E 
 
 433 
 
 .26 
 
SPEECH 
 
 w> 
 
 OF 
 
 ME. ZOLLICOFFER, OF TENNESSEE, 
 
 ON THE 
 
 NEBRASKA AND KANSAS BILL. 
 
 DELIVERED IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, May 9, 1854. 
 
 The House having under consideration the Kansas and Nebraska bill 
 Mr. ZOLLIC OFFER rose and said : 
 
 Mr. CHAIRMAN : I beg the attention of the committee to a brief 
 Argument upon the bill under consideration. A question has been 
 sprung at the very threshold of the discussion on the bill to or 
 ganize the Territories of Nebraska and Kansas, and it is whether 
 any territorial governments should be organized at all at this 
 time. I have deemed it -a duty not to fail to examine this pre 
 liminary question. I find that, nearly ten years ago, a bill was 
 introduced into this body proposing to organize the Territory of 
 Nebraska. It appears that the first bill introduced, was brought 
 forward on the 17th December, 1844. In 1845, an amended bill 
 was presented to this body. In 1848, a bill from the Senate was 
 under consideration, and in 1853, this subject was again brought 
 to the attention of Congress. 
 
 These facts show that for nearly a full decade, the people in 
 terested in this question have been asking the organization of a 
 territorial government for Nebraska now divided into Nebraska 
 and Kansas. During all this time the people of the adjacent 
 country, of Missouri, and Iowa, and other border States, have 
 asked to have the country thrown open to settlement; and du 
 ring all this time, our Indian intercouse laws have kept popula 
 tion out of the Territory. My information is, that this is a vast 
 and a fertile county that there are but a few hundred people 
 there, missionaries, teachers, government agents, soldiers, and 
 others, who have gone there not in conflict with the existing 
 laws. But, at the same time, the reason why this vast country 
 has not been settled is, that the laws of the United States have 
 kept the people out of it. 
 
V.M 
 
 Sir, I find that while this state of things has existed while 
 the people have been kept out, and have been steadily petitioning 
 that the laws be relaxed, and territorial goverments be granted 
 them, great highways of travel from the Mississippi valley and 
 the Atlantic States to California and Oregon, have penetrated and 
 passed through this country. The emigrant route from the north 
 ern States to California and Oregon passes through the proposed 
 Territory of Nebraska, and the great emigrant route from St. 
 Louis and the southern States passes through the proposed Ter 
 ritory of Kansas. 
 
 Now, Mr. Chairman, it does seem to me strange, that whilst 
 the avowed policy of this Government is to offer the public lands 
 as an inducement to emigration into other Territories of the Union, 
 it has not only refused to organize territorial governments for 
 teis country, but these Indian intercourse laws have been con 
 tinued rigidly in force, keeping population out of it. This is all 
 wrong. This policy should surely be changed. Territorial gov 
 ernments should be organised there, and a thrifty population 
 should be permitted to settle up and occupy these Territories; 
 and to bridge the streams, and feed and protect, from the roving 
 savages, the hundred thousand emigrants who annually pass 
 through these Territories to our western borders. 
 
 It has been said that we could not organize these Territories 
 without violating certain Indian titles. But, Mr. Chairman, in 
 vestigation has, I think, happily dispelled many of the mists 
 which at first hung over and obscured this question. The country 
 has recently been assured, upon the highest official authority, 
 that there is but a solitary Indian tribe within the proposed 
 boundaries of Kansas and Nebraska, with whom we have an 
 existing treaty stipulation in regard to lands ; and that is the small 
 tribe of Ottowas, numbering about two hundred persons, owning 
 less than eight miles square of land, and who are not, we are 
 told, opposed to the organization of civil government over them. 
 As to the other Indians within those boundaries, those with whom 
 we have no land treaties, they will be situated just as favorably 
 as are the Indians included within the boundaries of the Oregon 
 Territory, of Minnesota Territory, or of other Territories of the 
 Union in all of which Indian tribes have been included within 
 the territorial limits. From these difficulties, therefore, Mr, 
 Chairman, my mind has been entirely relieved. 
 
 The bill which has been offered as a substitute for the Senate bill, 
 is not just such a bill, in every particular, as I would prefer. I 
 have alluded to the smallness of population at present in these 
 Territories. I would, therefore, prefer that our Government 
 should pursue the policy that has been heretofore pursued with 
 regard to the Northwestern Territory, and other Territories simi 
 larly situated that the first form of territorial government should 
 be adopted, until they acquire a population of five thousand 
 inhabitants. Then a second form of government, as already 
 provided for in the bill. All might be provided for in the same 
 
bill. But this is of minor consequence. I regard the main 
 feature of this bill to be that provision which repeals the Missouri 
 act of 1820, which act drew a geographical line through the 
 then entire Territories of the Union, and declared that upon one 
 side of the line slavery should not exist, while it provided no 
 corresponding provision recognizing slavery upon the other side 
 of the line. This act divided the Territories, and established a 
 law which prohibited the people of the South, who owned slaves, 
 from emigrating with their slaves into, and enjoying the privi 
 lege of settlement in, one half of the territory belonging to the 
 Union, and which was acquired by the common treasure of the 
 whole people of all the States of the Union, whilst it left open, 
 to settlement the whole territory to the people o" the North. 
 This I regard as a great inequality, and radically wrong in prin 
 ciple. We are one people, living under the same Constitution, 
 and entitled in all the Territories to equal privileges of occu 
 pancy and settlement. The act of 1820 not merely set up this 
 inequality between citizens of the southern and northern States, 
 but it established it "forever." It invaded the rights of the 
 States to be formed out of the territory acquired from France in 
 1803, by enacting that they should not be permitted to determine 
 for themselves, as the older States do, this great question of do 
 mestic policy. 
 
