FREEDOM AND PUBLIC FAITH. SPEECH OF WILLIAM H. SEWARD, ON THE ABROGATION OF THE MISSOURI COMPROMISE, IN THE KANSAS AND NEBRASKA BILLS. SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES, FEBRUARY 17, 1854.. WASHINGTON, D. C. BUELL & BLANCHARD, PRINTERS. 1854. SPEECH OF WILLIAM H. SEWARD. MR. PRESIDENT: lantic side of the continent, while on the west, The United States, at the close of the Rev- as on the east, only an ocean separates us from olution, rested southward on the St. Mary's, the nations of the oliworld. It is not in my and westward on the Mississippi, and possess- way now to speculate on the question, how ed a broad, unoccupied domain, circumscribed long we are to rest on these advanced posiby those rivers, the Alleghany mountains, and tions. the great'Northern lakes. The Constitution Slavery, before the Revolution, existed in all anticipated the division of this domain into the thirteen Colonies, as it did also in nearly all States, to be admitted as members of the Union, the other European plantations in America. but it neither provided for nor anticipated any But it had been forced by British authority, for enlargement of the national boundaries. The political and commercial ends, on the American People, engaged in reorganizing their Govern- People, against their own sagacious instincts of meats, improving their social systems, and policy, and their stronger feelings of justice and establishing relations of commerce and friend- humanity. ship with other nations, remained many years They had protested and remonstrated against content within their apparently ample limits. the system, earnestly, for forty years, and they But it was already foreseen that the free naviga- ceased to protest and remonstrate against it tion of the Mississippi would soon become an only when they finally committed their entire urgent public want. cause of complaint to the arbitrament of arms. France, although she had lost Canada, in An earnest spirit of emancipation was abroad chivalrous battle, on the Heights of Abraham, in the Colonies at the close of the Revolution, in 1763, nevertheless, still retained her ancient and all of them, except, perhaps, South Caroterritories on the western bank of the Mississip- lina and Georgia, anticipated, desired, and depi. She had also, just before the breaking out signed an early removal of the system from the of her own fearful revolution, re-acquired, by country. The suppression of the African slave a secret treaty, the possessions on the Gulf of trade, which was universally regarded as anMexico, which, in a recent war, had been cillary to that great measure, was not, without wrested from her by Spain. Her First Consul, much reluctance, postponed until 1808. among those brilliant achievements which While there was no national power, and no proved hial the first Statesman as well as the claim or desire for national power, anywhere, first Captain of Europe, sagaciously sold the to compel involuntary emancipation in the whole of these possessions to the United States, States where slavery existed, there was at the for a liberal sum, and thus replenished his treas- same time a very general desire and a strong ury, while hesaved from his enemies, and trans- purpose to prevent its introduction into new ferred to a friendly Power, distant and vast communities yet to be formed, and into new regions, which, for want of adequate naval States yet to be established. Mr. Jefferson proforce, he was unable to defend. posed, as early as 1784, to exclude it from the This purchase of Louisiana from France, by national domain which should be constituted the United States', involved a grave dispute con- by cessions from the States to the United States. cerning the western limits of that province; He recommended and urged the measure as and that controversy, having remained open ancillary, also, to the ultimate policy of emanuntil 1819, was then adjusted by a treaty, in cipation. There seems to have been at first no which they relinquished Texas to Spain, and very deep jealousy between the emancipating accepted a cession of the early-discovered and and the non-emancipating States; and the pollong-inhabited provinces of East Florida and icy of admitting new States was not disturbed XVest Florida. The United States stipulated, by questions concerning slavery. Vermont, a in each of these cases, to admit the countries non-slaveholding State, was admitted in 1793. thus annexed into the Federal Union. Kentucky, a tramontane slaveholding consThe acquisitions of Oregon, by discovery and munity, having been detached from Virginia, occupation, of Texas, by her voluntary annex- was admitted, without being questioned, about ation, and of New Mexico and California, in- the same time. So, also, Tennessee, which cluding what is now called Utah, by war, coin- was a similar community separated from North pleted that rapid course of enlargement, at the Carolina, was admitted in 1796, with a stipulaclose of which our frontier has been fixed near tion that the Ordinance which Mr. Jefferson the centre of what was New Spain, on the At- had first proposed, and which had in the mean 4 time been adopted for the Territory northwest ry, and in due time, though at successive periof the Ohio, should not be held to apply within ods, Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Michigan, and her limits. The same' course was adopted in Wisconsin, States erected within that Territory, organizing Territorial Governments for Missis- have come into the Union with Constitutions in sippi and Alabama, slaveholding communities their hands forever prohibiting slavery and inwhich had been detached from South Carolina voluntary servitude, except for the punishment and Georgia. All these States and Territories of crime. They are yet young; but, neverthewere situated southwest of the Ohio river, all less, who has ever seen elsewhere such States were more or less already peopled by slave- as they are! There are gathered the young, holders with their slaves; and to have excluded the vigorous, the active, the enlightened sons slavery within their limits would have been a of every State, the flower and choice of national act, notof preventing the introduction every State in this broad Union; and there of slavery, but of abolishing slavery. In short, the emigrant for conscience sake, and for freethe region southwest of the Ohio river present- dom is sake, from every land in Europe, from ed a field in which the policy of preventing the proud and all-conquering Britain, from heartintroduction of slavery was impracticable. broken Ireland, from sunny Italy, from mercuOur forefathers never attempted what was im- rial France, from spiritual Germany, from practicable. chivalrous Hungary, and from honest and But the case was otherwise in that fair and brave old Sweden and Norway. Thence are broad region which stretched away from the already comrning ample supplies of corn and banks of the Ohio, northward to the lakes, and wheat and wine for the manufacturers of the westward to the Mississippi. It was yet free, East, for the planters of the tropics, and even for or practically free, from the presence of slaves, the artisans and the armies of Europe; and and was nearly uninhabited, and quite unoccu- thence will continue to come in long succespied. There was then no Baltimore and Ohio sion, as they have already begun to come, railroad, no Erie railroad, no New York Cen- statesmen and legislators for this continent. tral railroad, no Boston and Ogdensburgh rail- Thus it appears, Mr. President, that it was road; there was no railroad through Canada; the policy of our fathers, in regard to the originnor, indeed, any road around or across the al domain of the United States, to prevent the mountains; no imperial Erie canal, no Wel- introduction of slavery, wherever it was prlacland canal, no lockages arotnd the rapids and ticable..This policy encountered greater diffithe falls of the St. Lawrence, the Mohawk, and culites when it came under consideration with the Niagara rivers, and no steam navigation on a view to its establishment in regions not inthe lakes or on the Hudson, or on the Missis- cluded within our original domain. While sippi. There, in that remote and secluded slavery had been actually abolished already, by region, the prevention of the introduction of some of the emancipating States, several of slavery was possible; and there our forefathers, them, owing to a great change in the relative who left no possible national good unattempted, value of the productions of slave labor, had did prevent it. It makes one's heart bound fallen off into the class of non-emancipating with joy and gratitude, and lift itself up with States; and now the whole family of States mingled pride and veneration, to read the his- was divided and classified as slaveholding or tory of that great transaction. Discarding the slave States, and non-slaveholding or free trite and common forms of expressing the na- States. A rivalry for political ascendency was tional will, they did not merely "vote," or soon developed; and, besides the motives of r' resolve," or "enact." as on other occasions, interest and philanthropy which had before but they " ORDAINED," in language marked at existed, there was now on each side a desire to once with precision, amplification, solemnity, increase, from among the candidates for adand emphasis, that there " shall be neither sla- mission into the Union, the number of States in very nor involuntary servitude in the said Ter- their respective classes, and so their relative ritory, otherwise than in the punishment of weight and influence in the Federal Councils. crime, whereof the party shall have been duly The country which had been acquired from convicted." And they further ORDAINED and France was, in 1804, organized in two Terrideclared that this law