BANCROFT 
 
 LIBRARY 
 
 > 
 
 THE LIBRARY 
 
 OF 
 
 THE UNIVERSITY 
 OF CALIFORNIA 
 
NEBRASKA AND KANSAS. 
 
 SPEECH 
 
 OF 
 
 SON, T, T, FLAGLER, OF NEW YORK, 
 
 IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, MAY 16, 1854. 
 
 The House being in the Committee of the Whole 
 on the state of the Union 
 
 Mr. FLAGLERsaid: 
 
 Mr. CHAIRMAN: It has pleased the coordinate 
 branch of our Government to send for concurrence 
 here a bill for the organization of the Territories 
 of Kansas and Nebraska. That bill contains a 
 provision which has arrested the attention and 
 awakened the solicitude of the American people 
 to an extent unparalleled. The voice of my im 
 mediate constituents comes to me in tones deep and 
 unbroken, like that of the mighty cataract on our 
 border, solemnly and earnestly protesting against 
 impairing the Missouri compromise, as this bill 
 contemplates, and enjoining me to oppose it in 
 their name and behalf by all the means within my 
 power. I am happy to say, sir, that my own 
 views and feeling are in perfect unison with those 
 of the constituency I represent; and I am impelled 
 to break the silence which I have observed since 
 my advent upon this floor, and which 1 would, of 
 choice, still preserve, because I am persuaded that 
 in the judgment of many of them, 1 shall not have 
 exhausted those means, unless I oppose this bill in 
 its present shape both by speech and vote. Thus 
 prompted, nay, thus constrained, I launch my 
 barkiupon the stream of discussion, from whose 
 depth's every pearl has been sought for and found, 
 and from \ynosue shores every flower and thing of 
 beauty has-'been gathered. True and pertinent 
 things 4f not new things I shall aim to utter. On 
 this greattheme, at this momentous crisis, lineupon 
 line and precept upon precept may well be excused . 
 Let none wonder or complain that this far-reach 
 ing question we are considering brings agitation 
 and prolonged discussion. If there was no agita 
 tion, we might be well assured the spirit of liberty 
 had departed from us if there was no voice of 
 man against this bill, the stones in our streets 
 would cry out. 
 
 It is no new thing, Mr. Chairman, that the Na 
 tional Government is invoked to call into being 
 these temporary organizations, these States in em 
 bryo. Even before the formation of our present 
 Constitution, it was found necessary, under the 
 
 Articles of Confederation which it superseded, to 
 enact, by ordinance, a government for the " Terri 
 tory of the United States northwest of the river 
 Ohio. " This celebrated ordinance, the pioneer of 
 kindred enactments, by virtue of which our family 
 of States has increased from thirteen to thirty-one, 
 was formally and distinctly sanctioned by an act 
 of the first Congress which assembled after the 
 adoption of that Constitution. In this ordinance 
 are two prominent and well defined character 
 istics. The one is the assertion and exercise of 
 the right of supremacy in the National Legisla 
 ture over the temporary government it creates, 
 and the other is the prohibition of slavery and 
 involuntary servitude in said Territory, except for 
 crime. 
 
 Considering, sir, that the ordinance embracing 
 these distinctive features was passed immedi 
 ately before, and sanctioned immediately after the 
 adoption of the Constitution of the United States; 
 considering that those who were concerned in 
 ingrafting those provisions into the ordinance of 
 1787, were the same master minds who modeled 
 the Constitution itself; and considering the unan 
 imity with which the sovereignty of Congress and 
 the prohibition of slavery was incorporated into 
 the first bill for the organization of a territorial 
 government, there seems to be no escape from the 
 conclusion that, unless, indeed , as has been already 
 said, the Constitution itself is unconstitutional, 
 that ordinance is not only the pioneer, but deserves 
 to be the model of all subsequent organizations of 
 territorial governments by Congress, so far as 
 those two features are concerned. That ordinance 
 is a platform hewn out of the tree of liberty, and 
 upheld by the pillars of the Constitution. 
 
 The bill before us is objectidhable, since it de 
 parts from those constitutional , proper, and even 
 necessary, features of our earliest territorial organ 
 ization. We find it not only relaxes the hold 
 which, of right, as the trustee for the States, Con 
 gress should exercise over whatever concerns the 
 Territory in which it erects the frame-work of gov 
 ernment, but it also casts off the palpable duty of 
 Congress in making "needful rules and regula- 
 
tions for the Territories," to secure for them " the 
 blessings of liberty." It is the organic law the 
 Constitution which imposes this duty upon Con 
 gress; but we search in vain for any such provision 
 in the bill. The wise and liberty-loving statesmen 
 of those other shall I say better days stamped 
 the impress of freedom upon our national domain. 
 This bill leaves to the determination of we know 
 not whom, the settlement of a question we know 
 not how, which. the National Legislature is con 
 stitutionally and morally bound to settle, and that 
 in favor of freedom. 
 
