V IV 
 
 o- 
 (ft 
 
 E 
 
 433 
 
BANCROFT 
 
 LIBRARY 
 
 
 
 THE LIBRARY 
 
 OF 
 
 THE UNIVERSITY 
 OF CALIFORNIA 
 
lr\ 
 
 SPEECH 
 
 OF 
 
 HON. --J. F, DOWDELL, OF ALABAMA, 
 
 
 DELIVERED 
 
 IX THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, MAY 10, 1854, 
 
 or? THE 
 
 NEBRASKA AND KANSAS BILL. 
 
 WASHINGTON: 
 
 PRIJTTED AT THE CONGRESSIONAL GLOBE 
 
 1854. 
 
BANCROFT; ' 
 LIBRARY; 
 
 NEBRASKA AND KANSAS. 
 
 The House being in the Committee of the Whole <. 
 on the state of the Union 
 
 Mr. DOWDELLsaid: 
 
 Mr. CHAIRMAN: I desire very briefly to give the 
 reasons which will control my action upon the bill 
 for the organization of territorial governments in 
 Nebraska and Kansas. However humble they 
 may be, duty to my constituents, as well as jus- ; 
 tice'to myself, forbids my silence upon a question ; 
 of such delicate and deep importance to the South, 
 and not less vital to the peace and happiness of 
 the whole country. I trust, sir, that 1 may be 
 able, as I certainly most earnestly desire, to bring 
 to the discussion that kindness which a due regard 
 for the feelings of others would prompt, and that 
 calmness and coolness which the delicacy and 
 magnitude of the subject now before the commit 
 tee eminently demand. Reason, not passion, 
 must characterize our deliberations, if we hope to 
 reach results peaceful and satisfactory. To attain 
 this end should be the common wish of us all, as 
 it is certainly the sincere desire of every patriot. 
 
 The history of our legislation upon the very 
 dangerous subject involved in this discussion is 
 full of admonition. The wise lessons to be learned 
 from its study, should at least incline us to mod- ' 
 eration; should teach* us to refrain from the taunt, 
 the jeer, and harsh epithet; should guard us against \ 
 the folly of crimination and recrimination, which 
 serve but to excite passions, to obscure the reason, \ 
 H d cloud the judgment, and present obstacles to 
 block up the pathway to settlement, thus weak 
 ening the social ties which bind us together as one 
 people, and without which bond of sympathy and ! 
 affection our common Constitution is powerless 
 for union or liberty. The great interests involved, 
 the character which we sustain to the country as 
 Representatives, the important consequences to 
 follow our action,, common prudence, and sound 
 discretion, all counsel careful deliberation, and 
 demand coolness in the formation of our opinions, 
 and frankness in their expression. 
 
 With feelings of the utmost kindness for all sec 
 tions, and a sincere desire to promote harmony, 
 and achieve the greatest good to our common 
 country, I engage in this debate. It is proposed, 
 by the bill now pending before the committee, to 
 organize two territorial governments for the re- 
 n*riiiflg portion of the territory acquired from 
 France, under the treaty of 1803. Over all this 
 vast country, outside the limits of the State of 
 
 Missouri, more than ten times as large as the 
 State of Alabama, the restrictive clause in the Mis 
 souri compromise was extended, expressly for 
 bidding the introduction of slavery. The pro 
 posed abrogation of the eighth section of that act, 
 containing this restriction so inequitable and des 
 potic in character, and inconsistent with the usual 
 fairness of American legislation has engendered 
 all the bitter opposition encountered by the bill in 
 the other end of the Capitol, and which it is cer 
 tain to meet with in this House. Yes, sir, it may 
 be fairly assumed, that but for this feature, no 
 difficulty would have been experienced in ita 
 speedy passage through both bodies. 
 
 Let us examine this clause a little more closely. 
 South of the line of 36 30' the citizens who may 
 purchase the public lands and settle the territory 
 are left, under the operation of this law, perfectly 
 free to constitute a government according to their 
 own will, and regulate their domestic affairs in 
 their own way, subject only to the condition that 
 the form of government established shall be re 
 publican. North of said line no such discretion 
 is allowed by the terms of this same law. The 
 people who are invited to settle upon that portion 
 of the territory are not left free to constitute a gov 
 ernment according to their own will, and regulate 
 their domestic affairs in their own way, subject to 
 a like condition, only that the form of government 
 adopted shall be republican, but are tied up and 
 bound down with a congressional restriction, with 
 out limitation of time, reaching beyond their ter 
 ritorial pupilage, and fastening upon their sover 
 eign rights after they shall have been admitted 
 into the Union as independent, equal States. 
 