should be considered a tories, one of which, including New Orleans as COMPACT between the original States and the its capital, was called Orleans, and the other, People and States of said Territory, and forever having St. Louis for its chief town, was called remain unalterable, unless by common consent. Louisiana. In 1812, the Territory of Orleans The Ordinance was agreed to unanimously. was admitted as a new State, under the name Virginia, in re-affirming her cession of the ter- of Louisiana. It had been an old slaveholding ritory, ratified it, and the first Congress held colony of France, and the prevention of slavery under the Constitution solemnly renewed and within it would have been a simple act of confirmed it. abolition. At the same time, the Territory of In pursuance of this Ordinance, the several Louisiana, by authority of Congress, took the Territorial Governments successively establish- name of Missouri; and, in 1819, the portion ed in the Northwest Territory were organized thereof which now constitutes the State of Arwith a prohibition of the introduction of slave- kansas was detached, and beame a Territory, under that name. In 1819, Missouri, which equal, or are accepted as such, and so become was then but thinly peopled, and had an incon- conditions of the mutual arrangement. siderable number of slaves, applied for admis — Fourthly, by this mutual exchange of consion into the Union, and her application brought ditions, the transaction takes on the nature and the question of extending the policy of the Or- character of a contract, compact, or treaty, dinance of 1787 to that State, and to other new between the parties represented; and so, acStates in the region acquired from France, cording to well-settled principles of morality to a direct issue. The House of Representa- and public law, the statute which embodies it tives insisted on a prohibition against the fur- is understood, by those who uphold this system ther introduction of slavery in the State, as a of legislation, to be irrevocable and irrepealacondition of her admission. The Senate dis- ble, except by the mutual consent of both, or agreed with the House in that demand. The of all the parties concerned. Not, indeed, that non-slaveholding States sustained the House, it is absolutely irrepealable, but that it cannot and the slaveholding States sustained the be repealed without a violation of honor, jusSenate. The difference was radical, and tended tice, and good faith, which it is presumed will towards revolution. not be committed. One party maintained that the condition de- Such was the Compromise of 1820. Mismanded was constitutional, the other that it souri came into the Union immediately as a was unconstitutional. The public mind be- slaveholding State, and Arkansas came in as came intensely excited, and painful apprehen- a slaveholding State, sixteen years afterward. sions of disunion and civil war began to pre- Nebraska, the part of the Territory reserved vail in the country. exclusively for free Territories and free States, In this crisis, a majority of both Houses has remained a wilderness ever since. And agreed upon a plan for the adjustment of the now it is proposed here to abrogate, not, incontroversy. By this plan, Maine, a non- deed, the whole Compromise, but only that slaveholding State, was to be admitted; Missou- part of it which saved Nebraska as free terri ri was to be admitted without submitting to tory, to be afterwards divided into non-slave the condition before mentioned; and in all that holding States, which should be admitted in part of the Territory acquired from France, to the Union. And this is proposed, notwhich was north of the line of 36 deg. 30 min. withstanding an universal acquiescence in the of' north latitude, slavery was to be forever Compromise, by both parties, for thirty years, prohibited. Louisiana, which was a part of and its confirmation, over and over again, that Territory, had been admitted as a slave by many acts of successive Congresses, and State eight years before; and now, not only notwithstanding that the slaveholding States was Missouri to be admitted as a slave State, have peaceably enjoyed, ever since it was but Arkansas, which was south of that line, made, all their equivalents, while, owing to by strong implication, was also to be admitted circumstances which will hereafter appear, the as a slaveholding State. I need not indicate non-slaveholding States have not practically what were the equivalents which the respect- enjoyed those guarantied to them. ive parties were to receive in this arrangement, This is the question now before the Senate Further than to say that the slaveholding States of the United States of America. practically were to receive slaveholding States, It is a question of transcendent importance. the free States to receive a desert, a solitude, in The proviso of 1820, to be abrogated in Newhich they might, if they could, plant the braska, is the Ordinance of the Continental terms of future free States. This measure was Congress of 1787, extended over a new part of idopted. It was a great national transaction- the national domain, acquired under our preshe first of a class of transactions which have ent Constitution. It is rendered venerable by ince come to be thoroughly defined and well its antiquity, and sacred by the memory of that nderstood, under the name of compromises. Congress, which, in surrendering its trust, after y own opinions concerning them are well establishing the Ordinance, enjoined it upon:nown, and are not in question here. According posterity, always to remember that the cause o the general understanding, they are marked of the United States was the cause of Human y peculiar circumstances and features, viz: Nature. The question involves an issue of First, there is a division of opinion upon public faith, and national morality and honor. Dme vital national question between the two It will be a sad day for this Republic, when such louses of Congress, which division is irrecon- a question shall be deemed unworthy of grave ilable, except by mutual concessions of inter- discussion and shall fail toexcite intense interest. sts and opinions, which the Houses deem con- Even if it were certain that the inhibition of slatitutional and just. very in the region concerned was unnecessary, Secondly, they are rendered necessary by and if the question was thus reduced to a mere npending calamities, to result from the failure abstraction, yet even that abstraction would inF legislation, and to be no otherwise averted volve the testimony of the United States on the Lan by such mutual concessions, or sacri- expediency, wisdom, morality, and justice, ol,es. the system of human bondage, with which Thirdly, such concessions are mutual and this and other portions of the world have been so long afflicted; and it will be a melancholy right of way and free communication across daty fobr the Republic and for mankind, when the continent, to and with the States on the her decision on even such an abstraction shall Pacific coasts, and with the rising States on the command no respect, and inspire no hope into islands in the South Sea, and with all the eastthe hearts of the oppressed. But it is no such ern nations on the vast continent of Asia. abstraction. It was no unnecessary dispute, To abrogate, on the contrary, is to commit no mere contest of blind passion, that brought all these precious interests to the chances and that Compromise into being. Slavery and hazards of embarrassment and injury by legisFreedom were active antagonists, then seeking lation, under the influence of social, political, for ascendency in this Union. Both Slavery and commercial jealousy and rivalry; and in and Freedom are more vigorous, active, and the event of the secession of the slaveholding self-aggrandizing now, than they were then, States, which is so often threatened in their or ever were before or since that period. The | name, but I thank God without their authority, contest between them has been only protracted, to give to a servile population a La Vendee at not decided. It is a great feature in our na- the very sources of' the Mississippi, and in the tional Hereafter. So the question of adhering very recesses of the Rocky Mountains. to or abrogating this Compromise is no un- Nor is this last a contingency against which meaning issue, and no contest of mere blind a statesman, when engaged in giving a Constipassion now. tution for such a Territory, so situated, must To adhere, is to secure the occupation by veil his eyes. It is a statesman's province and freemen, with free labor, of a region in the duty to look before as well as after. I know, very centre of the continent, capable of sus- indeed, the present loyalty of the American taining, and in that event destined, though it People, North and South, and East and West. may be only after a far-distant period, to sus- I know that it is a sentiment stronger than any tain ten, twenty, thirty, forty millions of peo- sectional interest or ambition, and stronger than ple and their successive generations forever! even the love of equality in the non-slaveholding To abrogate, is to resign all that vast region States; and stronger, I doubt not, than the love to chances which mortal vision cannot tully of slavery in the slaveholding States. But I foresee; perhaps to the sovereignty of such do not know, and no mortal sagacity does stinted and short-lived communities as those of know, the seductions of interest and ambition, which Mexico and South America and the and the influences of passion, which are yet to West India Islands present us with examples; be matured in every region. I know this, howperhaps to convert that region into the scene ever: that this Union is safe now, and that it of long and desolating conflicts between not will be safe so long as impartial