SPEECH IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,
AUGUST 29, 1850.
MR. BROWN said he
designed to make a few remarks only in reply to the gentleman from Illinois
[Mr. McClernand], and the gentleman from New York [Mr. Brooks], who had just
taken his seat. Both these gentlemen had taken a position which had been
assumed since the beginning of the session by many gentlemen from the Northern
States, and had put forth views which they seemed to regard as likely to obtain
the favor of the South. If these gentlemen (said Mr. B.) were right in
supposing that we of the South are mere shadows, occupied only in the pursuit
of shadows, then they might succeed in the object at which they aim. But if we
are real, substantial men, things of life and not shadows, then they will find
themselves mistaken in their views. What was it the South had demanded? She had
asked to be permitted to go into these newly-acquired territories, and to carry
her property with her, as the North does; and he desired to tell his friends
from Illinois and from New York, that she would be satisfied with nothing less
than this. It was in vain to tell the people of the South that you will not
press the proviso excluding slavery, because circumstances are such as to
exclude slavery without the operation of this provision, and therefore it is
not necessary to adopt it. He would tell gentlemen who use this argument, that
the southern people care not about the means by which slavery is to be
excluded. They will not inquire whether nature is unpropitious to the existence
of slavery there, while they know that the whole course and desire of the North
has been with a view to its exclusion from the shores of the Pacific. It was
only necessary to look at the history of the last few years to satisfy
ourselves that it has been the purpose of the North to produce this exclusion.
The honorable
gentleman from Illinois had administered a welldeserved rebuke to the factious
spirit of free soil, as manifested in the proposition of the gentleman from
Ohio [Mr. Root]; for that he (Mr. B.) felt as profoundly grateful as any other
man. It was a spirit which ought to be rebuked everywhere. It deserved the
universal execration of all good men. But it was his duty to say to his
honorable friend, that so much of his remarks as were directed against the
proviso, on the ground that it was not necessary to our exclusion, failed to excite
his (Mr. B.'s) gratitude, as they would fail to elicit the gratitude of the
southern people. The gentleman from Illinois would not be informed that he had
Mr. B.'s highest respect as a gentleman, and his sincere personal regard—but,
as a southern man, he felt bound to say at all times, and on all occasions, to
all persons, friends and foes, that he and his section demanded as a right an
equal participation in all these territories, and they could not feel grateful
to any man who placed his opposition to the proviso on no higher grounds than
that they were excluded by other means. If his honorable friend had placed his
opposition to the proviso on the grounds that the South had rights, and that
those rights ought to be respected, then Mr. B. and the whole South would have
felt a thrill of gratitude which none of them would be slow to express. If the
proviso was wrong, it ought to be opposed on the high ground of principle, and
not on the feeble assumption that it was unnecessary. To oppose it on the ground
that it was not necessary, was to say in effect that it would be sustained if
it was necessary.
The gentleman from
New York had just informed the House that he was elected as a Wilmot proviso
man, and now he rises and makes it his boast that he is backing out from the
position he then assumed.
Mr. BROOKS (Mr.
Brown yielding) said, that although this proviso was made a test, he had told
the people who elected him that he would not pledge himself to vote for it;
that he was willing to remain at home, but that, if he was elected, he must go
as an independent man.
Mr. BROWN resumed.
The gentleman from New York had certainly taken high ground. But, if he was not
mistaken, that gentleman was the editor of a daily paper in New York (the
Express), and in that journal, unless he was again mistaken, the Wilmot proviso
had been supported. The gentleman, therefore, had not left much room for doubt
as to his real sentiments. There was very little occasion for him now to come
forward and to say whether he was for or against the proviso. But he desired to
ask that gentleman, whether he was for or against this proviso when its
adoption was deemed necessary for the exclusion of slaves from the new
territories? If he was then in favor of the proviso, the fact that he is now
opposed to it, because he is satisfied that the
South cannot carry
her slaves thither on account of the hostility of the climate and soil, and
other more potential causes, his position was one not calculated to excite the
gratitude of the friends of the South.
Mr. BROOKS (Mr.
Brown yielding) said, he had not changed one principle, but he had been
converted to the gentleman's doctrine of nonintervention, or non-action. It had
always been his opinion that the power of the general government ought never to
be exercised, whether in favor of or against slavery. If the South should
suffer from her inability to carry her slave property into these territories,
the North would suffer still more if she was permitted to do so, because her
citizens would not consent to go to these territories if slavery existed there.