 Now, sir, let ine ask why this discrimination, 
 which, while it distrusts the intelligence of the 
 North, at the same time is calculated to insult and 
 wound the feelings of the South ? Can sound 
 reasons be given for such mongrel legislation in 
 reference to a territory purchased with a common 
 fund, acquired under the same treaty, from the 
 same Government, and certainly, if rightly, to be 
 " disposed of, ruled, and regulated" in pursuance 
 of the same Constitution? Are the people who 
 may chance to settle above this arbitrary line to 
 be presumed less intelligent, less moral, less able 
 to govern themselves, to choose their own institu 
 tions, and regulate their domestic affairs, than 
 those who shall settle below the line? If not,whj 
 then refuse equal liberties, rights, and privileges 
 
 
 
 ' 
 
4 
 
 to mem r Such discrimination* air, iu my humble 
 opinion, is not only repugnant to the honor and 
 interests of the American people, destructive of 
 '.he rights of the States, and at war with the genius 
 of our free institutions, but contravenes the first 
 principles of equality and common justice. Can it 
 be consistent with the Federal Constitution ? Sir, 
 it may find color of authority, if we are to be con 
 trolled by a precedent, in the ordinance of 1787, 
 adopted under the old Confederation for thegovern- 
 ment of the Northwest Territory. And even that 
 ordinance, as has been most clearly shown, was 
 adopted in violation of the articles of Confeder 
 ation. The concurrence of nine States was re 
 quired by the articles for the passage of such a 
 law, when the ordinance, as it is termed, only 
 received the vote of eight. 
 
 But, sir, in vain shall weJook to our Constitu 
 tion for a grant of power, authorizing similar 
 legislation. In scanning its sacred pages, and 
 scrutinizing its wise and well-guarded language, 
 I find no line of demarkation indicated between 
 sections ; no parallel of latitude or longitude 
 separating the North and the South, the East and 
 the West. It is too true that such a line is now 
 to be found marring the political map of our coun 
 try; but the hand of patriotism never traced it; 
 the fathers and founders of the Republic did not 
 put it there; under the pressure of a panic, when 
 the overthrow of our newly-erected government 
 was seriously threatened by the unhallowed and 
 unconstitutional demands of faction, the conser 
 vators of the Republic and lovers of the Union, in 
 the vain hope of purchasing peace, unfortunately 
 submitted, I will not say consented, to this tem 
 porizing policy, which infringes the rights and cur 
 tails the privileges of one half of the States, and 
 comprornits the safety of the whole system. 
 
 The anti-slavery party of that day contended 
 for the exclusion of the slaveholder from all our 
 vast domain west of the Mississippi. A sover 
 eign State, by the consent of Congress, had pre 
 pared a Constitution, and within the provisions 
 of the Federal Constitution applied for admission 
 into the Union. Her application was rejected, 
 because she did not in her fundamental law pro 
 vide for the abolition of slavery within her limits. 
 In this state of things a member of the Senate 
 from Illinois brought forward a proposition which 
 allowed Missouri to come in the Union without 
 restriction, but at the same time designated this 
 line of 36 30', north of which the institution of 
 slavery was to be forever prohibited. In an evil 
 hour, under the sad alternative of disrupting the 
 Government, or violating the compact, this propo 
 sition was acceded to, and became a law. The 
 momentous question involved in its passage filled 
 the heart of the patriot everywhere with alarm, 
 and fell upon the ears of the great Jefferson, in his 
 own graphic language, like a fire-bell at night. 
 With fearful forecaste, in a letter to a friend 
 shortly after its passage, are shadowed forth the 
 dangers which he apprehended were to follow. 
 These are his words in reference to the question: 
 
 " I considered it at once as the knell of the Union. It is 
 
 hushed, indeed, fpr the moment. But this is a reprieve 
 
 only, not a final sentence. A geographical line coinciding 
 
 with a marked principle, moral and political, once con- 
 
 "ii arid held up to the angry passions of men, will never 
 
 Migrated; and every new irritation will make it deeper 
 
 and deeper." 
 