political merely races, but castes, to end, like a similar equality shall constitute the basis of society, as conflict in Egypt, in a convulsive exodus of it has heretofore done, in even half of these the oppressed. people, despoiling their superi- States, and they shall thus maintain a just equiors; perhaps, like one not dissimilar in Spain, librium against the slaveholding States. But I in the forcible expulsion of the inferior race, am well assured, also, on the other hand, that exhausting the State by the sudden and com- if ever the slaveholding States shall multiply plete suppression of a great resource of national themselves, and extend their sphere, so that wealth and labor; perhaps in the disastrous ex- they could, without association with tlhe nonpulsion, even of the superior race itself, by a slaveholding States, constitute of themselves a people too suddenly raised from slavery to lib- commercial republic, from that day their rule, erty, as in St. Domingo. To adhere, is to se- through the Executive, Judicial, and Legislacure forever the presence here, after some lapse tive powers of this Government, will be such of time, of two, four, ten, twenty, or more as will be hard for the non-slaveholding States Senators, and of Representatives in larger pro- to bear; and their pride and ambition, since portions, to uphold the policy and interests of they are congregations of men, and are movec the non-slaveholding States, and balance that by human passions, will consent to no Unior ever-increasing representation of slaveholding in which they shall not so rule. States, which past experience, and the decay The slaveholding States already possess th( of the Spanish American States, admonish us mouths of the Mississippi, and their territor! has only just begun; to save what the non- reaches far northward along its banks, on on; slaveholding States have in mints, navy yards, side to the Ohio, and on the other even to th, the military academy and fortifications, to bal- confluence of the Missouri. They stretch thei ance against the capital and federal institutions dominion now from the banks of the Delaware in the slaveholding States; to save against any quite around bay, headland, and promontory danger from adverse or hostile policy, the cul- to the Rio Grande. They will not stop, al ture, the manufactures, and the commerce, as though they now think they may, on the sum well as the just influence and weight of the mit of the Sierra Nevada; nay, their arme national principles and sentiments of the slave- pioneers are already in Sonora, and their eye holding States. To adhere, is to save, to the are already fixed, never to be taken off, on th non-slaveholding States, as well as to the slave- island of Cuba, the Queen of the Antilles. ] holding States, always, and in every event, a we of the non-slaveholding States surrender t them now the eastern slope of the Rocky fully reclaimed, and conveyed to the person claiming Mountains, and the very sources of the Missis- his or her labor or service, as aforesaid.' what territory will be secureUnder this section, as in the case of the Mexican sippi, what territory will be secure, what terri- law in New Mexico and Utah, it is a disputed point tory can be secured hereafter, for the creation whether slavery is prohibited in the Nebraska counand organization of free States, within our try by valid enactment. The decision of this eluesocean-bound domain? What territories on this tion involves the constitutional power of Congress to continent will remain unappropriated and un- pass laws prescribing and regulating the domestic institutions of the various Territories of the Union. In occupied, for us to annex? WVhat territories, the opin;on of those eminent statesmen who hold that even if we are able to buy or conquer them Congress is invested with no rightful authority to from Great Britain or Russia, will the slave- legislate upon the subject of slavery in the Territoholding States suffer, much less aid, us to an- ries, the 8th section of the act preparatory to the adnex to restore the equilibrium which by this mission of Missouri is null and void; while the prenex, to resore svailing sentment in large portions of the Union susunnecessary measure we shall have so un- tains the doctrine that the Constitution of the United wisely, so hurriedly, so suicidally subverted? States secures to every citizen an inalienable right to Nor am I to be told that only a few slaves move into any of the Territories with his property, of will enter into this vast region. One slave- whatever kind and description, and to hold and enjoy the same under the sanction of law. Your Committee holder in a new Territory, with access to the do not feel themselves called upon to enter into the Executive ear at Washington, exercises more discussion of these controverted questions. They inpolitical influence than five hundred freemen. volve the same grave issues which produced the agiIt is not necessary that all or a majority of the tation, the sectional strife, and the fearful struggle of citizens of a State shall be slaveholders, to con- 1850. As Congress deemed it wise and prudent to refrain from deciding the matters in controversy then, stitute a slaveholding State. Delaware has only either by affirming or repealing the Mexican laws, or 2,000 slaves, against 91,000 freemen; and yet by an act declaratory of the true intent of the ConDelaware is a slaveholding State. The propor- stitut on, and the extent of the protection afforded by tion is not substantially different in Maryland it to slave property in the Territories, so your Comnand in Missouri; anld yet they deare slaeholdin mittee are not prepared now to recommend a deand in Missouri; and yet they are slaveholding parture from the course pursued on that memorable States. These, sir, are the stakes in this legis- occasion, either by affirming or repealing the 8th seclative game, in which I lament to see, that tion of the Missouri act, or by any act declaratory of while the representatives of the slaveholding the meaning of the Constitution in respect to the legal poitpsain dispute. States are unanimously and earnestly playing gal points in dispute." to win, so many of the representatives of the This report gives us the deliberate judgment non-slaveholding States are with even greater of the Committee on two important points. zeal and diligence playing to lose. First, that the Compromise of 1850 did not, by Mr. President, the Committee who have rec- its letter or by its spirit, repeal, or render necesommended these twin bills for the organization sary, or even propose, the abrogation of the of the Territories of Nebraska and Kansas hold Missouri Compromise; and, secondly, that the the affirmative in the argument upon their Missouri Compromise ought not now to be passage. abrogated. And now, sir, what do we next What is the case they present to the Senate hear from this Committee? First, two similar and the country? and kindred bills, actually abrogating the MisThey have submitted a report; but that re- souri Compromise, which, in their report, they port, brought in before they had introduced or had told us ought not to be abrogated at all. even conceived this bold and daring measure of Secondly, these bills declare on their face, in abrogating the Missouri Compromise, directs all substance, that that Compromise was already its arguments against it. abrogated by the spirit of that very ComproThe Committee say, in their report: mise of 1850, which, in their report they had "Such being the character of the controversy, in just shown us, left the Compromise of 1820 respect to the territory acquired from Mexico. a aim- absolutely unaffected and unimpaired. Thirdly, ilar question has arisen in regard to the right to hold the Committee favor us, by their chairman, slaves in the proposed Territory of Nebraska, when the Indian laws shall be withdrawn, and the country with an oral explanation, that the amended thrown open to emigration and settlement. By the bills abrogating the Missouri Compromise are 8th section of' an act to authorize the people of the identical with their previous bill, which did not Missouri Territory to form a Constitution and State abrogate it and are only made to diier in Government, and for the admission of such State in to the end that the provisions conthe Union on an equal footing with the original States, raseoloy, to the end that the provisions con and to prohibit Slavery in certain Territories,' ap- tained in their previous, and now discarded, proved March 6, 1820, it was provided:'That in all bill, shall be absolutely clear and certain. that Territory ceded by France to the United States I entertain great respect for the Committee: under the name of Louisiana, which lies north of thir- itself, but I must take leave to say that the inty-six degrees and thirty minutes north latitude, not consistencies and self-contradictions conined included within the limits of the State contemplated consistencies and self-contradictions contained by this act, slavery and involuntary servitude, other- in the papers it has given us, have destroyed wise than in the punishment of crimes, whereof the all claims, on the part of those documents, to, parties shall have been duly convicted, shall be, and respect, here or elsewhere. is hereby, forever prohibited: Provided, alrays, Thatl of the effect of the Compromise any person escaping into the same, from whom labor or service is lawfully claimed in any State or Terri- of 1850 upon the Compromise of 1820, as finaltorv ot the ULit:d States, such fugitive may be law. ly revised, corrected, and amended, here in the. ace of the Senate, means after all substantially public attention, to raise complex and immatewhat that recital meant as it stood before it was rial issues, to perplex and bewilder and comperfected, or else