 We who support this bill have been charged wiih a want of 
 " good faith." We have been charged with violating compro 
 mises. It is curious, sir, that those who have taken the lead 
 in propagating the ideas that "bad faith " and "violation of com 
 promises" were involved in the repeal, have never themselves 
 kept faith with the constitutional rights of the South, and have 
 never advocated compromises till now. Mr. Chairman, I was 
 the warm advocate of the compromise of 1850, and I am the 
 warm adherent to all compromises which have been faithfully 
 adhered to by those with whom I made them. But, sir, it is sur 
 prising how the history of that act of 1820 has been misunder 
 stood. The first impression of the country has probably been 
 that it could not be repealed without " bad faith" to the North. 
 I confess that, so far was this my own impression, in the absence 
 of an examination of all facts of history, that I never would 
 have moved to disturb it- 
 It is difficult, Mr. Chairman, for one unpracticed as I am in 
 public speaking, to discuss the various questions presented in this 
 bill within the time to which 1 am limited. But I will say here 
 that 1 have taken pains to examine into the history of the act of 
 1820, and I am prepared to show that these charges cannot justly 
 rest upon the South. When this question was first presented in 
 the other branch of this Congress, 1 felt that I, for one, would not 
 have mooted such a question. I was so much averse to agita 
 tion 1 had so long regarded the act of 1820 as a compromise I 
 had been so warmly the advocate of compromises, and had so 
 warmly repelled the efforts of the extremists of both the Sou.tH 
 
and the North, and so litte remembered the true history of the act 
 of 1820, thj.t I would not then have opened a question which it 
 was probable would produce such agitation throughout th.e coun 
 try. But I have since carefully ascertained these facts to exist, 
 to wit : that not only was the whole of this territory slave terri 
 tory from its earliest colonization under France and "Spain, but 
 that in the very title paper by which we hold it, this Government, 
 through its treaty-making power, is solemnly pledged to protect 
 the slave property of the territory embracing Kansas and Ne 
 braska. And that is not all, sir. This treaty was made in the 
 spring of 1803. In the fall of 1803 Congress met, and the legis 
 lative power of the Government ratified the guarantee made by 
 the treaty- making power, and pledged itself to the protection of 
 slave property in the territory acquired from Louisiana. . In 1804, 
 when the Territory of Orleans was organized, this pledge was re 
 peated. In 1805, when the district of Louisiana was separated 
 from the Territory of Orleans, again Congress pledged itself to 
 the policy that slavery should be protected in that Territory. In 
 1812, when the district of Louisiana was changed into the Terri 
 tory of Louisiana, this pledge was renewed, and under marked 
 circumstances. Then, sir, for the first time, the question was 
 raised as to slavery in that Territory. Twice did propositions 
 emanate from northern members, proposing the prohibition of 
 slavery, as an amendment to the territorial act of 1812. But, sir, 
 these amendments were voted down b}' an ovewhelming majority. 
 And in that action Congress proclaimed that which would other 
 wise have been in some doubt : that they intended to abide by the 
 pledge made in the treaty of 1803, to protect slave property in all 
 that extensive country. And thus the matter rested until 1820. 
 
 In that year the State of Missouri asked for admission into the 
 Union. And then, sir, the anti-slavery party of the North com 
 menced a fearful agitation. Disregarding the pledge of J803, dis 
 regarding the several acts of 18()3,-'4,-'5, and '12, confirming the 
 express obligation not to interfere with slave property in this Ter 
 ritory, they suddenly presented a bold and aggressive front, and 
 imperiously demanded of the South that submission to positive 
 aggressions with which the members of this body are now sa 
 familiar. As a condition of the admission of Missouri into the 
 Union, they demanded that slavery should be abolished within 
 the borders of that State. And they further demanded that 
 slavery should be abolishel in all the remaining territory "for 
 ever." This was done ; not as a necessary incident to organizing 
 a Territory, but thirty odd years before there was any necessity 
 for organic legislation upon slavery in the Territory. There were 
 then some seventy odd thousand slaves in the Territory acquired 
 from France, which hftd, down to that day, been recognised and 
 protected by our Government as property. There were, at the 
 same time, ten thousand slaves within the proposed State of Mis 
 souri alone. These two demands were both clearly aggressive 
 upon the South, and violative ot the statutory and constitutional 
 
5 
 
 rights which had been solemnly guaranteed and long enjoyed. 
 They constituted a sadden and violent departure from the policy 
 which had, down to that time, been pursued towards the Territory. 
 