Mr. HOLMES. I
congratulate the whole country that the gentleman from New York has given up
his adhesion to the Wilmot proviso.
Mr. BROWN
(resuming). The conversion of the gentleman from New York to the doctrine of
non-intervention had come about as much too late as his abandonment of the
Wilmot proviso. They were both too late to do any good. If the gentleman had
kept his hands off slavery before the last presidential election, then, indeed,
the southern people might have had some reason for gratitude. But, instead of
doing that, the gentleman adheres to the proviso until it is too late for
non-intervention to do any good, and then he forsakes the former and becomes a
convert to the latter.
The gentleman from
New York appeared to be greatly horrified at what he was pleased to call
political associations on this floor—at the strange phenomenon of the two great
extremes of the North and the South voting together. He would explain this
apparent inconsistency. The South regarded the whole of the territory to
latitude 42° and east of the Rio Grande as the property of Texas, and was not
disposed to permit any portion of that territory to be surrendered for the
purpose of being made free soil. This was the position occupied by the southern
extreme. The northern extreme considers the title of the United States to all
this territory as clear beyond dispute, and therefore are opposed to purchasing
it. This is the reason why the two extremes are acting together on principles
apparently antagonistical, for the purpose of defeating this bill. Is it
remarkable that he (Mr. B.) and his southern associates, believing
conscientiously that the title to the country, in the language of the gentleman
from Kentucky [Mr. Marshall], is in Texas, and that the United States has
neither title nor color of title, should refuse to give it up? Is it strange
that other gentlemen, believing, as they say they do, that the title of the
United States is clear and indisputable, should refuse to pay Texas ten
millions to withdraw an unfounded claim? Gentlemen may pretend to marvel at
this singular political conjunction, but they all know perfectly well the
motives which have produced it.
He, however, deemed
that it would be found quite as remarkable a political phenomenon that the
gentleman from New York, and many of his political friends from the South,
should be found cheek-by-jowl with these same detested Free-Soilers on another
question. We vote with them from exactly opposite motives, as the gentleman and
the whole country very well know. But from what motive does the gentleman and
his southern friends vote with them for the admission of California? Is there
any opposite motive there? None, sir, none. There is one motive common to them
all, and that is, the admission of a free state into the Union. The gentleman
expresses special wonder that we are found voting with the Free-Soilers. Can he
give any other reason than the one just assigned why he and his southern
friends vote with them on another question?
Until the gentleman
could assign some satisfactory reason why he and his party, North and South,
were found in political fellowship with every Free-Soiler and Abolitionist in
the land for the admission of California, it would be modest to suppress his
wonder at the accidental association of Free-Soilers and southern gentlemen on
the boundary of Texas.
The difference
between us (said Mr. B.) is this: we act with them from extremely opposite
motives; you from concurrent opinions and sentiments; and we will leave to
posterity and the country to decide which stands most justified in the eyes of
all honest and impartial men.
But his main object
in rising to address the House was to say what were the demands of the South.
She asks for an equal participation in the enjoyment of all the common
property; and if this be denied, she demands a fair division. Give it to her,
give it by non-intervention, by non-action, or by any other means, and she will
be satisfied. This is her right, and she demands it. But if, instead of doing
this, the North insists on taking away the territory and abridging the rights
of the South, she will not submit to the wrong in peace, nor meanly kiss the hand
that smites her. He uttered no threat, but it was his duty to say that the
South could neither forget nor forgive a wrong like this. She cannot forget
that these new territories were purchased in part by her blood and treasure,
and she will not forgive the power that snatches them from her. He had never
undertaken to say what course the South would feel it her duty to pursue on the
consummation of her unjust exclusion from these territories, but he would say,
that the act of her exclusion would sink like a poisonous arrow into the hearts
of her people, and it would rankle there, and in the hearts of their children,
as long as the union of these states continued. The consummation of northern
policy may not produce an immediate disunion of these states; but it will
produce a disunion of northern and southern hearts; and he left it to others to
say whether a political union under such circumstances could be long
maintained, or whether it was worth maintaining.
It can excite no
feeling of gratitude that the gentleman from New York [Mr. Brooks] says he is
now opposed to the Wilmot proviso. He is for the spirit of the proviso. He
would be for its letter, if it was necessary for our exclusion. He consents to
abandon it simply because it is useless. There was a day when it was potential.