it means nothing tangible or found the People by whom this transaction is worthy of' consideration at all.. What if the to be reviewed. Look again at the vacillation spirit, or even the letter, of the Compromise betrayed in the frequent changes of the struclaws of 1850 did conflict with the Compromise ture of this apology. At first the recital told us of 1820 1?'he Compromise of 1820 was, by that the eighth section of the Compromise act its very nature, a Compromise irrepealable of 1820 was superseded by the principles of the and unchangeable, without a violation of hon- Compromise laws of 1850-as if any one had or, justice, and good faith. The Compromise ever heard of a supersedeas of one local law by of 1850, if it impaired the previous Compro- the mere principles of another local law, enmise to the extent of the loss to free labor of acted for an altogether different region, thirty one acre of the Territory of Nebraska, was years afterwards. On another day we were either absolutely void, or ought, in all subse- told, by an amendment of the recital, that the qent legislation, to be deemed and held void. Compromise of 1820 was not superseded by What if the spirit or the letter of the Com the Compromise of 1850 at all, but was only promise was a violation of the Compromise of "inconsistent with" it -as if a local act 1820? Then, inasmuch as the Compromise which was irrepealable was now to be abroof 1820 was inviolable, the attempted violation gated, because it was inconsistent with a subof it shows that the so-called Compromise of sequent enactment, which had no application 1850 was to that extent not a Compromise at whatever within the region to which the first all, but a factitious, spurious, and pretented enactment was confined. On a third day the Compromise. What if the letter or the spirit meaning of the recital was further and finally of the Compromise of 1850 did supersede or elucidated by an amendment, which declared impair, or in any way, in any degree, conflict that the first irrepealable act protecting Newith the Compromise of 1820? Then that is braska from slavery was now declared "ina reason for abrogating, not the irrepealable and operative and void," because it was inconsistinviolable Compromise of 1820, but the spuri- ent with the present purposes of Congress not ous and pretended Compromise of 1850. to legislate slavery into any Territory or State, Mr. President, why is this reason for the nor to exclude it therefrom. proposed abrogation of the Compromise of 1820 But take this apology in whatever form it assigned in these bills at all? It is unnecessary. may be expressed, and test its logic by a simple The assignment of a reason adds nothing to the process. force or weight of the abrogation itself. Either The law of 1820 secured free institutions in the fact alleged as a reason is true or it is not the regions acquired from France in 1803, by true. If it be untrue, your asserting it here the wise and prudent foresight of the Congress will not make it true. If it be true, it is ap- of the United States. The law of 1850, on the parent in the text of the law of 1850, without contrary, committed the choice between free the aid of legislative exposition now. It is un- and slave institutions in New Mexico and usual. It is unparliamentary. The language Utah-Territories acquired from Mexico nearly of the lawgiver, whether the sovereign be fifty years afterward-to the interested cupidity Democratic, Republican, or Despotic, is al- or the caprice of their earliest and accidental ways the same. It is mandatory, imperative. occupants. Free Institutions and Slave InstiIf the lawgiver explains at all in a statute the tutions are equal, but the interested cupidity of reason for it, the reason is that it is his pleas- the pioneer is a wiser arbiter, and his judgment ure-sic volo, sic jubeo. Look at the Compro- a surer safeguard, than the collective wisdom mise of 1820. Does it plead an excuse for its of the American People and the mostsolemn and commands? Look at the Compromise of 1850, time-honored statute of the American Congress. drawn by the master-hand of our American Therefore, let the law of freedom in the terriChatham. Does that bespeak your favor by a tory acquired from France be now annulled quibbling or shuffling apology? Look at your and abrogated, and let the fortunes and fate of -own, now rejected, first Nebraska bill, which, Freedom and Slavery, in the region acquired by conclusive implication, saved the effect of from France, be, henceforward and forever, dethe Missouri Compromise. Look at any other termined by the votes of some seven hundred till ever reported by the Committee on Territo- camp followers around Fort Leavenworth, and Ties. Look at any other bill now on your cal- the still smaller number of trappers, Govern-.endar. Examine all the laws on your statute ment schoolmasters, and mechanics, who at-'books. Do you find any one bill or statute tend the Indians in their seasons of rest from wvhich ever came bowing, stooping, and wrig- hunting in the passes of the Rocky Mountains. gling into the Senate, pleading an excuse for Sir, this syllogism may satisfy you and other its clear and explicit declaration of the sover- Senators; but as for me, I must be content to ~eign and irresistible will of the American Peo- adhere to the earlier system. Stare stuper,ple? The departure from this habit in this antiquas rias. solitary case betrays self-distrust, and an at- There is yet another difficulty in this new'tempt on the part of the bill to divert the theory. Let it be granted that, in order to 9 carry out a new principle recently adopted in intended or understood. I appeal to the honorNew Mexico, you can supplant a compromise able and distinguished Senator, the senior repin Nebraska, vet there is a maxim of public resentative.from Tennessee, [Mr. BELL,] who law which forbids you from supplanting that performed a distinguished part also. Did he compromise, and establishing a new system so understand the Compromise of 1850? He there, until you first restore the parties in interest is silent. I appeal to the gallant Senator from there to their statu quo before the compromise Illinois? [Mr. SHIELDS.] He, too, is silent. I to be supplanted was established. First, then, now throw my gauntlet at the feet of every remand Missouri and Arkansas back to the un- Senator now here, who was in the Senate in settled condition, in regard to slavery, which 1850, and challenge him to say that he then they held before the Compromise of 1820 was knew, or thought, or dreamed, that, by enactenacted, and then we will hear you talk of ing the Compromise of 1850, he was directly rescinding that Compromise. You cannot do or indirectly abrogating, or in any degree imthis. You ought not to do it, if you could; pairing, the Missouri Compromise? No one and because you cannot and ought not to do it, I takes it up. I appeal to that very distinguishyou cannot, without violating law, justice, ed-nay, sir, that expression falls short of his equity, and honor, abrogate the guarantee of eminence-that illustrious man, the Senator freedom in Nebraska. from Missouri, who led the opposition here to There is still another and not less serious the Compromise of 1850. Did he understand difficulty. You call the Slavery laws of 1850 that that Compromise in any way overreached a compromise between the slaveholding and or impaired the Compromise of 1820? Sir, non-slaveholding States. For the purposes of that distinguished person, while opposing the this argument, let it be granted that they were combination of the several laws on the subject such a compromise. It was nevertheless a of California and the Territories, and Slavery, compromise concerning slavery in the Territo- together, in one bill, so as to constitute a Comries acquired from Mexico, and by the letter of promise, nevertheless voted for each one of the compromise it extended no further. Can those bills, severally; and in that way, and you now, by an act which is not a compromise that way only, they were passed. Had he between the same parties, but a mere ordinary known or understood that any one of' them law, extend the force and obligation of' the overreached and impaired the Missouri Comprinciples of that Compromise of 1850 into promise, we all know he would have perished regions not only excluded from it, but absolute- before he would have given it his support. ly protected from your intervention there by a Sir, if it was not irreverent, I would dare to solemn Compromise of thirty years' duration, call up the author of both of the Compromises and invested with a sanctity scarcely inferior in question, from his honored, though yet to that which hallows the Constitution it- scarcely grass-covered grave, and challenge self? any advocate of this measure to confront that Can the Compromise of 1850, by a mere imperious shade, and sav that, in making the ordinary act of legislation, be extended beyond Compromise of 1850, he intended or dreamed the plain, known, fixed intent and understand- that he was subverting, or preparing the way ing of the parties at the time that contract was for a subversion of, his greater work of 1820. made, and yet be binding on the patties to it, Sir, if that eagle spirit is yet lingering here over not merely legally, but in honor and con- the scene of his mortal labors, and watching science? Can you abrogate a compromise by over the welfare of the Republic he loved so passing any law of less dignity than a com- well, his heart is now moved with more than promise? If so, of what value is any one or human indignation against those who are perthe whole of the Compromises? Thus you verting his last great public act from its legitsee that these bills violate both of the Compro- imate uses, not merely to subvert the column, mises-not more that of 1820 than that of but to