may be made free, they
have my full consent that the government shall pay them any sum of money
out of the proceeds of that cession which may be adequate to
the purpose.
And now, Mr. President, I draw
these observations to a close. I have spoken freely, and I meant to
do so. I have sought to make no display. I have sought to enliven the occasion
by no animated discussion, nor have I attempted any train of elaborate
argument. I have wished only to speak my sentiments, fully and at
length, being desirous, once and for all, to let the Senate know, and
to let the country know, the opinions and sentiments which I entertain on all
these subjects. These opinions are not likely to be suddenly changed. If there
be any future service that I can render to the country, consistently with these
sentiments and opinions, I shall cheerfully render it. If there be not, I shall
still be glad to have had an opportunity to disburden myself from the bottom
of my heart, and to make known every political sentiment that therein
exists.
And now, Mr. President, instead of speaking of the
possibility or utility of secession, instead of dwelling in those caverns of
darkness, instead of groping with those ideas so full of all
that is horrid and horrible, let us come out into the light of day;
let us enjoy the fresh air of Liberty and Union; let us cherish those hopes which
belong to us; let us devote ourselves to those great objects that are fit for
our consideration and our action; let us raise our conceptions to the magnitude
and the importance of the duties that devolve upon us; let our comprehension be
as broad as the country for which we act, our aspirations as high as its
certain destiny; let us not be pigmies in a case that calls for men. Never did
there devolve on any generation of men higher trusts than now devolve upon us,
for the preservation of this Constitution and the harmony and peace of all who
are destined to live under it. Let us make our generation one of the
strongest and brightest links in that golden chain which is destined,
I fondly believe, to grapple the people of all the States to this Constitution
for ages to come. We have a great, popular, constitutional government, guarded
by law and by judicature, and defended by the affections of the whole people.
No monarchical throne presses these States together, no iron chain of military
power encircles them; they live and stand under a government popular in its
form, representative in its character, founded upon principles of equality, and
so constructed, we hope, as to last for ever. In all its history it has been
beneficent; it has trodden down no man's liberty; it has crushed no State. Its
daily respiration is liberty and patriotism; its yet youthful veins
are full of enterprise, courage, and honorable love of glory and renown. Large
before, the country has now, by recent events, become vastly larger. This republic
now extends, with a vast breadth, across the whole continent. The two great
seas of the world wash the one and the other shore. We realize, on a mighty
scale, the beautiful description of the ornamental border of the buckler of
Achilles:
“Now, the broad shield complete, the
artist crowned
With his last hand, and poured the
ocean round;
In living silver seemed the waves to
roll,
And beat the buckler's verge, and bound
the whole.”
_______________
1 Mr. [John C.] Calhoun.
2 Mr. Calhoun.
3 Mr. Mason of Virginia.
4 See Madison Papers, Vol. III. pp. 1390, 1428, et
seq.
5 Seybert's Statistics, p. 92. A small parcel of
cotton found its way to Liverpool from the United States in 1784, and was
refused admission, on the ground that it could not be the growth of the United
States.
6 Mr. Calhoun.
7 Mr. Walker.
8 Mr. [John] Bell.
9 Mr. Greene.
10 Mr. Hamlin.
11 Mr. Berrien.
12 Mr. Upshur.
13 Messrs. Niles of Connecticut and Dix of New
York.
14 See the remarks on the Admission of Texas, p.
55 of this volume.
15 Mr.
Bell.
16 Art. IV. Sect. 2, §2.
17 Mr. Mason.
18 See Note at the end of the Speech.
19 Mr. Rufus King.
SOURCE: Daniel Webster, The
Works of Daniel Webster, Vol. 5, p. 324-66