Then the gentleman was for it. Now, when he supposes our exclusion almost
perfect, and the means at hand for its entire consummation, he magnanimously
abandons the proviso. Wonderful liberality! Amazing generosity to the South! If
the gentleman is not canonized as the most generous man of his age, surely
gratitude will have failed to perform her office.
We of the South well
understand the means employed for our exclusion. This proviso, once so much in
favor with the gentleman from New York, now so graciously abandoned, performed
its office. It was held in terrorem over California: southern property, termed
as property always is, was kept out of the country. The column of southern
emigration was checked at the onset—whilst every appliance was resorted to to
swell the column of northern emigration. Every means was resorted to which
political ingenuity could devise and federal power make effective, to hurry on
this emigration, and then, with indecent haste, the emigrants, yet without
names or habitations in the country, were induced to make a pretended state
constitution, and insert in it the Wilmot proviso. The gentleman need not be
told how far the federal administration was responsible for these things. He
need not be reminded that he and his quondam proviso friends were prominent
actors in all these scenes. Need he be told that the proviso was the SHIBBOLETH
of their power? It was used so long as it was effective. It was used for our prostration,
and now it is thrown aside for no better reason than that it is useless— that
it is no longer necessary.
Does not the
gentleman from New York know very well that the California constitution is no
constitution until adopted by Congress? Does he not know that that constitution
contains the proviso? Does he not know that the proviso is powerless in that
constitution until sanctioned by Congress? And does he not mean to vote for
that constitution, with the full intent and purpose of giving vitality to that
proviso? With how much of liberality—with how much of justice to the South,
does the honorable gentleman come forward to assure us that he is against the
proviso? The gentleman is opposed to ingrafting the proviso on the territorial
bills for Utah and New Mexico; and we thank him for his opposition. But what
reason does the gentleman give for this opposition? The decrees of God have
already excluded us. He has no idea that slavery would ever penetrate the
country opposed to the proviso, because it is unnecessary. If it was at all
necessary for our exclusion, the honorable gentleman would be for it. He must
excuse us if our gratitude fails to become frantic for this singular exhibition
of forbearance and liberality.
Mr. Brown was
willing to trust the rights of the South on the strict doctrine of
non-intervention. If God, in his providence, had in fact decreed against the
introduction of slavery into Utah and New Mexico, he and his people bowed in
humble submission to that decree. We think the soil and climate are propitious
to slave labor; and if they are not, we shall never seek the country with our
slaves. All we ask of you is, that you will not interpose the authority of this
government for us or against us. We do not fear the Mexican laws, if you will
in good faith stand by the doctrine of non-intervention. We will risk the
protection of the Federal Constitution, and the banner of the stars and
stripes, for ourselves and our property. All we ask of you is, that you will in
good faith stand neutral.
He had never
announced his purpose of voting against the territorial government for Utah. He
meant to vote for it, and he should vote for the territorial government for New
Mexico if the boundary was so arranged as to respect the rights of Texas. He
was opposed to the admission of California, because her constitution was a
fraud—a fraud deliberately perpetrated for the purpose of excluding the South;
but he was in favor of giving governments to Utah and New Mexico on the ground
of strict non-intervention. He did not want to be cheated in this business, and
he therefore proposed this question to the honorable gentleman from New York:
Suppose we pass these Utah and New Mexican bills at this session without the
Wilmot proviso; and suppose the Southern people commence moving into the
territories with their slaves, and it becomes apparent that they are to be
slave territories and ultimately slave states; and suppose that the gentleman
from Ohio [Mr. Root], at the opening of the next Congress, offers the Wilmot
proviso with a view to check our emigration and to exclude us from the
territories with our slaves, will the gentleman, if a member of Congress, then
vote for the proviso?
Mr. BROOKS replied
in the negative, as far as he was heard.
Mr. BROWN. Then if
we take our slave property into the territories, we are assured that we are not
to be disturbed in its peaceable and quiet enjoyment by any act of this
government.
Mr. BROOKS said,
that if he should be here he certainly should not vote to repeal any
territorial bill for which he had voted. He only spoke for himself.