 Well, sir, they produced a fearful struggle, and brought great 
 and immediate danger of dissolution of the Union. But, after a 
 prolonged and excited struggle, the anti-slavery party consented 
 to allow Missouri to protect her slave property, and the South 
 agreed ^to submit to the anti-slavery restriction in the Territory. 
 It is manifest, Mr. Chairman, that this submission was brought 
 about by wearied and worn down resistance, by dread of disunion, 
 and by a sincere desire for peace and good fellowship with our 
 northern brethren. The overtures of compromise came from the 
 North, and were accepted by, and finally urged by the South. 
 The first proposition of compromise came from Mr. Taylor, of 
 New York, (an anti-slavery man,) which was rejected ; and the 
 next, which was accepted, from Mr. Thomas, of Illinois. Yes, the 
 South accepted. As a frank and candid man, I desire to admit 
 the facts of history. If I understand this history correctly, the 
 Representatives of the South in the House of Representatives and 
 in the Senate of the United States, did even urge upon the Repre 
 sentatives of the North to agree to the terms of the compromise. 
 And if there was a compromise made and I maintain that there 
 was the terms certainly were that Missouri should be admitted 
 into the Union with slavery or without it, as the people thereof 
 might determine, and that the anti-slavery restriction should be 
 applied to all the remaining territory which lies north of the line 
 of 36 30'. 
 
 Such were the terms of that compromise, and if they had been 
 adhered to by the North, I would have been the last man, under 
 any state of circumstances, to have disturbed it. But, sir, let 
 gentlemen take the pains to examine the history of the legisla 
 tion of the country, and they cannot fail to see, and to be con^ 
 vinced, that the terms of the compromise of 1820 have never, from 
 that day to this, been regarded by the anti-slavery party of the 
 North. 
 
 No, sir; never. f This compromise was made in March, 1820. 
 In the autumn following, Congress again met, and in the mean 
 time the people of Missouri had adopted a State constitution in 
 exact conformity to the terms of the compromise a constitution 
 protecting that slave property, which had ever been respected by 
 the Federal Government, from the date of the acquisition of the 
 Territory down to that day. 
 
 Well, sir, opposition, was at once made to the admission of the 
 State of Missouri with this clause in her constitution. It was 
 first made upon the ground that a provision was contained in her 
 constitution prohibiting the introduction of free negroes within 
 the borders of the State. But, as Mr. BENTON remarks, in his 
 " Thirty Years in the Senate," this was a mere pretext, a mere 
 "mask to the real cause of opposition," the nature ot which I 
 shall endeavor to show in the course of these remarks. 
 
6 
 
 Mr. Chairman, on the 29th day of November, 1820, the Com 
 mittee on Territories reported in the Senate*, that the constitution 
 of Missouri had been adopted in exact accordance with the com 
 promise of 1820; and near the same time, a similar report was 
 made by the Committee on Territories in this House. But this 
 turned out to be the mere commencement of another and a three 
 months' struggle, still more fearful than that of 1820. Mr. Mai- 
 lory, a Representative from Vermont, moved to amend the bill by 
 the insertion of a provision prohibiting slavery within the limits 
 of the State. Upon that amendment the fight was fiercely made; 
 and upon that amendment the Journals of Congress show that 
 the members of the House from the North voted, by a majority 
 of nearly two to one, to exclude Missouri from the Union, unless 
 she would abolish slavery within her boundaries. Yes, the Jour 
 nals of the House show that upon three several occasions, upon 
 the yeas and nays, Missouri was voted out of the Union, pending 
 this struggle for the prohibition of slavery. And all this after 
 the compromise of 1820 ! 
 
 Now, sir, think of these facts. This compromise of 1820 was 
 forced upon the South. The South accepted it for the sake of 
 peace, for the sake of union and good fellowship with our north 
 ern brethren. Her Representatives voted for it, having confidence 
 in the "good faith" of the North, and believing that in setting up 
 the geographical line of 36 30\ they had established a wall of 
 safety, beyond which no further aggression could be made upon 
 their constitutional rights. In the face of these facts, the North 
 violated the compromise within a year after it was made. And 
 when I say North, 1 wish to be distinctly understood as meaning 
 the anti-slavery portion of the North; -for there are thousands 
 and tens of thousands of patriotic men there who are national 
 in their sentiments, and who have ever stood by the South in de 
 fence of their just constitutional rights. 
 
 Let me ask if it was not the solemn duty of the Representatives 
 of the North to stand by the terms of this compromise? Yet, 
 they did not do it. The compromise fell to the ground, and Mis 
 souri never did come into the Union under .the compromise of 
 1820. Let this fact be borne in mind. There was another com 
 promise forced upon the South in 1821, after the long struggle I 
 have described after the northern States had all passed resolu 
 tions violative of the compromise of 1820, and after the southern 
 States had all passed resolutions sustaining that compromise 
 ,yes, after the Union was brought to the very verge of dissolu 
 tion. And, under this second compromise, or compromise of 1821 , 
 imposing new and humiliating conditions, Missouri Jid come into 
 the Union. 
 