 The bill is objectionable in the next place, sir, 
 because the rightful authority of Congress having 
 been exercised to shut out forever human slavery 
 from these Territories, it is proposed in this bill 
 wantonly and wickedly to repeal that righteous 
 prohibition. It is this which imparts to the ob 
 jection colossal proportions; it is this which rears 
 it to more than mountain height. How marked 
 and sad the contrast between the principles and 
 practice of the fathers of our Republic, and that of 
 some of their descendants at the present day. 
 The one erected barriers against slavery; the other 
 finds one erected, and ruthlessly proposes to pull 
 it down. The one held free labor identified with 
 the welfare and glory of the land they loved; the 
 other holds free and slave labor as equal, and en 
 titled equally to be fostered by Congress in our | 
 national domain. 
 
 A darker shade, Mr. Chairman, is imparted to j 
 the proposed repeal of the prohibition against ; 
 slavery in the Territories of Nebraska and Kanzas, ' 
 when we contemplate the circumstances under 
 which it was imposed. Slavery, which the fathers \ 
 of our Republic regarded as an evil to be endured 
 until, under the operation of the free institutions ; 
 they established, Jt should at an early period fade ! 
 away, became in process of time invested with in- j 
 creased vigor and strength. It looked upon and ' 
 coveted for its own a liberal portion of our newly 
 acquired national territory. It had insidiously i 
 gained a foothold in the Territory of Missouri, and | 
 when in 1820, a constitution was formed there | 
 initiatory to her admission as one of the States of i 
 this Union, the question, grave and solemn, came j 
 up in Congress, shall the number of slave States j 
 be increased by carving them out of our na- j 
 tional domain. If there be any truth in history ; 
 if we may trust the recollections of a multitude of 
 the living, it was a portentous epoch. It involved 
 the recognition as right what the moral sense of 
 the non-slaveholding States affirmed to be wrong. 
 It was not only a fierce, but protracted struggle. 
 Good men statesmen well nigh despaired of the 
 Republic. It was settled at last not as the non- 
 slaveholding States desired, not as they expected 
 but as those who were the champions of sla 
 very proposed and pressed upon Congress, and 
 which, when settled, they heralded as a triumph, 
 and substantial advantage for that interest. By 
 this settlement this compact this covenant as 
 it has been variously termed, slavery was allowed 
 to hold its ground in Missouri, provided it was 
 forever shut out of the balance of the Louisiana 
 purchase north of 36 30'. Slavery took its por 
 tion under theagreement, while patient freedom was 
 to wait until in the unknown, far-off future the 
 wilderness, which was its portion, should become 
 the abode of civilized man. One third of a century 
 has passed away since that memorable period 
 
 of 1820. The chivalrous actors in the conflict are 
 no more. " Now there arose up a new king in 
 Egypt which knew not Joseph." As though there 
 was not ample present causes for estrangement 
 between different sections of our country, it has 
 suited the purposes of the god-fathers of this bill 
 to rake up the ashes of past disagreements, to find 
 in their too successful search an ember with which 
 to enkindle a fierce and consuming flame. It is the 
 practice of our Government to reward inventive 
 
 Fenius by patent. These incentives are awarded, 
 believe, on two conditions: first, there must in 
 fact be a discovery; and secondly, it must be sus 
 ceptible of some useful purpose. So long as these 
 inexorable rules are applied, I am well persuaded 
 that the inventor of the discovery, that the Mis 
 souri compromise of 1820 was inconsistent with 
 the legislation of 1850, and must, therefore, be 
 declared " inoperative and void," will never get a 
 patent. We are not advised that one was given 
 to him, in ancient days, who invented the method 
 of making his name immortal by applying the in 
 cendiary torch to the world renowned library at 
 Alexandria, and dooming its rich treasures to de 
 struction. I would there had been, for it might 
 have saved us from the miserable and mischievous 
 imitators of his example at the present day. 
 
 The objections to this bill might safely be 
 rested here. The three reasons already adduced 
 are, or should be, conclusive against its passage 
 in its present shape, in the judgment of all fair- 
 minded statesmen But there are others, inde 
 pendent of these, which impel us to the same con 
 clusion. Look at the section which is the subject 
 of so much controversy, and which, to be appre 
 ciated, must be seen in its full proportions, viz: 
 
 " That the Constitution and all laws of the United States 
 which are not locally inapplicable, shall have the same force 
 and effect within the said Territory of Nebraska as else 
 where within the United States, except the eighth section 
 of the act preparatory to the admission of Missouri into the 
 Union, approved March 6, 1820; which, being inconsistent 
 with the principles of non-intervention by Congress with 
 slavery in the States and Territories, as recognized by the 
 legislation of 1850, commonly called the compromise meas 
 ures, is hereby declared inoperative and void, it being the 
 true intent and meaning of this act not to legislate slavery 
 into any State or Territory, nor to exclude it therefrom, but 
 to leave the people thereof perfectly free to form and regu 
 late their domestic institutions in their own way, subject 
 only to the Constitution of the United States : Provided, 
 That nothing in this act contained shall be construed to 
 revive or put in force any law or regulation which may 
 have existed prior to the act of 6th of March, 1820, either 
 protecting, establishing, prohibiting, or abolishing slavery." 
 