 BSHK ; t hi '.ory, sir, has ' Irated that 
 
 it>i.uouiiJ^,o ut v-Vll \,^~ "~v ,ViiO.lj ,_,..;-.. ~ 
 
 less. The prophecy may y^t be fulfilled, unless 
 | a returning sense of justice in the American mind 
 | shall authorize a repeal of this odious act, and 
 enable us to quell the dire spirit of fanaticism 
 which has carried us so far from the path of safety . 
 The policy which dictated its enactment, permit 
 me to say, was very different from that which 
 controlled the fathers; for it not only contradicts 
 the letter, but does violence to the spirit of the 
 common charter. 
 
 Let me not be understood, sir, as saying that no 
 i lines are recognized by the Constitution. There 
 | are lines, and strongly marked ones, traced by it 
 through our country State lines, sir, the ram 
 parts of republican freedom, separating sovereign 
 communities, and designed to bar each from ag 
 gression, and, if sacredly preserved, will forever 
 confine the Federal Government to its small and 
 appropriate sphere of specified powers. These 
 are the only political divisions indicated in the 
 common bond, and older than the Constitution. 
 i Obscure their distinctness by unwarrantable as- 
 ; sumptions of power, under a latitudinous con- 
 i struction of that instrument, and you at once put 
 | in jeopardy the sacred rights which they shelter; 
 j blot them out, and some form of government 
 | might survive their obliteration, but the liberty of 
 i our people, never. 
 
 Not so with this sectional line of 36 30', which 
 
 endangers the unity of this great country. Erase 
 
 j it from the statute-book to-day, and no shock will 
 
 | be felt in the system. Its effacement from "the 
 
 j record will extinguish the hatred and jealousy 
 
 j which its adoption engendered. We shall return 
 
 in our legislation, by thus regarding the constitu- 
 
 ] tional equality of the States, to the true spirit of 
 
 ! $ur institutions, restore harmony to conflicting 
 
 I sections, and strengthen the bond of union and 
 
 brotherhood between our people. 
 
 I take it, then, that this restrictive clause in the 
 compromise of 1820 is a naked act of arbitrary- 
 power, unwarranted by the Constitution, ar.d 
 wholly indefensible, impolitic, and inexpedient. It 
 properly belongs to those who affirm it to be con 
 sistent. with the Constitution to point out whence 
 the power is derived. I have yet to read or hear 
 a plausible argument going to show its compati- 
 | bility with its provisions. The defense is rested 
 j upon another ground. When we point to the 
 ! perfect equality of the States, a principle constitu 
 ting the very essence of our free government, and 
 recognized and guarded in every part of the com 
 pact between them disturbed by this unjustifiable 
 exercise of power on the part of the Federal Legis 
 lature, what response comes up from the opposi 
 tion? An argument in demonstration of the jus 
 tice and propriety of discrimination ? A reason 
 ; I for the necessity of different rules of action ibr one 
 and the same people upon a common territory r 
 No ! we are met with the reply that it is a closed 
 question, that we must now go behind the bargain; 
 and nothing is heard but grandiloquent discourses 
 upon " plighted faith,"" sacred compacts,"" sol 
 emn covenants," and " holy compromises.'' 
 
 Sir, I admit the sacredness of compacts, but not 
 
 the holiness of compromises. When faith has 
 
 been plighted in righteousness, neither nations nor 
 
 i i individuals can violate it with impunity. For the 
 
 '; inviolability of the faith plighted by the fathers in 
 
5 
 
 iney ihen made I am willing to abide by. The par- p 
 ties to it were the sovereign States of the Union. Its | 
 language is the language of command. It speaks, 
 indeed, "as one having authority;" challenging 
 our reverence, and exacting obedience. We may 
 not renderit " void and of non-efFect by our tra 
 ditions," nor compromise away its wise provis- 
 ions, however plausible the pretext, or appar-i: 
 ently urgent the necessity. Let compromise- 
 makers and builders despise and reject this stone, I 
 but it will still remain the head of the corner. ; 
 Whilst we buiJd upon this rock we are safe. We 
 may successfully defy the winds and the rains. 
 Let us not then follow the example of the foolish 
 man in Scripture, who built his house upon the 
 sand; for we are told that when the "rain de- ' 
 scended, and theiloods came, and the winds blew, 
 and beat upon that house, it fell; and great was 
 the fail of it " And great will be our fall if we 
 rest our hopes upon the uncertain sand of con 
 gressional compromises. 
 