 1 know that it has been said on this floor that the compromise 
 of 1820 was not violated by the North in 1821 ; that the resist 
 ance to the admission of Missouri in 1821 was merely on account 
 of the free negro prohibition clause in her constitution, and not 
 because her constitution admitted slavery. This has been said 
 
by gentlemen from the South, and by some for whom I have the 
 kindest personal regard, and I can but attribute it to the fact that 
 they have not taken the pains to look into the facts of the history 
 of that compromise. The record shows, that on the 12th of Feb 
 ruary, 1821, Mr. Mallory, of Vermont, moved, in the House of 
 Representatives, to amend the resolution admitting Missouri by 
 providing as conditions of her admission, not only that her people 
 should adopt a constitution in conformity with the provisions of 
 the act of 1820, but " in addition to said provisions, further (to) pro 
 vide, in and by said constitution, that neither slavery nor involun 
 tary servitude shall ever be allowed in said State of Missouri" &c. 
 And for this amendment, sixty-one northern men voted, while but 
 thirty-three were against it, nearly two to one. (See House Jour 
 nal, page 221.) So, sir, it is unquestionably true, that a large 
 majority of the northern Representatives did, in 1821, in viola 
 tion of the compromise of 1820, vote to keep Missouri out of the 
 Union unless she would prohibit slavery. 
 
 And this is not all. In 1836, when Arkansas claimed admis 
 sion into the Union, what facts do we discover? I have heard a 
 speech of Mr. Adams quoted here. I do not know how that 
 speech gets to the public. It may come surreptitiously, for it does 
 not accord with the record evidence of his course in 1836. On 
 the 8th day of June, 1836, Mr. Adams, in his place here, "stated 
 (as reported in the Congressional Globe of that year, p. 429) 
 " that when the Arkansas bill come into the House, if no one else 
 would move the RESTRICTION OF SLAVERY, he should. And, sir, the 
 next day Mr. Slade, of Vermont, taking him at his word, did offer 
 an anti-slavery amendment to the bill admitting Arkansas into 
 the Union. Here is the record, as found in the Congressional 
 Globe of that year, p. 434 : 
 
 "Mr. SLADE offered the following amendment: 
 
 "After the words in the first section, 'that the State of Arkansas shall be one, 
 and is hereby declared to be one, of the United States of America, and admitted 
 into the Union, on an equal footing with the original States, in all respects,' add, 
 * whenever the people of said State shall, by a convention duly elected, expunge 
 from its present constitution, so much thereof as prohibits the General Assembly 
 from passing laws for the emancipation of slaves without the consent of the owners; 
 and shall also provide, in and by said constitution, that no negro or mulatto born in, 
 or brought into, said State, after its admission into the Union, shall be held or trans 
 ferred as property, or in any way subjected to slavery or involuntary servitude, unless 
 in punishment for crimes committed against the laws of said State, whereof the 
 party accused shall be duly convicted.' " 
 
 This amendment was voted down without a count. But upon 
 the final vote admitting Arkansas, forty-nine northern men voted 
 to keep her out of the Union. Now, sir, Arkansas was a part of 
 the territory acquired from France in 1803, lay south of 36 30', 
 and if there was any thing in the "compromise" of 1820, if there 
 was any thing in good faith, Arkansas, as Missouri in 1821, ought, 
 in all justice and fairness, to have been admitted into the Union. 
 without the annoyance of this slave question. Yet, now, even 
 southern Representatives, oblivious of such facts as I have ex 
 hibited, have fallen into the great error of asserting that the 
 
8 
 <*t 
 
 North have never disregarded that compromise. Why, sir, the 
 debates upon that Arkansas bill show the then temper of anti- 
 slavery men of the North. I will give one specimen. Mr. Hard, 
 of New York, on the day Mr. Slade offered his anti-slavery amend 
 ment, said : 
 
 "Sir, the decision we make upon this bill will carry with it the interesting result 
 of conferring liberty or perpetuating slavery to millions of human beings yet unborn. 
 Yes, sir, the decision we make this morning, with sleepless eyes and debilitated 
 bodies, will proclaim through your journals to the world and posterity whether the 
 Representatives of the people of this far-famed Republic, the collected guardians of 
 civil liberty and the rights of man, have the virtue and patriotism to defend and 
 earrry out the sound maxims that form? the true basis of this excellent form of Gov 
 ernment, or whether, for the sake of advancing the interests of a miserable partisan 
 policy, they will sacrifice both the honor and liberty of their country by entailing upon 
 the freemen of a soverign State the interminable institution of slavery. 
 
 " There is no compact existing between the General Government and any of the new 
 States or the Territory of Arkansas, whereby it has conceded to them the right to 
 barter in human flesh ; and I am determine"d, while I have the honor of a seat on 
 this floor, never to give my vote for a measure that will sanction or permit such a gloomy 
 practice." 
 
 And thus, sir, the anti-slavery men have repudiated that com 
 promise in all subsequent issues. 
 
 Here, while the thought occurs to me, I will remark that one 
 of my friends, for whom J have the kindest feelings I allude to 
 General CULLOM, of Tennessee has assumed that the southern 
 Representatives, including those from Tennessee, who, in 1820, 
 voted for this compromise, have been charged with compromising 
 the interests of, and acting in bad faith to, the South. Now, I 
 have never so charged them. I have never heard them so charged. 
 
 Mr. CULLOM, (interrupting.) My honorable colleague a little 
 misapprehends the drift of my remarks upon that point. My ar 
 gument was, that the allegation that the compromise of 1820 was 
 a gross surrender of southern rights, was an indirect imputation 
 upon the patriotism of the men of that day. It has been repeat 
 edly charged upon this floor, as is well known to the House, that 
 the compromise of 1820 was a base or gross surrender of southern 
 interests. 
 