 Now, the object of thisVemarkable fourteenth 
 section, of which the above is the concluding and 
 controverted portion, is to repeal the prohibition 
 against slavery as established by the Missouri 
 compromise, and yet it is a surprising, not to say 
 suspicious, circumstance that the word repeal does 
 not appear ! It could have been done in a brief 
 sentence, and yet whatan avalanche of words. It 
 was easy to make its object plain, if it simply 
 contemplated that repeal, and yet it is confessedly 
 so obscure that a commentary is added, and to 
 crown the climax, this addition to the text is sub 
 jected to an explanatory proviso ! It has been well 
 said that the objection against the bill on account 
 of its obscurities is ample cause for its rejection. 
 If passed, it must inevitably provoke endless 
 controversy and litigation. It might well be en 
 titled an act to increase the business in our courts, 
 and thereby encourage the increase of that already 
 
3 
 
 numerous profession, the law. .If these state 
 ments are, in the judgment of any, overstrained, 
 let it be remembered that both in and out of Con 
 gress, it is advocated for reasons diametrically 
 opposite. It is far from being settled what is the 
 principle it contains. But however much d.ispute 
 there may be on other points, however much 
 or little it may have of other elements, it is obvi 
 ous that the section we are considering has the 
 geometrical principle. 
 
 The section is or is claimed to be a triangle. 
 It is elaborately and skillfully constructed with 
 three sides; and, as seen from those respective 
 points of observation, so does it present three 
 different aspects, and is read in as many differ 
 ent ways. Some, in looking, fall desperately in 
 love with it, because it grants to slavery what its 
 admirers and propagandists choose to term an 
 equality of rights. Others, looking upon another 
 side, declare that they approve it because it pro 
 claims non-intervention by Congress in the affairs 
 of these Territories. Still another class and it 
 embraces well nigh all the friends this bill has, in 
 its present shape, in the non-slaveholding States i 
 gaze wistfully at its misty provisions, and, re- 1 
 clining in the pleasant and. refreshing shade of! 
 some desirable office of the National Government, ! 
 persuade themselves they see in it the cardinal 
 doctrine of self-government, and therefore cannot ' 
 withhold from it their disinterested support, albeit 
 they are profoundly grieved that the anti-slavery j 
 proviso of 1820 is necessarily overthrown! Can 
 those contradictory renderings be all of them legiti 
 mate and true? Are not some either deceivers or 
 deceived? A section so equivocal and three-sided 
 deserves a patient and scrutinizing examination. 
 Let us recur to its language. It leaves the people 
 of these Territories " perfectly free to form and 
 regulate their own domestic institutions in their 
 own way, subject only to the Constitution of the 
 United States." The provision has an innocent 
 and amiable look, well calculated to win the con 
 fidence of the unwary, but who need be told that, 
 under its phraseology, lies an important and con 
 troverted question. The question is, what rights 
 "under the Constitution" do the people within 
 territorial limits have over the subject of slavery 
 in the absence of any law, as this bill proposes to 
 leave it? 
 
 In one quarter of this land and it becomes me 
 as a representative of a free constituency to take 
 cognizance of the fact in one section of the coun 
 try, and that section most concerned for the 
 passage of the bill with this provision it is held 
 that those people have no pow%r whatever to act 
 against slavery; they cannot, however desirous a 
 majority might be, shut it out of the Territory. 
 Volumes might be filled with proof in support of 
 this doctrine as held by southern statesmen. It 
 runs through their speeches in support of -this 
 bill, and explains full well their desire that it 
 should pass. Take, for example, an extract from 
 the reeent speech* of the able Senator from Missis 
 sippi, [Mr. BROWN..] Speaking of this alleged 
 equality, he said: 
 
 "The conclusions, Mr. Chairman, to which my own 
 mind has arrived on the several points involved are briefly 
 these: That every citizen of the United States may go to 
 the Territories and take with him his property, be it slaves 
 or any other description of property; that neither the 
 United States Congress nor Territorial Legislature has any 
 power or authority to exclude him ; and that the power of 
 
 legislation, by whomsoever exercised in the Territories, 
 whether by Congress or the Territorial Legislature, must be 
 exerted for the equal benefit of all for the southern slave 
 holder no less than for the northern dealer in dry goods." 
 
 The distingnished Senator enforces this view of 
 the subject, by quoting the language of Jhe late 
 Senator Calhoun and others, and then adds: 
 
 "To fortify my own position, I might multiply authori 
 ties like these almost indefinitely. It may be sufficient to 
 say that, so far as I know, no strict constructionist in the 
 South has ever yielded the point that the inhabitants of a 
 Territory could exclude slavery." 
 
 When the above quoted section was under con 
 sideration before the Senate, the following amend 
 ment was proposed to be added at its close: 
 
 " Under which the people of the Territory, through their 
 appropriate representatives, may, if they see fit, prohibit 
 the existence of slavery therein." 
 
 The vote upon it was as follows: 
 
 "YEAS Messrs. Chase, Dodge of Wisconsin, Fessen- 
 den, Fish, Foot, Hamlin, Seward, Smith, Sumner, and 
 Wade 10. 
 