 Sir, whatever acts of legislation which may have 
 been, or shall be, passed in harmony with the 
 spirit and in pursuance of the letter of this great 
 common bond, partake of its sacredness and 
 authority. But no agreement between legislators, 
 however specious the reasons given, however 
 threatening the danger to be shunned, or moment 
 ous the issues involved, can sanctify a law incon- ' 
 sistent with, and unauthorized by, the Constitution. 
 Neither time nor circumstance can hallow, nor ; 
 name of compact, covenant, or compromise impart 
 sacredness to its character. Its continuance upon 
 the statute-book for long years may not plead age , 
 in extenuation of folly; but, like hoary-headed 
 iniquity, should serve the rather to increase our 
 contempt and abhorrence. 
 
 It is in this light I am forced to regard the 
 restrictive clause in the act of March 6, 1820, 
 miscalled a compromise. Mark its language: 
 
 " SEC. 8. Jlnd be it further enacted. That in all that ter 
 ritory ceded by France to the United Slates, under the name 
 of Louisiana, which lies north of 36 3d' north latitude, not I 
 included within the limits of the State contemplated l>y tin's >i 
 act, slavery and involuntary servitude, otherwise than in 
 the punishment of crimes whereof the parties shall have 
 been duly convicted, shall be, and is hereby, forever pro- 
 hibited : Provided, always, That any person escaping into j 
 the same, from whom labor or service is lawfully claimed \ , 
 in any State or Territory of the United States, such fugi 
 tive may be lawfully reclaimed, and conveyed to the person j 
 claiming his labor or service as aforesaid." 
 
 lit is immaterial to my purpose -whether the 
 bill including this obnoxious section, or the reso 
 lution introduced by Mr. Clay at the subsequent 
 session of Congress, referred to and quoted by the 
 honorable gentleman from Georgia, [Mr. STE 
 PHENS,] constitutes what is termed the Missouri 
 compromise. Suffice it to say, that the bill which j 
 contains this very act, the repeal of which has : 
 been made the subject of such violent denuncia- 
 tion on the part of the Free-Soilers, was repu 
 diated in less than twelve months after its passage; 
 and its principle, if it contained a principle of set 
 tlement, violated over and over again by those 
 who now claim for it respect and veneration. It 
 never was the choice of the slaveholding States. 
 Forced upon the South by a dominant majority 
 who contemplated a still greater wrong, ske sub 
 mitted to its passage as the less of two evils, and 
 has since acquiesced in it for the sake of peace 
 and repose. Until its principle was abandoned by 
 Congress in reference to subsequent acquisitions, ' 
 
 she was content to remain silent An mo , 
 reason. Our northern brethren denv 
 much. The South ought never to have submitted. 
 Here was the grievous wrong on the one hand, 
 and almost unpardonable error on the other. At 
 this time was planted a thorn the cause of strife, 
 iriitation and division. It must be removed, else 
 in vain shall we look for repose in the body 
 politic. 
 
 This line of 36 30', and the injustice and ine 
 quality resulting from its establishment, has done 
 more to disturb ourpeaceand endanger the Union 
 than anything which has occurred since the form 
 ation of the Government. It was the first indica 
 tion of dissolution a rallying point for geograph 
 ical parties, for contending sections, familiarizing 
 the minds of men with the idea and possibility of 
 separation, and more than once has urged us to 
 the brink of this sad catastrophe. 
 
 And, strange as it may appear, this fatal line, 
 even during this debate, has been called " a wall 
 of protection to the South," "a barrier against 
 the inroads of fanaticism," as if there could be 
 safety under the shadow of unconstitutional law. 
 The South asks not now, never did ask, that the 
 Constitution should be violated in order to protect 
 and preserve her institutions. She is willing, 
 always has been willing, to rest her case the 
 security of her property upon a strict construc 
 tion of that sacred instrument. Under its wise 
 provisions a republican form of government is 
 guarantied to each State, and perfect equality of 
 all the members of the Confederacy clearly recog 
 nized. With that equality preserved and ac 
 knowledged, the South is safe; short of this, she 
 should not be satisfied. We need no other wall 
 than this to fortify our rights against Federal en 
 croachment; behind its strong defenses I trust we 
 shall successfully resist the aggressions of fanat 
 icism. There is no safety in leaving the strong 
 timbers of the Constitution to venture upon the 
 frail planks of capricious compromises. 
 