Mr. BROWN was
gratified to hear this statement; whilst he could not insist on the gentleman
answering for the North, he must express his regret that he did not feel
authorized to answer at least for his political friends. The gentleman had
answered manfully, and, he did not doubt, sincerely; and if the whole North, or
a majority even, would answer in the same way, it would go far towards
restoring harmony. He asked honorable gentlemen whether they were ready to pipe
to the tune set them by the gentleman from New York? If they were, the whole
South. would listen. It was a kind of music they liked to hear from the North.
There was in it more of the gentle harp, and less of the war-bugle than they
had been accustomed to from that quarter.
Mr. BROOKS said, it
appeared after all that there was no essential difference between them.
Mr. BROWN. So far as
this Congress is concerned, we ask nothing more than that we shall be treated
as equals, and that no insulting discrimination should be made in the action of
Congress against slave property. If the gentleman agrees to this, there can be
no essential difference between us.
Now, Mr. Speaker, to
the subject of the Texas boundary. Is there one man in this House, or throughout
the nation, who does not know that but for the question of slavery, there would
be no such question as that of the Texas boundary? Suppose, sir, that Texas and
New Mexico were both as clearly slaveholding countries as North and South
Carolina, how long, sir, do you think it would take this Congress to fix a
boundary between them? Not one hour—certainly not one day. Of what consequence
could it be to the North, whether Texas extended to the 32d or to the 42d
degree, or to any intermediate point? Take out the question of slavery, and of
what consequence is it where the boundary of Texas may be fixed? Does any man
suppose that the money-loving men of the North would vote ten millions of
dollars from a common treasury to buy a slip of soil from a slaveholding State,
simply to give it to a slaveholding Territory? No, no. We all understand this
matter. If the country is left in the possession and ownership of Texas, it
must be slave territory, and if it is given up to New Mexico, you mean that it
shall become free territory, and you do not intend to leave any stone unturned
to accomplish this end. We know this, and we govern ourselves accordingly. Let
northern gentlemen speak out on this subject.
The thin covering,
that they want to do justice between Texas and New Mexico, furnishes a poor
disguise to the real purpose. We all know that slavery restriction is the lever
with which you are lifting the title of Texas off this country, and giving it
up to New Mexico; and we all know that you are attempting to do this without
right, or color of right, to perform such an act.
Mr. MCCLERNAND (Mr.
Brown yielding) said, that Texas claimed the Rio Grande for its whole extent to
be her western boundary. By the resolutions annexing Texas to the United
States, slavery is interdicted north of 36° 30' within her professed limits.
The amendment proposed by the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Boyd) provides that
slavery may exist in any portion of the territory west of the boundary of
Texas, as proposed by the Senate bill, between 32° and 38° north latitude, east
of the Rio Grande. That is, the amendment provides that slavery may exist in
any part of said territory, according as the people inhabiting it may determine
for themselves when they apply for admission into the Union. So that to the
extent of so much of said territory now claimed by Texas, lying between 36° 30′
and 38° north latitude, the South, according to the test of my able and worthy
friend from Mississippi, stands upon a better footing under the amendment
proposed than she does under the resolutions of Texas annexation.
Mr. BROWN resumed.
If we are left in that condition in which we were by the annexation
resolutions, we are satisfied. What we ask in regard to Utah, New Mexico, and
California, is, that the North will not, by means direct or indirect, disturb
us then in the quiet enjoyment of our property. What we ask in regard to Texas
is, that you will abide by the resolutions of annexation. We are satisfied with
the contract, and we are opposed to making any other. This contract gives us
all south of 36° 30' as slave territory, and dedicates all north of that line
to free soil. We stand by this. If gentlemen want to buy from Texas her
territory north of 36° 30′, let them do it. They had his full consent to give
her ten, twelve, or fifteen millions of dollars. He should interpose no
objection. But when it came to selling out slaveholding Texas with a view of
enabling the North to make New Mexico a non-slaveholding state the more
readily, he felt it his duty to interpose by all the means in his power. He
never meant to give his vote for any proposition or combination of propositions
which looked to the deprivation of Texas of one inch of her rightful soil. He
wanted to deal fairly by all parts of the country. He trusted he should be as
ready to act fairly by the North as by the South, but he invoked the vengeance
of Heaven if ever he gave his vote for any bill or proposition to buy the soil
of a slave state to convert it into free soil.
SOURCE: M. W.
Cluskey, Editor, Speeches, Messages, and Other Writings of the Hon.
Albert G. Brown, A Senator in Congress from the State of Mississippi, p. 208-14