 " NAYS Messrs. Adams, Atchison, Badger, Bell, Ben- 
 jamin, Brodhead, Brown, Butler, Clay, Clayton, Dawson, 
 Dixon, Dodge of Iowa, Douglas, Evans, Fitzpatrick, Gwin, 
 Houston, Hunter, Johnson, Jones of Iowa, Jones of Ten 
 nessee, Mason, Morton, Norris, Peltit, Pratt, Rusk, Sebas 
 tian, Shields, SlidelL, Stuart, TOU&I, Walker, Weller, and 
 Williams 36." 
 
 This rejection, by the vote of every Senator 
 friendly to the bill, in one unbroken phalanx, is 
 conclusive of the motives of those who urge its 
 passage, and of the ulterior and baneful purposes 
 it is designed to visit upori the people of these 
 Territories. It is the true intent and meaning of 
 this act that those people shall not prohibit the 
 slaveholder from going into with, and holdingthere, 
 under their view of the Constitution, his human 
 chattels. It is this doctrine of equality of rights, 
 intended to be secured to the slaveholder by the 
 honeyed phraseology of this bill, which draws to 
 this measure almost the entire support of the 
 South. 
 
 But is this doctrine of the strict constructionist 
 correct? It has frequently been met, and its un- 
 soundness made manifest, but never more conclu 
 sively and triumphantly than by one STEPHEN 
 A. DOUGLAS, a Senator in Congress from Illinois, 
 in 1850. He was manfully battling against this 
 specious doctrine when, in his place on the floor 
 of the Senate, he said: 
 
 " But you say that we propose to prohibit by law your 
 emigrating to the Territories with your property. We pro 
 pose no such thing. We recognize your right, in common 
 with our own, to emigrate to the Territories with your prop 
 erty, and there hold and enjoy it in subordination to the 
 laws you may find in force in the country. Those laws, in 
 some respects, differ from our own, as the laws of the va 
 rious States of this Union vary, on some points, from the 
 laws of each other. Some species of property are excluded 
 by law in most of the States, as well as Territories, as 
 being unwise, immoral, or contrary to the principles of 
 sound public policy. For instance, the banker is prohibited 
 from emigrating to Minnesota, Oregon, or California, with 
 his bank. The bank may be property by the laws of New 
 York, but ceases to be so when tnken into a State or Ter 
 ritory where banking is prohibited by the local law. So, 
 ardent spirits, whisky, brandy, all the intoxicating drink?, 
 are recognized and protected as property in most of the 
 States, if not all of them ; but no citizen, whether from the 
 North or South, can take this species of property vvith him, 
 and hold, sell, or use it at his pleasure in all the Territories, 
 because it is prohibited by the local law in Oregon by the 
 statutes of the Territory, and in the Indian country by the 
 acts of Congress. Nor can a man go there and take and 
 hold his slave, for the same reason. These laws, and many 
 others involving similar principles, are directed against no 
 section, and impair the rights of no State in the Union. 
 
* They are laws against the introduction, sale, and use of 
 specific kinds of property, whether brought from the North 
 or the South, or from foreign countries." 
 
 Men change, but truth is unchanging; and 
 since, by the testimony of him who leads the 
 van of. slavery propagandists, their theory of 
 equality of rights is false, though it be ever so 
 specious, every lover of his kind may well excuse 
 himself from supporting a measufe whose true 
 intent and meaning is most palpably to infuse the 
 curse of slavery into these Territories for which 
 this bill provides a government. They are per 
 fectly free, except that they are under an over 
 whelming constraint. They have a choice, too, 
 provided they choose to admit and foster slavery. 
 Sovereigns they are also, if they will but inaugu 
 rate the chain and the lash. Ay! they are left 
 by this bill perfectly free to bow down and wor 
 ship the dragon of American slavery. From such 
 freedom may the people of those Territories be 
 delivered ! Pass this bill, send into the Territories 
 judges whose appointment has to pass the ordeal 
 of that same Senate a majority of whose mem 
 bers have recorded themselves in favor of the doc- ! 
 trine of equality of rights, as held by the South j 
 and they will go there to reflect judicially the j 
 views of those to whom they owe their position. I 
 They will give to this doctrine of the strict con- ! 
 structionist of the South, that the inhabitants of] 
 the Territory cannot exclude slavery, the con 
 trolling influence of judicial construction. For 
 the inhabitants of the Territories there will be no 
 escape from it they will have no power to erect 
 a single embankment, although slavery pours in 
 upon them like a flood. They are tied, hand and 
 foot, and then told, in bitter mockery, they are i 
 perfectly free ! 
 