 This much revered compromise of 1820 not 
 only was without the color of constitutional au 
 thority, but, sir, it openly violated a solemn treaty 
 between ours and the French Government. The 
 third article of the treaty of cession under which 
 we hold the Louisiana Territory is in these words: 
 
 " ART. 3. The inhabitants of the ceded territory shall be 
 incorporated. in the Union of the United St: !<'s, and ad 
 mitted, as soon as possible, according to the principles 
 the Federal Constitution, to the enjoyment of all the rights, 
 advantages, and immunities of citizens of the United States; 
 and, in the mean time, they shall be maintained and pro 
 tected in the free enjoyment of their liberty, property, and 
 the religion which they profess." 
 
 At the time of the cession by France, slavery 
 not only existed, but was recognized by law to 
 exist in this Territory. It was also well under 
 stood that slaves were held as property by the 
 inhabitants to be incorporated. We then, by the 
 terms of this article, pledge our Government, not 
 only tc admit the inhabitants to the enjoyment of 
 all the rights and immunities of citizens, but in 
 the mean time, to maintain and protect them in the 
 free enjoyment of their property. It cannot be 
 disputed, sir, that this term "property" included 
 African slaves. And yet, without the modifica 
 tion of the treaty, fey and with the consent of the 
 proper authorities, against the wishes of the peo 
 ple of the Territory, and in a willful disregard of 
 the rights and interests of one half of the States 
 
6 
 
 of the Union, what does Congress enact? Why, ii 
 sir, upon an application for admission by a portion ; 
 of them, according to the stipulations of the j 
 treaty, to the enjoyment of these equal privileges ! 
 and immunities, a proposition is brought forward 
 here to destroy this property, and a law passed 
 excluding slavery from a large portion of this ; 
 Territory; and that, too, in the language of the l 
 restrictive clause, forever, even after "its sub- 1 
 divisions shall have become sovereign States. If 
 this be so, what becomes of our " plighted faith?" 
 Shall those who violated the sacred compact of i 
 Union, and set at naught solemn treaty obligations, ! 
 charge us who are attempting to repeal the law, 
 and thus repair the breach and restore the treaty, 
 with acting in "bad faith?" It does not become 
 covenant-breakers to insist upon the performance 
 of contracts, nor aggressors either to teach or 
 enforce lessons of morality and justice. i 
 
 But we have been further reminded, in order, I ;l . 
 suppose, to frighten us from the line of propriety j 
 and the path of rectitude, that a repeal of the Mis 
 souri compromise will be followed by a dissolu 
 tion of the Union. It ia indeed disagreeable to 1 
 proceed in the discharge of duty at the hazard of! 
 pains and penalties. But it is not for those who 
 are in the right to falter from fear of consequences. 
 These are under the control of a higher power. 
 
 The unbounded attachment for the'Union which | 
 pervades the great masses of our countrymen, 
 Las, on more than one occasion, caused us to sub 
 mit to infractions of the compact upon which it j 
 was founded, with the hope that the "second 
 sober thought" of the people. would in time heal I 
 the breach and correct the abuses of power. It | 
 is hardly possible now that an honest effort to 
 repair the damage, and return to the true princi- ; 
 .pies of the Constitution, will diminish that attach- 
 .ment, which, although sometimes inordinate, is ij 
 .ever commendable. To apprehend danger in the '' 
 path of constitutional duty, is an imputation upon 
 the wisdom of the fathers who made the compact, 
 and a reproach to the firmness and intelligence 
 of their descendants, who have so largely pros 
 pered under it. The destiny of this great Re- n 
 public, fortunately for us, is not in the power of ! 
 fanaticism. The great ^conservative masses of 
 our countrymen, of all sections, will prove equal j 
 to the demands upon their patriotism for the pres- 
 ervation of thf.xt Constitution which secures their ; 
 rights and guards their liberties. 
 