wrench from its very bed the base of the 1850. column that perpetuates his fame. Will you maintain in argument that it was And that other proud and dominating Senunderstood by the parties interested throughout ator, who, sacrificing himself, gave the aid the country, or by either of them, or by any without which the Compromise of 1850 could representative of either, in either House of not have been established-the Statesman of Congress, that the principle then established New England, and the Orator of Americashould extend beyond the limits of the territo- who dare assert here, where his memory is yet ries acquired from Mexico, into the territories fresh, though his unfettered spirit may be acquired nearly fifty years before, from France, wandering in spheres far hence, that he inand then reposing under the guarantee of' the tended to abrogate, or dreamed that, by virtue Compromise of 1820? I know not how Sen- of or in consequence of that transaction, the ators may vote, but I do know what they will Missouri Compromise would or could ever be say. I appeal to the honorable Senator from abrogated? The portion of the Missouri ComMichigan, [Mr. CAss,] than whom none per- promise you propose to abrogate is the Ordiformed a more distinguished part in establish- nance of 1787 extended to Nebraska. Hear ing the Compromise of 1850, whether he so what Daniel Webster said of that Ordinancc 10 itself, in 1830, in this very place, in reply to wounds in the Federal system, and no more, one who had undervalued it and its author: which needed surgery, and to which the Com"I spoke, sir, of the Ordinance of 1787, which pro- promise of 1850 was to be a cataplasm. We hibits slavery, in all future time, northwest of the all know what they were: California without Ohio, as a measure of great wisloim and forethought, a Constitution; New Mexico in the grasp of and one which has been attended with highly bene- military power; Utah neglected; the District ficial and permanent consequences.he saidhof Columbia dishonored; and the rendition of And now hear what he said here, when ad- fugitives denied. Nebraska was not even vocating the Compromise of 1850: thought of in this catalogue of national ills. "I now say, sir, as the proposition upon which thought of in this catalogue of national ills. stand this d y, and suphe proouttn upofi which I And now, sir, did the Nashville Convention of stand this day, and upon the truth and firmness Of waich I intend to act until it is overthrown, that secessionists understand that, besides the there is not at this moment in the United States, or enumerated boons offered to the slaveholding any Territory of the United States, one sing e foot of States, they were to have also the obliteration land, the character of which, in regard to its being ot' the Missouri Compromise line of 1820? If free territory or slave territory, is not fixed by some did they reject and scorn and law, and some iRREPEALAB LE law beyond the power of the actipn of this Government." scout at the Compromise of 1850? Did the What inr-epealable law, or what law of any Legislatures and public assemblies of the nonkind, fixed the character of Nebraska as free or slaveholding States, whomade your table groan slave territory, except the Missouri Compro- with their remonstrances, understand that Nemise act? braska was an additional wound to be healed And now hear what Daniel Webster said by the Compromise of 1850? If they did, when vindicating the Compromise of 1850, at why did they omit to remonstrate against the Buffalo, in 1851: healing of that, too, as well as of the other five, My opinion remains unchanged, that it was not by the cataplasm, the application of which they within the original scope or design of the Constitu- resisted so long? tion to admit new States out of foreign territory; and Again: Had it been then known that the for one, whatever may be said at the Syracuse Con. Missburi Compromise was to be abolished, vention or any other assemblage of insane persons, I directly or indirectly, by the Compromise of never would consent, and never have consented, that 1850 what Representative from a non-slavethere should be one foot of slave territory beyond at e what the old thirteen States had at the time of the holding State would, at that day, have voted formation of the Union! Never! Never! for it? Not one. What Senator from a slave" The man cannot show his face to me and say he holding State would not have voted for it? Not can prove that I ever departed from that doctrine. one. So entirely was it then unthought of lie would sneak away, and slink away, or hire a mer- that the new Compromise was to repeal the cenary press to cry out, What an apostate from Liberty Daniel Webster has become! But he knows Missouri Compromise line of 36 deg. 30 min., himself to be a hypocrite and a falsifier." in the region acquired from France, that one That Compromise was forced upon the half of that long debate was spent on proposlaveholding States and upon the non-slave- sitions made by Representatives from slaveholding States as a mutual exchange of equiva- holding States, to extend the line further on lents. The equivalents were accurately defined, through the new territory we had acquired so and carefully scrutinized and weighed by the recently from Mexico, until it should disappear respective parties, through a period of eight in the waves of the Pacific Ocean, so as to semonths. The equivalents offered to the non- cure actual toleration of slavery in all of this slaveholding States were: 1st, the admission new territory that should be south of that line; of California; 2d, the abolition of the public and these propositions were resisted strenuousslave trade in the District of Columbia. These, ly and successfully to the last by the Repreand these only, were the boons offered to them, sentatives of the non-slaveholding States, in and the only sacrifices which the slaveholding order, if it were possible, to save the whole of States were required to make. The waiver of those regions for the theatre of free labor. the Wilmot Proviso in the incorporation of I admit that these are only negative proofs, New Mexico and Utah, and a new fugitive although they are pregnant with conviction. slave law, were the only boons proposed to But here is one which is not only affirmative, the slaveholding States, and the only sacrifices but positive, and not more positive than conexacted of the non-slaveholding States. No elusive: other questions between them were agitated, In the fifth section of the Texas Boundary except those which were involved in the gain bill, one of the acts constituting the Comproor loss of more or less of free territory or of mise of 1850, are these words: slave territory in the determination of the boundary between Texas and New Mexico, e"Provided, That nothing herein contained shall be construed to impair or qualify anything contained by a line that was at last arbitrarily made, ex- in the third article of the second section of the joint pressly saving, even in those Territories, to the resolution for annexing Texas to the United States, respective parties, their respective shares of approved March 1, 1845, either as regards the numfree soil and slave soil, according to the articles her of States that may hereatter be formed out of the of annexation of the Republic of Texas. Again: State of Texas, or otherwise." There were alleged to be five open, bleeding What was that third article of the second 11 section of the joint resolution for annexing of them, when good and cherished interests are Texas? Here it is: secured by them. " New States, of convenient size, not exceeding four Thus much for the report and the bills of the in number, in addition to said State of Texas, having Committee, and for the positions of the parties sufficient population, may hereafter, by the consent in this debate. A measure so bold so unof said State, be formed out of the territory thereof, looked for, so startling, and yet so preg which shall be entitled to admission under the pro- lookes loru so starg and yet so pregnant as visions of the Federal Constitution. And tuch States as may be formed out of that portion of said terri- there any such necessity? On the contrary, it tory lying south of 36 deg. 30 min. north latitude, is not necessary now, even if it be altogether comm. nly known as the Missouri Compromise line, wise, to establish Territorial Governments in shall be admitted into the Union with or without a. Not les than eighteen tribes oInSlavery, as the people of each State asking admission may desire And in such State or States as shall be dians occupy that vast tract, fourteen of which, formed out of said territory north of said Missouri I am informed, have been removed there by Compromise line, slavery or involuntary servitude our own act, and invested with a fee simple to (except for crime) shall be prohibited." enjoy a secure and perpetual home, safe from This article saved the Compromise of 1820, the intrusion and the annoyance, and.even from in express terms, overcoming any implication the presence of the white man, and under the of its abrogation, which might, by accident or paternal care of the Government, and with the otherwise, have crept into the Compromise of' instruction of its teachers and mechanics, to 1850; and uny inferences to that effect, that acquire the arts of civilization and the habits might be drawn from any such circumstance of social life. I will not say that this was done as that of drawing the boundary line of Utah to prevent that Territory, because denied to so as to trespass on the Territory of Nebraska, slavery, from being occupied by free white dwelt upon by the Senator from Illinois. men, and cultivated with free white labor; but The proposition to abrogate the Missouri I will say, that this removal of the Indians Compromise, being