 But while the slavery propagandist may look 
 upon this section, and admire it because it bears 
 in legible characters his favorite doctrine, it de- ! 
 serves to be considered what grounds there are j 
 for the two other constructions deduced from it j 
 non-intervention by Congress, and self govern 
 ment by the people of the Territories. In listen 
 ing to the speeches upon this floor in behalf of this 
 bill, it would hardly be suspected that the bill con 
 tained thirty-seven sections; that it extended to 
 thirty-seven printed pages, and that, from begin 
 ning to the end, there is intervention with the 
 affairs of those people. It does not suffer them to 
 set up a government, but erects one for them. 
 The act prescribes the boundaries of the Terri 
 tories, requires the inhabitants to recognize the 
 rights of the Indians there under treaties with the 
 United States; vests the executive power in a Gov 
 ernor appointed by the President and Senate, and 
 over whose appointment to, or continuance in 
 office, the inhabitants of the Territories have no 
 control; gives him the veto power, which can only 
 be overruled by a two-third vote of the Territorial 
 Legislature; designates the number of members in 
 the Territorial Legislature; prescribes their quali 
 fications and -terms of service; limits the duration 
 of their sessions, and the subjects of their legisla 
 tion. This act, also, kindly extends a judicial 
 system over these people sends them, under ap 
 pointment by the President and Senate, judges, 
 marshals, and district attorneys to execute it; 
 and enacts that all laws of the United States, not 
 locally inapplicable, shall. have the same force and 
 effect as elsewhere in the United States. 
 
 In a word, this act, aside from the changes made 
 necessary by locality, is almost literally a copy 
 j of former bills for organizing territorial govern- 
 I ments. The most material difference is the giving 
 j to the Governor a qualified , instead of an absolute, 
 I veto; but since the same authority which provides 
 ! these people a Governor grants them the money to 
 i carry on their government, erect public buildings, 
 | construct roads, &c., the difference between an 
 i absolute and qualified veto is, practically, of no 
 I account. And yet it is gravely held that the 
 | ambiguous provisions of the fourteenth section 
 relieve* the inhabitants of these Territories from 
 i the express and plain requirements of other por 
 tions of the bill. It is quite certain that those who 
 place their advocacy for this measure on the ground 
 that it frees these inhabitants from congressional 
 intervention, and leaves them in the enjoyment of 
 self-government, must indeed have eye-sight quick 
 ened by the telescopic power of Government pat 
 ronage, and are thus able 
 
 " To see what is not to be seen." 
 And yet this bill, heavy laden with these obnox 
 ious and reprehensible features, has received the 
 sanction of the Senate, is adopted by the national 
 Administration as a test of party fealty, and 
 has its advocates upon this floor, who, with a 
 zeal and eloquence worthy of a better cause, press 
 it upon the attention of this House and the coun 
 try. Various pleas are adduced for its passage, 
 upon the sufficiency of which I desire to ".give 
 my opinion." 
 
 The most prominent of these, perhaps, is that 
 which assails the validity and binding force of the 
 prohibitory line of 36 30'. The advocates of 
 this bill have taken upon themselves the herculean 
 labor of endeavoring to show that our whole 
 nation has rested under a great historical mistake 
 for thirty-four years. They are bold enough and 
 desperate enough to affirm that the Missouri com 
 promise, instead of being, as all mankind sup 
 posed, nay, as all mankind positively knew, the 
 concession on the one part to admit Missouri as a 
 ; slave State, and the agreement on the other to the 
 perpetual exclusion of it from what remained of 
 the Louisiana purchase north of 36 30' as the 
 j equivalent for that concession, was only a strife 
 | in regard to free negroes in that State, occurring, 
 I not in 1820, but in 1821. I am persuaded, Mr- 
 Chairman, these gentlemen do not as yet fully 
 I appreciate the weight they have placed upon their 
 ! own shoulders, or the magnitude of the under 
 taking to which they have addressed themselves, 
 It is an effort as unsatisfactory and unending as 
 I the laborious task of Sisyphus, whose punish 
 ment it was continually to press the huge stone 
 ! up hill ! As well might they argue loud and 
 long to -prove that this session of Congress had 
 no beginning, or, what would net be entirely 
 destitute of plausibility, that it is destined to 
 | have no end. They do not, they cannot, obscure 
 j the light which has brightly and steadily shone 
 on that great and memorable transaction of 1820. 
 "This thing was not done in a corner." It is 
 established by the testimony of those who par 
 ticipated, in or were contemporaneous with the 
 mighty struggle, and whose evidence is unim- 
 peached and unimpeachable. Hear one of those 
 witnesses an actor in those scenes of 1820, and 
 an adherent of the slavery interest, which, he 
 counsels his friend, has been a great gainer by the 
 
very settlement of the question which he opposed. 
 I offer no apology for reproducing this oft-quoted 
 letter. On the contrary, I humbly submit that, 
 so long as this bill is pending to repeal the Mis 
 souri compromise, this letter of Charles Pinckney 
 should as much be read every day as the Journals 
 of our proceedings. It would be a most appropri 
 ate conclusion and finishing stroke to the speeches 
 delivered here in favor of that repeal. Suppose the 
 question before us involved the lives of as many i 
 men as could stand upon the soil of Nebraska and i 
 Kansas; suppose that, instead of being settled in a ! 
 legislative body, it was to be adjudicated by a court ; 
 of justice, and under the well-established rules of | 
 evidence; suppose, also, that the question of their ' 
 guilt hinged upon the credibility of Pinckney 's tes 
 timony in reference to the facts stated in his letter ' 
 could that proof be shaken by the contradictory j 
 declaration of gentlemen on this floor? Would j 
 not the court and jury determine that the testi 
 mony of one witness who waspresentand simply i 
 told what he saw and heard could not be affected 
 by the counter assertions of others who were, it 
 may be, at the time unborn, or who, at best, de 
 rived their knowledge second-hand and from hear 
 say ? Sir, the proof of this Missouri compromise, j 
 as an event occurring in 1820, and as adjusting a i 
 question of slavery, is settled, if there were not a 
 jot or tittle of other proof, by this letter of Charles 
 rinckney. It is strong enough and conclusive 
 enough to hang a multitude of men. Let us see 
 what this letter says: 
 