 Mr. ZOLLICOFFER. I am satisfied with that explanation. I am 
 satisfied tha.t the Representatives from Tennessee in 1820 were 
 opposed to the restriction. That is the recorded position of Mr. 
 Rhea, of Tennessee. The others do not seem to have put upon 
 record the reasons for their course. I take it for granted, how 
 ever, that they were opposed to the restriction on the territory 
 north of 36 30', but agreed to it in a spirit of peace, with a view 
 to prevent further aggressions from the people of the North, and 
 to save the Union, which was then in imminent danger. But, 
 sir, thus conceding, as they did, the right of equality in the settle 
 ment of the public territory of the country north of 36 30', under 
 the demands of the North, was it not eminently due to them, on 
 the part of the anti-slavery men of the North, that they should 
 themselves regard the terms of that compromise, or the consider 
 ation for which that concession was made ? They have never 
 done so. In 1821, as I have shown, they repudiated it. In 1836 
 
they repudiated it; and I believe that those are the only instances 
 in which territories south of 36 30', within the country acquired 
 from France in '1 803, have asked admission into the Union. In 
 1845, when Texas came in, there were terms agreed to by which 
 the line of 38 30' was extended through that territory. But mark 
 you, even then the anti-slavery men of the North declared, at the 
 outset of that controversy, that they would never agree to the 
 admission of another slave State ; they demanded that free-soilism 
 should be extended down to the Gulf of Mexico ; and even Mr. 
 Hey wood, of North Carolina, was driven to the strait of propos 
 ing a line of division far south of 36 30' I believe on the 34th 
 of latitude. Ultimately the national sentiment of the country 
 triumphed, the people of the South rallied against northern en 
 croachments, and the line of 36 30' was extended through the 
 territory acquired from Texas. JMMCMMT UBRA*Y 
 
 From that day to this, in every question that has been presented 
 in regard to the acquisition of territory, anti-slavery men have 
 repudiated the binding efficacy of the compromise of 1820, as to 
 the extension of territory. They have felt themselves at liberty 
 to avow, and they have openly avowed, in all the issues which 
 have arrisen since the act of 1820, never to consent to the acquisi 
 tion of another slave State, lm are determined, whenever they 
 have the power to do so, to push free-soilism down to the Gulf of 
 Mexico, and to the Pacific ocean. But, sir, they have not got the 
 power to surround us with a cordon of free States, and then when 
 they get the constitutional majority of free States, change the 
 Constitution, and abolish slavery in all the States. Thanks to 
 that sense of national justice and equality which pervades a large 
 body of the people in the North, the national men of the North, 
 added to the South, are in the majority, ever have been, and ever 
 will be, while right and justice are on our side. For thirty-four 
 years the anti-slavery men who are warring upon us, have claimed 
 to be foot-loose and unbound by the act of 1820, and now, I ask, 
 if it is not time we should also be foot-loose from a compromise 
 in which we made a great concession for peace and quiet, which 
 have never been granted us? For one, I have never been the 
 advocate of the line of 36 30'. For one, I have always believed 
 with Mr. Clay for that is Mr, Clay's position, as declared in his 
 speech of March, 1850 that if you draw a geopraphical line 
 through the Territories of the Union, thereby declaring that upon 
 one side of that line slavery shall not exist, it is but justice to de 
 clare, also, that slavery shall be recognised upon the other side 
 of that line. But that has not been done. While the act of 1820 
 proscribes and heads off southern men from all the territory north 
 of 36 30', northern men have the unrestricted liberty to settle with 
 their property, in any part of all the territory north or south of 
 that line. 
 
 Mr. Clay then said : 
 
 "Sir, while I was engaged in anxious consideration on this subject, the idea of the 
 Missouri compromise, as it has been termed, came under my review, was considered 
 
10 
 
 by me, and finally rejected, as in my judgment less worthy of the common accept 
 ance of both parties of this Union than the project which I offer to your consider 
 ation. 
 
 " I put it to gentlemen from the South, are they prepared to be satisfied with the 
 line of 36 30', interdicting slavery north of that line, and giving them no security 
 for the admission of slavery south of that line ?" * * * * "It is interdiction 
 upon the one side, with no corresponding provision for its admission on the other 
 side of the line of 36 30'." 
 
 He urged the principle of the compromise of 1850 non-inter 
 vention with the prohibition of slavery in the Territories in con 
 tradistinction to the line of 36 30', which was urged by some ex 
 treme southern men, and the Nashville Convention ; and such was 
 then the fight in the Southern States. Mr. Clay said in 1850 : 
 
 "It was high time that the wounds which the Wilmot proviso had inflicted should 
 be healed up and closed ; and that to avoid, in all future time, the agitation which 
 must be produced by the conflict of opinion on the slavery question, the true prin 
 ciple wMch'dughi'Ko* regulate the action of Congress in forming territorial govern 
 ments for each newly-acquired domain, is to refrain from all legislation on the sub 
 ject in the territory acquired, so long as it retains the territorial form of government." 
 