thus stripped of the pre- there, under such guarantees, has had that eftence that it is only a reiteration or a reaffirma- fect. The Territory cannot he occupied now, tion of a similar abrogation in the Compromise any more than heretofore, by savages and of 1850, or a necessary consequence of that white men, with or without slaves, together. measure, stands before us now upon its own Our experience and our Indian policy alike merits, whatever they may be. remove all dispute from this point. Either But here the Senator from Illinois challenges these preserved ranges must still remain to the the assailants of these bills, on the ground that Indians hereafter, or the Indians, whatever they were all opponents of the Compromise of temporary resistance against removal they may 1850, and even of that of 1820. Sir, it is not make, must retire. my purpose to answer in person to this chal- Where shall they go? Will you bring them lenge. The necessity, reasonableness, justice, back again across the Mississippi? There is and wisdom of' those Compromises, are not in no room for Indians here. Will you send question here now. My own opinions on them northward, beyond your Territory of them were, at a proper time, fully made known. Nebraska, towards the British border? That I abide the judgment of my country and man- is already occupied by Indians; there is no kind upon them. For the present, I meet the room there. Will you turn them loose upon Committee who have brought this measure Texas and New Mexico? There is no room forward, on the field they themselves have there. chosen, and the controversy is reduced to two Will you drive them over the Rocky mounquestions: 1st. Whether, by letter or spirit, tains? They will meet a tide of immigration the Compromise of 1820 abrogated or involved there flowing into California from Europe and a future abrogation of the Compromise of 1820? from Asia. Whither, then, shall they, the 2d. Whether this abrogation can now be made dispossessed, unpitied heirs of this vast conticonsistently with honor, justice, and good faith? nent, go? The answer is, nowhere. If they As to my right, or that of any other Senator, to remain in Nebraska, of what use are your enter these lists, the credentials filed in the Charters? Of what harm is the Missouri Secretary's office settle that question. Mine Compromise in Nebraska, in that case? bear a seal, as broad and as firmly fixed there Whom doth it oppress? No one. as any other, by a people as wise, as free, and Who, indeed, demands territorial organizaas great, as any one of all the thirty-one Re- tion in Nebraska at all? The Indians? No. publics represented here. It is to them the consummation of a long-apBut I will take leave to say, that an argu- prehended doom. Practically, no one demnand ment merely ad personam, seldom amounts to it. I am told that the whole white population, anything, more than an argument ad captan- scattered here and there throughout these dum. A life of approval of compromises, and broad regions, exceeding in extent the whole of devotion to them, only enhances the obliga- of the inhabited part of the United States at tion faithfully to fulfil them. A life of disap- the time of the Revolution, isdless than fifteen probation of the policy of compromises only hundred, and that these are chiefly trappers, renders one more earnest in exacting fulfilment missionaries, and a few mechanics and agents 12 employed by the Government, in connection graphical extent of the laws we are now passwith the administration of Indian affairs, and ing, so that there may be no such mistake hereother persons temporarily drawn around the after as that now complained of here. We are post of Fort Leavenworth. It is clear, then, now confiding to Territorial Legislatures the that this abrogation of the Missouri Compro- power to legislate on slavery. Are the Territories mise is not necessary for the purpose of estab- of Nebraska and Kansas alone within the purlishing Territorial Governments in Nebraska, view of these acts? Or dothey reach to the Pacibut that, on the contrary, these bills, establish- ficcoast, and embracealso Oregon and Washinging such Governments, are only a vehicle for ton? Do they stop there, or do they take in carrying, or a pretext Tor carrying, that act of China and India and Affghanistan, even to the abrogation. gigantic base of the Himalaya Mountains? Do It is alleged, that the non-slaveholding States thev stop there, or, on the contrary, do they enhave forfeited their rights in Nebraska, under circle the earth, and, meeting us again on the the Missouri Compromise, by first breaking Atlantic coast, embrace the islands of Iceland that Compromise themselves. The argument and Greenland, and exhaust themselves on the is, that the Missouri Compromise line of 36 barren coasts of Greenland and Labrador? deg. 30 min., in the region acquired from Sir, if the Missouri Compromise neither in France, although confined to that region which its spirit nor by its letter extended the line of was our westernmost possession, was, never- 36 deg. 30 min. beyond the confines of Louisitheless, understood as intended to be prospect- ana, or beyond the then confines of the United ively applied also to the territory reaching States, for the terms are equivalent, then it was thence westward to the Pacific Ocean, which no Violation of the Missouri Compromise in we should afterwards acquire from Mexico; 1848 to refuse to extend it to the subsequently and that when afterwards, having acquired acquired possessions of Texas, New Mexico, these Territories, including California, New and California. Mexico, and Utah, we were engaged in 1848 But suppose we did refuse to extend it; how in extending Governments over them, the free did that refusal work a forfeiture of our vested States refused to extend that line, on a propo- rights under it? I desire to know that. sition to that effect made by the honorable Sen- Again: If this forfeiture of Nebraska ocator from Illinois. curred in 1848, as the Senator charges, how It need only be stated, in refutation of this does it happen that he not only failed in 1850, argument, that the Missouri Compromise law, when the parties were in court here, adjusting like any other statute, was limited by the ex- their mutual claims, to demand judgment tent of the subject of which it treated. This against the free States, but, on the contrary, subject was the Territory of Louisiana, ac- even urged that the same old Missouri Comquired from France, whether the same were promise line, yet held valid and sacred, should more or less, then in our lawful and peaceful be extended through to the Pacific Ocean? possession. The length of the line of 36 deg. I come now to the chief ground of the de30 min, established by the Missouri Compro- fence of this extraordinary measure, which is, mise, was the distance between the parallels of that it abolishes a geographical line of division longitude which were the borders of that pos- between the proper fields of free labor and slave session. Young America-I mean aggrandi- labor, and refers the claim between them to the zing, conquering America-had not yet been people of the Territories. Even if this great born; nor was the statesman then in being, change of policy was actually wise and neceswho dreamed that, within thirty years after- sary, I have shown that it is not necessary to wards, we should have pushed our adventur- make it now, in regard to the Territory of Neous way, not only across the Rocky Mountains, braska. If' it would be just elsewhere, it would but also across the Snowy Mountains. Nor did be unjust in regard to Nebraska, simply because, any one then imagine, that even if we should for ample and adequate equivalents, fully rehave done so within the period I have named, ceived, you have contracted in effect not to we were then prospectively carving up and abolish that line there. dividing, not only the mountain passes, but the But why is this change of policy wise or Mexican Empire on the Pacific coast, between necessary? It must be because either that the Freedom and Slavery. If such a proposition extension of slavery is no evil, or because you had been made then, and persisted in, we know have not the power to prevent it at all, or beenough of the temper of 1820 to know this, cause the maintenance of a geographical line viz: that Missouri and Arkansas would have is no longer practicable. sqood outside of the Union until even this por- I know that the opinion is sometimes adtentous day. vanced, here and elsewhere, that the extension The time, for aught I know, may not be of slavery, abstractly considered, is not an evil; thirty years distant, when the convulsions of but our laws prohibiting the African slave trade the Celestial Empire and the decline of British are still standing on the statute book, and exsway in India shall have opened our way into press the contrary judgment of the American the regions beyond the Pacific Ocean. I desire Congress and of the American People. I pass to know now and be fully certified of the geo- on, therefore, from that point. 