 CONGRESS HA.LL, March 2, 1820. ) 
 3 o'clock at night. $ 
 
 DEAR SIR : I hasten to inform you that this moment we 
 have carried the question to admit Missouri, and all Louis 
 iana to the southward of 36 30', free of the restriction of 
 slavery, and give the South, in a short time, an addition of 
 tix, and perhaps eight, members to the Senate of the United 
 States. It is considered here by the slaveholding States as 
 a great triumph. The votes were close, ninety to eighty- 
 six [the vote was so first declared] produced by the se- ' 
 ceding and absence of a few moderate men from the North. 
 To the north of 36 30' there is to be, by the present law, 
 restriction, which you will see by the votes I voted against, i 
 But it is at present of HO moment : It is a vast tract, unin 
 habited, only by savages arid wild beasts, in which not a 
 foot of the Indian claim to the soil is extinguished, and in 
 which, according to the ideas prevalent, no land office will 
 be opened for a great length of time. 
 
 With respect, your obedient servant, 
 
 CHARLES PITVCKNEY. 
 
 Mark the date, it is 1820; and a question of slavery j 
 allowed in one locality and prohibited in another, 
 that is settled, settled so satisfactorily that this son 
 of South Carolina takes an early hour of the morn 
 ing to break the glad tidings to his friend. When } 
 any question relative to free negroes comes up in | 
 Congress, it will be a good time, an excellent time, 
 to consider what bearing the legislation of 1821, 
 has on that question. But meanwhile the unful 
 filled condition of the compromise, the agreement, 
 the covenant of 1820, has become a practical ques 
 tion. What was of no moment, as Mr. Pinckney 
 truly said , in 1820, is of incalculable moment now. ; 
 The South, as proven, had her triumph in 1820, | 
 the North asks, nay, demands, not a triumph,! 
 but simply even-handed justice to-day. McLane, ' 
 and Lowndes, and Mercer, and their illustrious; 
 compeers of the South, took upon themselves, ! 
 their constituencies and descendants, obligations ] ' 
 which, it is safe to say, their successors in these 
 Halts cannot escape or put away, without tarnish- 
 ing the good name of those patriotic and honored [j 
 
 sons of the South. I rejoice that there is a noble 
 few who do stand by the ancient covenant. Happy 
 would it be if there were more of the Representa 
 tives of the South who would attest their regard 
 for the memory of the patriotic dead, by a scrupu 
 lous adherence to the engagements they made in a 
 time of great national peril. 
 
 The next pretense insisted upon, as though it 
 were a reason for the perpetration of this out 
 rage, is, that the North subsequently refused to 
 extend this line of 36 30' westward to the Pacific 
 ocean. And wonderful to tell, this fact, which 
 nobody denies, or cares to deny, is abundantly 
 proved by sundry industrious gentlemen, whose 
 laborious research among the musty Journals of 
 Congress, have shown that not only once, but 
 more than once, this proposition was made and 
 refused. The right of the South to make these 
 proffers is undisputed in any quarter, and why 
 not the right on the part of the North to decline 
 it equally indisputable? Or are we of the North 
 to be told that we must take everything proffered 
 by our dear brethren of the South, as the un 
 fledged tenant of the bird's nest opens its tiny 
 mouth and swallows all that's dropped therein? 
 
 The assumption then that these refusals to es 
 tablish the same parallel of latitude in our newly 
 acquired territories as the boundary between free 
 and slave labor, worked any forfeiture of rights 
 under the compromise of 1820, is both untrue and 
 insulting. It implies that the representatives of 
 the one interest had, in the settlements of the ques 
 tions growing out of our acquirement of territory 
 from Mexico, rights of choice superior to the other, 
 and that the one had the right to propose a basis of 
 settlement which the other had not the right, and 
 was not "perfectly free " to accept or reject. If, 
 then, this undoubted right of choice was vested in 
 the North, why will the advocates of this repeal of 
 the Missouri compromise expose themselves by 
 affirming that the North lost thereby what was 
 guaranteed to it by the engagements entered into 
 some thirty-four years ago? Both parties, it may 
 be safely said, were equally free, and the action of 
 either or both in Congress at a subsequent period, 
 in relation to another tract of country, and upon a 
 question modified by the attending circumstances, 
 can no more be plead in palliation or excuse for 
 taking away the prohibition against slavery in 
 those Territories, than the agtion of the British Par 
 liament upon the Turko-Russian question. And 
 it deserves to be mentioned in this connection, that 
 the establishment of this line of 36 30' is now 
 claimed by the slavery propagandists of our day 
 as very objectionable in principle, and unfair to 
 that very "peculiar institution" in its practical 
 effects. If so, why is anybody to be blamed for 
 not extending this line, and thus enlarging the 
 alleged pernicious influences of which these friends 
 complain ? The North deserve praise, not cen 
 sure, at the hands of those gentlemen for this act. 
 And yet the North is complained of for this very 
 thing, additional evidence of man's ingratitude to 
 man. Who after this will venture upon a kind, 
 good-natured act? It would seem, Mr. Chairmarr, 
 that the refusal to extend the Missouri line by the 
 North lays the South under increased obligations 
 scrupulously to adhere to it as already establish 
 ed, however oppressive it may bear upon their 
 sectional interest, in token of their undying grat 
 itude to their northern brethren for preserving 
 