 As much as we of the South disliked the com- j 
 promise of 1820, still, for the sake of peace, which, | 
 however, may sometimes be purchased too dearly, 
 her people made up their minds to acquiesce, and 
 abide the same rule in all future acquisitions of 
 territory, and thus put an end to sectional contro- ; 
 versy. In this spirit the South consented to the i 
 Missouri line through Texas, all of which was 
 slave territory, and repeatedly proposed to extend ' 
 it to the Pacific ocean. The proposition was 
 spurned by the North, who positively refused to 
 abide by the principle which they had themselves 
 established, and insisted that the great Missouri i 
 " compromise" contained no general principle of 
 settlement, but was intended to be confined ex 
 clusively to the Louisiana purchase, thus leaving ! 
 the main question of difference still open and un 
 adjusted. Following up this* decision on their ; 
 part, when the recent war with Mexico terminated , ! 
 with a large addition of territory, the fanatical 
 
 portion of the North endeavored to devote the 
 whole of this valuable acquisition to the purposes 
 of free-soil. The South, loyal as ever to the prin 
 ciples of justice and equity, and not unmindful 
 of the rights of her neighbors, modestly contended 
 for an equal participation in the enjoyment of a 
 common property, won in part by the valor and 
 chivalry of her own sons, and paid for out of a 
 common Treasury. What was to be done in this 
 emergency ? The North had repudiated and aban 
 doned their idol of 1820. No settled rule was 
 left us on this subject, so full of danger to the 
 peace of the'country. The Territories were with 
 out organized governments, and their people, con 
 trary to the spirit of our institutions, subjected to 
 military rule. Legislation here for their benefit and 
 protection had been suspended, and discord pre 
 vailed to a most alarming extent thoughout the 
 land. We all know what followed. The South 
 was' called upon to make still further concessions. 
 Again, for the sake of peace, and the recognition 
 of the great principle of popular sovereignty con 
 tained in the bills organizing governments for Utah 
 and New Mexico, she yielded to free-soil the great 
 State of California, commanding the entire coast of 
 the Pacific, and containing an area of nearly two 
 hundred thousand square miles. The compromise 
 of 1850 was then declared to be a. final settlement, 
 in principle and substance, of the sectional contro 
 versy. I did not support this compromise I 
 thought we yielded too much. But it became a 
 law, and has since been overwhelmingly ratified 
 by the people of the Union. The very ground 
 of acquiescence was the settled conviction of a 
 final adjustment of the slavery question in the 
 Territories. If this point was not compassed, it 
 would be difficult to ascertain wherein the South 
 was at all benefited. Yes, sir, it was understood 
 that the compromise of 1850 superseded the com 
 promise of 1820; that, hereafter, each new Terri 
 tory, when forming a constitution, preparatory to 
 admission as a State, should corne into the Union, 
 " with or without slavery, "as the citizens thereof 
 might determine. The South, strong in the confi 
 dence of the moral strength of her peculiar insti 
 tutions, was willing to stand upon this principle, 
 and trust to the Constitution for the protection of 
 her rights and privileges. 
 
 But it was gravely stated in the Senate, as if 
 seriously believed, and has since been repeated in 
 this House, that the idea of superseding the act 
 of 1820 by the legislation of 1850 was never enter 
 tained, not even "dreamed of" by the wildest; 
 that it was but a lucky "after-thought." And 
 the author of this bill, the honorable Senator from 
 Illinois, was a " setter-forth of strange gods;" one 
 that brought " certain strange things to the ears of 
 the people;" and that "they desired, therefore, to 
 know what these things mean." Well might the 
 honorable Senator have replied, like the Apostle 
 to the inquisitive Athenians on Mars Hill, "Ye 
 men of the North and the South, who approved 
 and acquiesced in the compromise measures, I 
 perceive that in all things ye are too superstitious. 
 For, as I passed by and beheld your devotions in 
 1850, 1 found an altar with this inscription, To 
 \ the unknown God. That which you ignorantly 
 , worshipped then now declare I unto you the 
 doctrine of non-intervention." Yes, sir, in the bills 
 organizing governments for the Territories ot 
 Utah and New Mexico the principle of non-inter- 
 
yention was certainly estabusneu. It remains to 
 be seen whether the uniformity of the rule shall 
 be regarded in its application to Kansas and Ne 
 braska. . 
 