13 Sir, I do not like, more than others, a geo- on condition of surrendering their constitutional graphical line between Freedom and Slavery. objections. But it is because I would have, if it were pos- For argument's sake, however, let this reply sible, all our territory free. Since that cannot be waived, and let us look at this constitutional be, a line of division is indispensable; and any objection. You say that the exclusion of line is a geographical line. slavery by the Missouri Compromise reaches The honorable and very acute Senator from through and beyond the existence of' the region North Carolina [Mr. BADGER] has wooed us organized as a Territory, and prohibits slavery most persuasively to waive our objections to the FOREVER, even in the States to be organized new principle, as it is called, of non-interven- out of such Territory, while, on the contrary, tion, by assuring us that the slaveholder can the States, when admitted, will be sovereign, only use slave labor where the soils and and must have exclusive jurisdiction over climates favor the culture of tobacco, cotton, slavery for themselves. Let this, too, begranted. rice, and sugar. To which I reply: None of But Congress, according to the Constitution, these find congenial soils or climates at the " may admit new States." If Congress may sources of the Mississippi, or in the valley of admit, then Congress may also refuse to admitthe Rocky Mountains. Why, then, does he that is to say, may reject new States. The want to remove the inhibition there? - greater includes the less; therefore, Congress But again: That Senator reproduces a pleas- may admit, on condition that the States shall ing fiction of the character of' slavery from the exclude slavery. If such a condition should Jewish history, and asks, Why not allow the be accepted, would it not be binding? modern patriarchs to go into new regions with It is by no means necessary, on this occasion, their slaves, as their ancient prototypes did, to to follow the argument further to the question, make them more comfortable and happy? whether such a condition is in conflict with the And he tells us, at the same time, that this in- constitutional provision, that the new States redulgence will not increase the number of slaves. ceived shall be admitted on an equal footing I reply by asking, first, Whether slavery has with the aoiginal States, because, in this case, gained or lost strength by the diffusion of it and at present, the question relates not to the over a larger surface than it formerly cov- admission of a State, but to the organization of ered? Will the Senator answer that? Second- a Territory, and the exclusion of slavery withly, I admire the simplicity of the patriarchal in the Territory while its status as a Territory times. But they nevertheless exhibited some shall continue, and no further. Congress has peculiar institutions quite incongruous with power to exclude slavery in Territories, if they modern Republicanism, not to say Christianity, have any power to create, control, or govern namely, that of a latitude of construction of the Territories at ll, for this simple reason: that marriage contract, which has been carried by find the authority of Congress over the Terrione class of so-called patriarchs into Utah. Cer- tories wherever you may, there you find no extainly, no one would desire to extend that pecu- ception from that general authority in favor of liar institution into Nebraska. Thirdly, slave- slavery. If Congress has no authority over holders have also a peculiar institution, which slavery in the Territories, it has none in the makes them political patriarchs. They reckon District of Columbia. If, then, you abolish a five of their slaves as equal to three freemen in law of Freedom in Nebraska, in order to esforming the basis of Federal representation. If' tablish a new policy of abnegation, then true these patriarchs insist upon carrying their in- consistency requires that you shall also abolish stitution into new regions, north of 36 deg. 30 the Slavery laws in the District of Columbia, min., I respectfully submit, that they ought to and submit the question of the toleration of reassume the modesty of their Jewish prede- slavery within the District to its inhabitants. cessors, and relinquish this political feature of If you reply, that the District of Columbia the system they thus seek to extend. Will has no local or Territorial Legislature, then I they do that? rejoin, so also has not Nebraska, and so also Some Senators have revived the argument has not Kansas. You are calling a Territorial that the Missouri Compromise was unconstitu- Legislature into existence in Nebraska, and tional. But it is one of the peculiarities of another in Kansas, to assume the jurisdiction compromises, that constitutional objections, like on the subject of slavery, which you renounce. all others, are buried under them by those who Then consistency demands that you call into make and ratify them, for the obvious reason existence a Territorial Legislature in the Disthat the parties at once waive them, and re- trict of Columbia, to assume the jurisdiction ceive equivalents. Certainly, the slaveholding here, which you must also renounce. Will States, which waived their constitutional ob- you do this? We shall see. jections against the Compromise of 1820, and To come closer to the question: What is this accepted equivalents therefor, cannot be allowed principle of abnegating National authority, on to revive and offer them now ash reason for re- the subject of slavery, in favor of the People? fusing to the non-slaveholding States their Do you abnegate all authority, whatever, in rights under that Compromise, without first theTerritories? Not at all; you abnegate only restoring the equivalents which they received authority over slavery there. Do you abnegate 14 even that? No; you do not and you cannot. which ought to be renounced last of all, in faIn the very act of abnegating you legislate, and vor of Territorial Legislatures, because, from enact that the States to be hereafter organized the very circumstances of tne Territories, those shall come in whether slave or free, as their in- Legislatures are likely to yield too readily to habitants shall choose. Is not this legislating ephemeral influences, and interested offers of not only on the subject of slavery in the Terri- favor and patronage. They see neither the tories, but on the subject of slavery even in the great Future of the Territories, nor the comfuture States? In the very act of abnegating, prehensive and ultimate interests of the whole you call into being a Legislature which shall Republic, as clearly as you see them, or ought assume the authority which you are renounc- to see them. ing. You not only exercise authority in that I have heard sectional excuses given for act, but you exercise authority over slavery, supporting this measure. I have heard Senawhen you confer on the Territorial Legislature tors from the slaveholding States say that they the power to act upon that subject. More than ought not to be expected to stand by the nonthis: In the very act of calling that Territorial slaveholding States, when they refuse to stand Legislature into existence, you exercise au- by themselves; that they ought not to be exthority in prescribing who may elect and who pected to refuse the boon offered to the slavemay be elected. You even reserve to your- holding States, since it is offered by the nonselves a veto upon every act that they can pass slaveholding States themselves. I not only as a legislative body, not only on all other sub- confess the plausibility of these excuses, but I jects, but even on the subject of slavery itself. feel the justice of the reproach which they Nor can you relinquish that veto; for it is imply against the non-slaveholding States, as absurd to say that you can create an agent, and far as the assumption is true. Nevertheless, depute to him the legislative authority of the Senators from the slaveholding States must United States, which agent you cannot at your consider well whether that assumption is, in own pleasure remove, and whose acts you can- any considerable degree, founded in fact. If not at your own pleasure disavow and repudi- one or more Senators from the North decline ate. The Territorial Legislature is your agent. to stand by the non-slaveholding States, or Its acts are your own. Such is the principle offer a boon in their name, others from that that is to supplant the ancient policy-a prin- region do, nevertheless, stand firmly on their ciple full of absurdities and contradictions. rights, and protest against the giving or the Again: You claim that this policy of abne- acceptance of the boon. It has been said that gation is based upon a democratic principle. A the North does not speak out, so as to enable democratic principle is a principle opposed to you to decide between the conflicting voices of some other that is despotic or aristocratic. You her Representatives. Are you quite sure you claim and exercise the power to institute and have given her timely notice? Have you not, maintain government in the Territories. Is on the contrary, hurried this measure forward, this comprehensive power aristocratic or des- to anticipate her awaking from the slumber of potic? If it be not, how is the partial power conscious security into which she has been aristocratic or despotic? You retain authority lulled by your last Compromise? Have you to appoint Governors,without whose consent no not heard already the quick, sharp protest of laws can be made on any subject, and Judges, the Legislature of the smallest of the nonwithout whose consideration no laws can be slaveholding States, Rhode Island? Have executed, and you retain the power to change you not already heard the deep-toned and them at pleasure. Are these powers, also, earnest protest of the greatest of those States, aristocratic or despotic? If they are not, then New York? Have you not already heard rethe exercise of legislative power by yourselves monstrances from the Metropolis, and fiom the is not. If they are, then why not renounce rural districts? Do you doubt that this is them also? No, no. This is a far-fetched only the rising of the agitation that you profess excuse. Democracy is a simple, uniform, to believe is at rest forever? Do you forget logical system, not a system of arbitrary, con- that, in all such transactions as these, the peotradictory, and conflicting principles! pie have a reserved right to review the acts of But you must nevertheless renounce National their Representatives, and a right to demand a authority over slavery in the Territories, while reconsideration; that there is in our legislative you retain all other powers. What is this but practice a form of RE-ENACTMENT, as well as amere evasion of solemn responsibilities? The an act of repeal; and that there is in our politigeneral authority.of Congress over the Terri- cal system provision not only for abrogation, tories is one wisely confided to the National but for RESTORATION also? And when the proLegislature, to save young and growing corn- cess of repeal has begun, how many and what munities from the dangers which beset them laws will be open to repeal, equally with the in their state of pupilage, and to prevent them Missouri Compromise? There will be this act, from adopting any policy that shall be at war tile fugitive slav'e laws, the articles of Texas with their own lasting interests, or with the annexation, the Territoriallaws of New Mexico general welfare of' the whole Republic. The and Utah, the slavery laws in the District of authority over the subject of slavery is that Columbia. 