 6 
 
 them from an addition to its alleged onerous 
 terms. 
 
 Still another plea by which this repeal is com 
 mended to the favor of the people, is, that the repeal I 
 is necessary in order to set up in the Territories, i 
 popular sovereignty. It has even been claimed, i 
 in some of the more lofty flights to which oratory j 
 has soared, in the advocacy of this bill, that it | 
 involves the same principle in the maintenance of' 
 which our revolutionary fathers converted Boston 
 harbor into a mammoth tea-pot, and enriched the 
 soil of many a battle-field with their precious blood. ! 
 Now,, it is a very pleasant day-dream to imagine 
 one's self upholding without fatigue, or sacrifice, ! 
 or danger, it may be the same glorious doctrines ; 
 which impelled the men of 76 to peril their all 
 for liberty! Nay, more than this; it will be of 
 great and inestimable advantage to any statesman | 
 to be thus regarded. His political future is bright 
 and alluring. Dark clouds may arise, but they 
 cannot obscure the radiant and mellow sunshine ;! 
 which falls upon his upward path of political pre- I 
 ferment. Other men may sink but he will ever i] 
 be upheld by the strong and irrepressible power 
 of the popular will. 
 
 It is no marvel then that the advocates of this | 
 repeal of freedom's line, especially those repre 
 senting a northern constituency, should be quite | 
 solicitous to screen their conduct by holding up 
 this popular doctrine of popular sovereignty. The 
 only difficulty in the way of the success of this : 
 beautiful experiment, is the circumstance the 
 trivial and unimportant circumstance, doubtless : 
 in the minds of those gentlemen that it is quite 
 apocryphal whether the doctrine is really in the 
 bill, and if there, it is in such homeopathic propor 
 tions as to be of little value. 
 
 The section relied upon to prove the presence of 
 this doctrine in the bill, has been already quoted, 
 and an examination of it, in connection with the 
 legislative construction by the Senate, shows that 
 the freedom it grants is partial and one-sided; 
 freedom to let in, but none to shut out slavery; 
 and even this dubious boon is overwhelmned in 
 the numberless other provisions which subject ! 
 those sovereigns to congressional control. If the 
 inhabitants of Nebraska and Kansas are sover 
 eigns by this bill, they are certainly among the 
 most dependent sovereigns the world has ever seen. 
 A new and corrected edition of the dictionary 
 should be issued immediately. They do not even j 
 set up their government, but Congress does it for , 
 them; they do not pay the expenses of their gov 
 ernment, but it comes out of the Treasury of the 
 United States. It is very well to talk of sover 
 eignty of States, but sovereign Territories is a 
 misnomer. 
 
 In the nature of things, Congress must and 
 does, under the provision of this bill, as it always j 
 has done from the beginning of our national ex- j 
 istence, prescribe the conditions upon which set 
 tlements may be made within territorial limits, 
 and exercise a supervisory control over them until, | 
 Jjy consent of Congress, territorial dependence is 
 cast off, and State sovereignty set up in its stead. 
 It is in vain to hope, therefore, that the mantle of 
 popular sovereignty will cover with itsgraceful folds 
 the deformities of this bill, or shield its advocates 
 from the fiery indignation which it justly provokes. 
 And besides, if it be necessary to repeal the pro 
 hibition against slavery in these Territories in j 
 
 order to install popular sovereignty therein, wh&t 
 shall be said of the bill of last year, which 
 passed this House by a vote of two to one, without 
 this provision of repeal? If this must be passed 
 in its present shape, in order to leave those people 
 " perfectly free," how ought the supporters of the 
 former bill including the Senator who stands in 
 parental relation to this proposed repeal hang 
 their heads in shame that they then pressed a bifi 
 which ignored this principle? Nay, for thirty- 
 four years these men and the entire body of the 
 American people have upheld a prohibition which 
 must now be taken away, because, forsooth, it 
 denies popular sovereignty; is anti-Democratic 
 and unconstitutional ! Is this most pitiful pre 
 tense true? Has the Senator from Illinois, who 
 has hitherto advocated and repeatedly endeavored 
 to extend the Missouri line, been thus far anti- 
 Democratic, and against popular sovereignty? 
 Will he insist upon it? Or will he give up the 
 sham excuse of popular sovereignty ? Which al 
 ternative will he take? How deplorable that in 
 this land of bread, there should l>e those who turn 
 away from it to feed upon their own unsubstantial 
 words! 
 