 And here, sir, let me remark, that in his speech in March of 
 that year, he clearly shows that it was not the broken compro 
 mise of 1820, but that of 1821, of which he was the author. Some 
 honorable gentleman from the South, opposing this bill, have 
 iallen into error in this particular. Let the honorable member 
 from Missouri, (Mr. BENTON,) who also opposes the bill, set them 
 right. In his recently published book, called "Thirty Years in 
 the Senate," he says : 
 
 "Mr. Clay has been often complimented as the author of the 'compromise' of 
 1820, in spite of his repeated declaration to the country, that measure coming from 
 the Senate ; but he is the undisputed author of the final settlement of the Missouri 
 controversy in the actual admission of the State." 
 
 I am wholly unaccustomed to speaking within a limited time, 
 and I find that I shall be utterly unable to embrace in my hour all 
 the arguments I had intended to make, there being so many points 
 involved in the discussion of this subject to which I ought, in jus 
 tice to myself allude. My object is to place upon the record my 
 opinions with regard to the main questions involved in this bill, 
 so that they shall be open to the inspection of those who sent me 
 here. I regret that I shall be compelled to pass over many points 
 entirely, as I find that I have not time to do them justice. 
 
 It has been assumed that this bill embraces the principle of 
 squatter sovereignty in its provisions. Squatter sovereignty has 
 been defined to embrace the right of the people of a Territory, or 
 of a Territorial Legislature, before they assemble in convention 
 to form a State constitution, to frame an organic law prohibiting 
 slavery. If that is squatter sovereignty, I am opposed to it. I 
 believe when this territory was acquired from France, that all the 
 sovereignty which France held in it was transmitted to our Gov 
 ernment, according to our constitution, State and national. It 
 passed to the General Government, or to the State governments, 
 or became residuary with the people of the States who framed, 
 and can at any time alter both these forms of government, State 
 and Federal. So much of it passed to the General Government 
 
11 
 
 as that Government being a limited sovereignty could right 
 fully exercise under the Constitution. That instrument gives to 
 Congress no other power over the territory of the Union (which 
 it here treats as property) than to "make all needful rules and 
 regulations respecting" it. In exercising that power Congress 
 cannot legitimately push it to the extent of prescribing to the 
 citizens of the States inequality of right of settlement, in territory 
 winch is the common property of all the people of all the States 
 of the Union. It cannot rightfully push it to the extent of setting 
 up an organic law hostile to the institutions of half the States of 
 the Union. That portion of the supreme power, or sovereignty, 
 which France (an unlimited sovereignty) held, which is competent, 
 to do this to prescribe for States yet to be formed out of the 
 territory, organic law regulating for ever their domestic institutions 
 lies dormant until the people come to act for themselves in framing 
 State constitutions, and then it passes to them. If Congress, then, 
 has not the power to do this, it cannot give to a Territorial legis 
 lature the power to do it. The Territorial Legislature can exer 
 cise no powers of sovereignty which Congress do not confer upon 
 them. J believe that the people of a Territory should have con 
 ferred upon them all the rights of sovereignty over their domestic 
 affairs, which Congress can rightfully confer upon them in accord 
 ance with the limitations in the Constitution of the United States. 
 This the bill before us does, and nothing more. It cannot be 
 shown that it confers upon the Territorial Legislature the power 
 to prohibit slavery, without showing that the Constitution gives 
 us no protection against such an act; for it expressly limits the 
 grant of power to the sanctions of the Constitution. I am aware 
 that some of the friends of the bill think that what I regard as 
 exceptionable in squatter sovereignty is embraced in the bill. 
 Still, the large majority think with me; and I cannot consent to 
 lose the chance of repealing the unjust act of 1820 because some 
 fancy that they see squatter sovereignty in the bill. A portion, 
 of the opponents of the bill North admit that it does not sanction 
 squatter sovereignty. Mr. CHASE, of Ohio, moved in the Senate 
 this amendment to the bill : 
 
 " Under which the people of the Territory, through their appropriate represen 
 tatives, may, if they see fit, prohibit the existence of slavery therein." 
 
 The vote upon it was as follows: 
 
 "YEAS Messrs. Chase, Dodge of Wisconsin, Fessenden. Fish, Foot, Ilamlin, Sew- 
 ard, Smith, Sumner, and Wade 10. 
 
 "NAYS Messrs. Adams, Atchison, Badger, Bell, Benjamin, Brodhead, Brown, 
 Butler, Clay, Clayton, Dawson, Dixon, Dodge of Iowa, Douglas, Evans, Fitzpatrick, 
 Gwin, Houston, Hunter, Johnson, Jones of Iowa, Jones of Tennessee, Mason, Morton, 
 Norris, Pcttit, Pratt, Rusk, Sebastian, Shields, Slidell, Stuart, Toucy, Walker, Wetter, 
 and Williams 36. 
 
 The National Era, the Abolition organ, says it is "nonsense" to 
 say that the bill embraces squatter sovereignty adding: 
 
 "The Senate voted down two distinct propositions to fasten this doctrine of 
 squatter sovereignty on the bill and General Cass himself voted against them. The 
 passage of the bill was simply the triumph of non-intervention that is, non-inter 
 vention by Congress or the Territorial Legislature, against the introduction of slavery 
 into Nebraska." 
 