15 Senators from the slaveholding States: You brated its obsequies with pomp and revelry. are politicians as well as statesmen. Let me And here it is again to-day, stalking through remind you, therefore, that political movements these Halls, clad in complete steel as before. in this country, as in all others, have their Even if those whom you denounce as factiontimes of action and reaction. The pendulum ists in the North would let it rest, you yourmoved up the side of freedom in 1840, and selves must evoke it from its grave. The reaswung back again in 1844 on the side of son is obvious. Say what you will; do what slavery, traversed the dial in 1848,and touched you will, here, the interests of the non-slaveeven the mark of the Wilmot Proviso, and re- holding States and of the slaveholding States turned again in 1852, reaching even the height remain just the same; and they will remain of the Baltimore Platform. Judge for your- just the same, until you shall cease to cherish selves whether it is yet ascending, and whether and defend slavery, or we shall cease to honor it will attain the height of the abrogation of the and love freedom! You will not cease to Missouri Compromise. That is the mark you cherish slavery. Do you see any signs that we are fixing for it. For myself, I may claim to are becoming indifferent to freedom? On the know something of the North. I see in the contrary, that old, traditional, hereditary sentichanges of the times only the vibrations of the ment of the North is more profound and more needle, trembling on its pivot. I know that in universal now than it ever was before. The' due time it will settle; and when it shall have slavery agitation you deprecate so much is an settled it will point, as it must point forever, to eternal struggle between Conservatism and the same constant polar star, that sheds down Progress, between Truth and Error, between influences propitious to freedom as broadly as Right and Wrong. You may sooner, by it pours forth its mellow but invigorating light. act of Congress, compel the sea to suppress its Mr. President, I have nothing to do, here or upheavings, and the round earth to extinguish elsewhere, with personal or party motives. But its internal fires, than oblige the human mind I come to consider the motive which is publicly to cease its inquirings, and the human heart to assigned for this transaction. It is a desire to desist from its throbbings. secure permanent peace and harmony on the Suppose then, for a moment, that this agitasubject of slavery, by removing all occasion for tion must go on hereafter as heretofore. Then, its future agitation in the Federal Legislature. hereafter as heretofore, there will be need, on Was there not peace already here? Was both sides, of moderation; and to secure moderthere not harmony as perfect as isever possible ation, there will be need of mediation. Hitherin the country, when this measure was moved to you have secured moderation by reans of in the Senate a month ago? Were we not, compromises, by tendering which, the great and was not the whole nation, grappling with Mediator, now no more, divided the people of that one great, common, universal interest, the the North. But then those in the North who opening of a communication between our ocean did not sympathize with you in your comfrontiers, and were we not already reckoning plaints of aggression from that quarter, as well upon the quick and busy subjugation of nature as those who did, agreed that it compromises throughout the interior of the continent to the should be effected, they would be chivalrously uses of man, and dwelling with almost raptur- kept on your part. I cheerfully admit that they ous enthusiasm on the prospective enlarge- have been so kept until now. But hereafter, ment of our commerce in the East, and of our when having taken advantage, which in the political sway throughout the world? And North will be called fraudulent, of the last of what have we now here but the oblivion of those compromises, to become, as you will be death covering the very memory of those great called, the aggressors, by breaking the other, as enterprises, and prospects, and hopes? will be alleged, in violation of plighted faith Senators from the non-slaveholding States: and honor, while the slavery agitation is rising You want peace. Think well, I beseech you, higher than ever before, and while your ancient before you yield the price now demanded, even friends, and those whom you persist in regardfor peace and rest from slavery agitation. ing as your enemies, shall have been driven toFrance has got peace from Republican agita- gether by a common and universal sense of tion by a similar sacrifice. So has Poland; so your injustice, what new mode of restoring has Hungary; and so, at last, has Ireland. Is peace and harmony will you then propose? the peace which either of those nations enjoys What Statesman will there be in the South, worth the price it cost? Is peace, obtained at then, who can bear the flag of truce? What such cost, ever a lasting peace? Statesman in the North who can mediate the Senators from the slaveholding States: You, acceptance of your new proposals? I think it too, suppose that you are securing peace as will not be the Senator from Illinois. well as victory in this transaction. I tell you If, however, I err in all this, let us suppose now, as I told you in 1850, that it is an error, that you succeed in suppressing political agitaan unnecessary error, to suppose, that because tion of'slavery in National affairs. Nevertheyou exclude slavery'rom these Halls to-day, lss, agitation of slavery must go on in some that it will not revisit them to-morrow. You fe rm; for all the world around you is engaged buried the Wilmot Provlso here then, and cele- in it. It is, then, high time for you to consider 16 where you may expect to meet it next. I much direction of those peaceful armies away from Nemistake if, in that case, you do not meet it there braska. So long as you shall leave them room where we, who once were slaveholding States, on hill or prairie, by river side or in the mounas you now are, have met, and, happily for us, tain fastnesses, they will dispose of themselves succumbed before it —namely, in the legislative peacefully and lawfully in the places you shall halls, in the churches and schools,. and at the have left open to them; and there they will fireside, within the States themselves. It is an erect new States upon free soil, to be forever angel of' mercy with which sooner or later every maintained and defended:by free arms, and slaveholding State must wrestle, and by which it aggrandized by free labor. American slavery, must be overcome. Even if, by reason of this I know, has a large and ever-flowing spring, measure, it should the sooner come to that but it cannot pour forth its blackened tide in point, and although I am sure that you will not volumes like that I have described. If you are overcome freedom, but that freedom will over- wise, these tides of freemen and of slaves will come you, yet I do not look even then for dis- never meet, for they will not voluntarily comastrous or unhappy results. The institutions mingle; but if, nevertheless, through your own of our country are so framed, that the inevi- erroneous policy, their repulsive currents must table conflict of opinion on slavery, as on every be directed against each other, so that they other subject, cannot be otherwise than peace- needs must meet,,then it is easy to see, in that ful in its course and beneficent in its termina- case, which of them will overcome the resisttion. ance of the other, and which of them, thus Nor shall I "bate one jot of heart or hope," overpowered, will roll back to drown the in maintaining a just equilibrium of the non- source which sent it forth. slaveholding States, even if this ill-starred "Man:propos e; a-d God disposes." You measure shall be adopted. The non-slave- may legislate and- abrogate and abnegate as holding States are teeming with an increase of you will; but there.is a Superior Power that freemen-educated, vigorous, enlightened, en- overrules all your actions, and all your refusals terprising freemen-such freemen as neither to act; and, I fondly hope and trust, overrules England, nor Rome, nor even Athens, ever them to the -advancement of the happiness, reared. Half a million of freemen fiom Eu- greatness, and glory of our country-that overrope annually augment that increase; and, ten rules, I know, not only all your actions, and all years hence half a million, twenty years hence your: refusals to act, but all human events, to a million, of freemen from Asia will augment it the distant, but inevitable result of the equal still more. You may obstruct, and so turn the and universal liberty of all men.