 It is affirmed, with great pertinacity, 4hat the 
 non-slaveholding States consent to, nay, proffer 
 this repeal of the prohibition against slavery in 
 the Territories for which this bill provides a gov 
 ernment. This assumption would be entitled to 
 respect, if it did not originate with those who have 
 endeavored to forestall the sentiment of the North 
 upon this question, and who have derided that 
 sentiment whenever it was manifested in opposi 
 tion to this repeal. What could the people of the 
 northern States have done that they have not done 
 in manifestation of their universal and undying 
 hostility to this scheme? The press has sounded, 
 loud and long, the note of alarm. Public meet 
 ings throughout the length and breadth of the 
 northern States, have uttered their indignant re 
 solves against it. State Legislatures have added 
 their deliberate expression of hostility. The rev 
 erend clergy, shocked at the stupendous wicked 
 ness of this project, have made their voice heard 
 and their influence to be felt against it. In popu 
 lar elections which have been held since this repeal 
 was pending, the suspicion that a candidate was 
 in any way identified with it has been as fatal to 
 him as the sirocco's breath. The masses of the 
 people, who have been met in their various pur 
 suits with the unexpected and astounding intelli 
 gence that the guarantee of freedom, made more 
 than thirty years ago, was to be taken away, have 
 united in sending their unnumbered remonstrances 
 against the uncalled for and reprehensible deed. 
 The author and abettors of this plot against free 
 dom are not anxious to acquaint themselves with 
 the popular sentiment of the North on this ques 
 tion of the repeal of the Missouri line. They 
 apprehend they have reason to apprehend that, 
 : if allowed fully to represent itself upon this floor, 
 it would unseat the representative who now 
 proves recreant to its commands, and " crush 
 out," once and forever, all attempts to enlarge the 
 area of human bondage. 
 
 Mr. Chairman, my main purpose in asking a 
 few moments of the time of this House has been 
 to disclaim, for those who sent me here, any con 
 sent to this meditated outrage upon their rights 
 and privileges under the proviso which protects 
 
those Territories from the blight of slavery. They 
 do not proffer, they do not consent to its repeal. 
 For them I insist upon the unfulfilled condition of; 
 the Missouri compromise. In their name I de- | 
 mand that the stipulation to freedom shall be kept j 
 inviolate. In their behalf I formally and dis- | 
 tinctly reiterate their protest, already on your files, 
 against removing the landmark of freedom which 
 our fathers set up. Sir, all classes, all parties 
 there unite in this thing. Rarely, if ever, has 
 there been a question of national concern on which 
 there was such entire unanimity. Great pains 
 have been taken to represent the opposition to the 
 repeal of the Missouri compromise as confined 
 almost entirely to the Abolitionists. It is time 
 this delusion was dispelled. They are doubtless 
 opposed to this repeal, and for good reason, but 
 they are a small band in comparison with the 
 gathering hosts arrayed in battle array against 
 this perfidious act. The most earnest and invet- 
 ef ate in their indignant denunciations of this bill are 
 those who not only acquiesced in but strenuously 
 upheld the legislation of 1850, including what 
 a leading journal of South Carolina has avowed 
 to be a " barbarous" law. They have gone to the 
 verge of concession for peace. They feel them- 
 pelves betrayed, and they, as one, declare that since 
 the legislation of 1850 is made the unworthy pre 
 text for overturning the compromise of 1820, they 
 feel themselves absolved from all compromises 
 on slavery. Nor is this sentiment, it is but just 
 to add, confined to those who have ranked as po 
 
 litical opponents of the National Administration, 
 under whose auspices this bill of abominations ia 
 to be piloted through this House, It embraces a 
 large majority of those who, within their respect 
 ive spheres in the district I have the honor to rep 
 resent, contributed to bring this Administration 
 into power. Those men protest they gave their 
 influence and their suffrages to Franklin Pierce for 
 no such purpose as this. It was not the enter 
 tainment to which they were invited. They ad 
 mired his inaugural and message, and credulous 
 men they believed in his pledge of peace. They 
 now spurn this new party test, upreared on his 
 broken promises and violated party faith. Irepeat, 
 sir speaking for the electors of the .Thirty-first 
 congressional district of New York I denounce 
 and protest against the repeal of the prohibition of 
 slavery contained in this bill. I warn its cham 
 pions that the tempting fruit they grasp shall be 
 as ashes to their taste. If they desire,peace, they 
 will have cause to deplore such peace as it will 
 bring them. 
 
 In conclusion, sir, I respectfully submit that 
 the title of this bill is defective. It does not con 
 vey the remotest idea of what it accomplishes. It 
 not only organizes the Territories of Nebraska 
 and Kansas, but it digs in those distant solitudes 
 a deep and capacious grave, in which the broken 
 pledge to freedom will be laid, but not forever. 
 Around the spot good faith and honor shall keep 
 their unceasing, sorrowful vigils, and be the first 
 to hail its certain , its speedy resurrection morn . 
 
 Printed at the Congressional Globe Office.