> 12 
 
 It lias been said- that there is nothing of practical good to be 
 accomplished by this bill. But an honorable member from Ver 
 mont, (Mr. MEACIIAM,) who opposes ihis bill, tells us: " You may 
 declare that .slavery cannot go there because of climate and pro 
 duction : but I will put it to an honest and practical test. The 
 Missouri delegation are men of great ability and integrity; they 
 are on the borders, and can express their own opinion. If any 
 man representing Missouri believes that slavery will not s^o to 
 Kansas, on the passage of this bill, I now invite him to say so. 
 No denial. Why should it not go there as well as to Missouri, on 
 the same parallel of latitude?" 
 
 The southern boundary of Kansas is but a half degree north 
 of the north boundary of Tennessee. I will not now detail my 
 reasons, but I have strong faith that Kansas will become a slave 
 State. We owe it to Missouri to give Kansas a chance. Missouri 
 is now bounded by free States on two sides. If Kansas becomes 
 a free State, bounding her on a third side, it will Jbe difficult for 
 Missouri to prevent her negroes being decoyed off by Abolitionists. 
 Will her appeal be disregarded by southern men? I trust not. 
 
 The bill as now offered omits the Clayton amendment as incor 
 porated in the Senate bill. I am myself an advocate of the Clay 
 ton amendment ; and I should prefer that it were retained in the 
 bill. But this does not seem to me an insuperable objection. 
 The Clayton amendment restricts the right of suffrage. to the cit 
 izens of the United States. I have looked to see what has been 
 the usage of the Government in this respect in oT-ganizing Terri 
 tories heretofore. I find that the usage has been variant. In 
 organizing the first Territory northwest of the Ohio, citizens, and 
 those who were not citizens, were permitted to vote. This, too, 
 was the case in the Southwestern Territory a Territory which 
 finally became the State of Tennessee. It was so in the Indiana 
 Territory, in that of Louisiana, in that of Mississippi, of Alabama, 
 of Missouri, and of Wisconsin. 
 
 But there have been other instances in conflict with this prac 
 tice. In the Territories of Arkansas, Iowa, Utah, and Oregon, 
 citizens alone were permitted to vote. In Minnesota Territory 
 and this is worthy of note, as Minnesota was formed out, of this 
 very territory which was acquired in 1803, at the time Kansas 
 and Nebraska were acquired citizens, and those who were not 
 citizens, were permitted to vote, the conditions being precisely 
 such as are proposed in this bill. 
 
 The practice of the Government, then, has been variant. In 
 all the old States', which were preceded by territorial govern 
 ments, the right of suffrage was not restricted to citizens. At a 
 subsequent time that rule was altered, and the latest practice of 
 the Government has been to permit both citizens, and those who 
 are not citizens, to exercise the right of suffrage in the Territories. 
 
 An argument employed against the bill" by gentlemen for 
 whose opinions I have great respect, is, that the opening of this 
 question has brought about an agitation in the country which is 
 
13 
 
 much to be deprecated. Now, in view of what we have wit 
 nessed here this session, and heretofore, how are we to avoid agi 
 tation ? In this particular measure we are merely asking for our 
 rights our constitutional rights. We are asking for no infringe- 
 rnent of the rights of the North. The Territories must be organ 
 ized, and we are for organizing them in accordance with the prin 
 ciples of the Compromise of 1850 congressional non-intervention 
 with the prohibition of slavery. We are for withdrawing Federal 
 intervention with a question which belongs to the people of the 
 States. And for this we are charged with getting up agitation. 
 Why, have you not witnessed, in the opening of this session, 
 before this bill was introduced, yes, before it was thought of, 
 speeches made here, agitating slavery in its most aggravated 
 form ? 
 
 I think it was on the 29th of December last, that a Represen 
 tative from New York (Mr. GERRIT SMITH) made an abolition 
 and anti-slavery speech, as agitating and as disturbing in its 
 character, as annoying to the people of the south, as threatening 
 to the rights enjoyed under the Constitution, as any speech which 
 has been made since this question was introduced. He charac 
 terized this Government as a "despotism" worse than an Aus 
 trian despotism, and animadverted upon the " hypocrisy" of the 
 American people, because they own slaves. He hinted at the 
 possibility of a "terrible retribution" some day falling upon 
 those who are responsible for it, and this inflammatory harrangue 
 was indulged in without provocation by any movement in this 
 body. The still more offensive language of another member 
 from the North, (Mr. GIDDIXGS,) I will not quote. Other members 
 from the North tell us frankly that we cannot get rid of slavery 
 agitation, that they will never be satisfied, that they will never 
 allow us to have peace until slavery is abolished throughout 
 the Union. 1 will quote a single example. A Senator from Mas 
 sachusetts, (Mr. SUMNER,) says: 
 
 "And, sir, permit me to say, frankly, sincerely, and earnestly, that the subject of 
 slavery can never be withdrawn from the national politics, until we return once more 
 to the original policy of our fathers, at the first organization of the Government, 
 under Washington, when the national ensign nowhere on the national territory covered 
 a single slave." 
 
 "The discussion will proceed. The devices of party can no longer stave it off. 
 The subterfuges of the politician cannot escape it. The tricks of the office-seeker 
 cannot dodge it. Wherever an election occurs, there this question will arise. 
 Wherever men come together to speak of public affairs, there again will it be. No 
 political Joshua now, 'with miraculous power, can stop the sun in his course through 
 the heavens. It is even now rejoicing, like a strong man to run its race, and will 
 yet send its beams into the most distant plantations ay, sir, and melt the chains of 
 every slava." 
 
 Now, Mr. Chairman, with statements like these before us, what 
 does this charge upon us of agitation amount to ? We have been 
 threatened that if we pass this bill, we shall run the risk of 
 danger from further encroachments upon the rights of the South, 
 of the repeal of the fugitive slave law, &c. Mr. Chairman, 
 those gentlemen who make these threats, have always been ready 
 
v - 14 
 
 to repeal the fugitive slave law. They have always been ready 
 to resist the introduction of new States into the Union, unless 
 with congressional interference with slave property. Whether 
 you pass this bill or not, will not change their intentions. 
 
 At the last session of Congress, a proposition was made to re 
 peal the fugitive slave law. The men who voted for it are promi 
 nent leaders in opposition to this bill, and are now charging the 
 South with bad faith, and a violation of a compromise. Sir, the 
 South violates no compromise which has been observed as a com 
 promise by the North. The South does not now propose, and 
 never has proposed, any encroachment upon the rights of the 
 North. We are for abiding by all compromises fairly made 
 and carried out ; we are for abiding by the compromises of the 
 Constitution, which guarantees to the South equality of rights in 
 the public territories. A constitution, sir, which found slavery 
 already in the States a Constitution adopted by slave States and 
 by anti-slavery States, and which should therefore not be used as 
 an instrument, to break down the one- and build up the other. 
 
 But, sir, I have been told that this is a Democratic measure, 
 and that, as such, I ought not to support it. I am a Whig, Mr. 
 Chairman ; and the prime and vigor of my life have been devoted 
 to the promotion of the principles of the Whig party. I have re 
 garded the Whig party as the great national conservative party 
 of the Union. 
 
 There is nothing that I would not do for the success of such a 
 party. But why is this a Democratic measure ? Why a Whig 
 measure ? Why a party measure at all ? What is there in it 
 that should array those who call themselves Whigs on the one 
 side, and those who call themselves Democrats on the other? I 
 feel that the Whig party, to which I am attached, have sometimes 
 been in danger of committing great errors in permitting their 
 political opponents, when new questions are presented, to take 
 choice of sides, and then for the sake of opposition, consenting to 
 place themselves upon the wrong side of the question. 
 
 It was accidental that Senator DOUGLAS was chairman of the 
 Committee on Territories, and in virtue of his position had to 
 present the territorial bills from that committee. His first Ne 
 braska bill was altogether and essentially a different bill from the 
 one now before us. The bill which passed the Senate was ma 
 tured by the joint labors of Whig and Democratic Senators, and 
 it is notorious that Senator DIXON, of Kentucky, a sound national 
 Whig, brought forward the first amendment striking directly at 
 the repeal of the anti-slavery restriction of 1820. From the be 
 ginning to the end, the great body of Whig Senators and Repre 
 sentatives from the South have been the true and steadfast friends 
 of the bill. But on such a question, Whigs, Democrats, and na 
 tional men, North and South, should stand together. 
 
 There are, doubtless, many patriotic and national men oppos- 
 sing this bill ; but, sir, it is a striking fact that all the Abolition 
 ists are against it. All the men who have " spit upon" compro- 
 
15 
 
 mises all the Freesoilers all those who have broke faith with 
 the constitutional rights of the South, in all times past, when they 
 felt that they could strike at us fatally, are against the bill. I 
 have sometimes heard of southern men saying that the bill pro 
 moted " freedom," meaning Freesoilism, and was a fraud upon the 
 South, &c. How does it happen that the anti-slavery men of the 
 North have never found this out? Hovvdoes it happen that 
 sound men of the North, who have stood by us in the perils of 
 1850, and in the other slavery agitations, and the great body of 
 southern Senators and Representatives, Whigs and Democrats, 
 who have laboriously examined it in all its details, have never 
 found it out ? 
 
 I have heard occasionally of southern men speaking of the bill 
 as of no consequence to the South, and insinuating that those who 
 give it an earnest support, are overreached, &c. It is lamentable 
 that southern men can be found so to regard it. I must believe 
 that they do so without a proper understanding of the true nature 
 of the struggle now going on here. In my judgment the bill is 
 eminently sound and national, and of vital importance to the 
 South ; that if it passes, all agitation will soon quiet down as it 
 did after the fanatical Wilmot proviso excitement of 1848, and 
 again after the struggle of 1850; that if it fails, (the Territories 
 remaining without organization,) the question will be, of course, 
 an open one, coming up in the next Congress, and in the next 
 presidential election with gathering force, until justice is finally 
 conceded to the South, and the national sentiments of the bill are 
 established triumphantly. It cannot be that any portion of the 
 South can long co-operate with such deadly enemies of our con 
 stitutional rights as will compose the great body of those who 
 will hereafter conduct the northern movements and manoeuvers 
 against the bill. It would be a great misfortune should a few 
 southern votes turn the scale against the South, and thus keep the 
 question open.