 I will now recur to that part of the bill under 
 consideration to which objection is chiefly made, 
 and at the introduction of which so much surprise 
 is manifested. The section reads thus: 
 
 "Sec. . 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 Ne 
 braska as elsewhere in the United States, except the eighth 
 section of the act preparatory to the admission of Missouri,, 
 approved Marh 6, 1820, which being inconsistent with the 
 principle of non-intervention by Congress with slavery in 
 the States and Territories, as recogni/.ed by the legislation 
 of 1850, commonly called the compromise measures, is 
 hereby declared inoperative and void ; it being the true in 
 tent and meaning of this act not to legislate slavery info 
 any Territory or State, nor to exclude it therefrom : but to 
 leave the people thereof perfectly free to form and regulate 
 their domestic institutions in their own way, subject only 
 to the Constitution of the United States: Provided, That 
 nothing herein contained shall be construed to revive or 
 put in force any law 'or regulation which may have existed 
 prior to the act of the 6th of March, 1820, either protecting, 
 establishing, prohibiting, or abolishing slavery." 
 
 It is a matter of some curiosity to trace the 
 cause of opposition so strongly offered to this 
 clause, and to learn the reasons for objection to a 
 proposition so fair and equitable, so just and 
 patriotic, A measure like this, embodying, as it 
 does, a cardinal principle of republican faith, re 
 garding the rights and privileges of all sections of 
 the Union, promotive, as it must be, of harmony 
 between all its members, commends itself with 
 such force to that deep sense of right in the Amer 
 ican mind, and pleads its own cause so eloquently 
 to the patriotic heart of the.country, that to doubt 
 its ultimate and complete triumph would be noth 
 ing less than to distrust the permanency of our 
 Government. I confess that it is matter of 
 astonishment, as well as cause for regret and 
 mortification, that such a just and correct prin 
 ciple should need friends, at this day, to advocate 
 its claims to favor. The source of the difficulty 
 in determining the question can be found only in 
 ihe deep anti -slavery feeling which pervades the 
 northern mind. 
 
 I mean to say the chief difficulty lies here. Not 
 lhat opposition to the bill is confined to those who 
 are affected with this sentiment, by any means. I 
 *.m well apprised* of the fact that a difference of 
 opinion prevails among some of those who are 
 mainly agreed upon the general principles as to its 
 ultimate effects upon the institution of slavery. 
 But that opposition to the great American' prin 
 ciple of self-goveroment, which it certainly em 
 braces, of leaving a people free to regulate their 
 domestic policy in their own way, within the 
 .imitations of the Constitution, can be fully ac- 
 -ouiJted for in no other way than by reference to 
 '.his fanatical sentiment. It is needless to disguise 
 the truth. The secret rests here. This is the 
 *' Illiad of our woes." In conformity to the d 
 rnands of this unhallowed ' spirit, which sml 
 ihreatens a disruption of our Confederacy, the act 
 restricting slavery was placed in the Missouri 
 Compromise, and the same evil spirit not only re 
 sists its abrogation now, but unceasingly endeav 
 ors to extend the prohibition to all the cont- 
 rnon territory. Once concede the power to Con 
 gress to legislate slavery out of a common terri 
 er onH w'nar hnrrio- , ;jfn ^ set U a a j ns t it3 
 
 unlimited sway? Who shall be able to curb that 
 power, and say, " Thus far shall thou go, and no 
 further?" Will you tell me that the line of 36O 
 30', or any other line, shall not be pass 
 because, forsooth , it is a compromise ? Why , air, 
 has it not, in effect, been repeatedly set aside 
 already, and can we hope for favor in the future 
 from a constantly augmenting majority, hostile to 
 our peculiar institutions? 
 
 Sir, judging from the history of past Congres 
 sional legislation on this 'Subject, to whatever con 
 clusions other minds may come, my expectations 
 for anything like equality and justice from .this 
 source are neither large nor sanguine. So far as 
 the question of political power is concerned, we 
 are now in the minority The disparity between 
 the political strength of the slaveholding and non- 
 slaveholding States will become greater and great- 
 , er in favor of the latter. Our fortunes, to some 
 extent, are in the discretion of our northern breth 
 ren; and, happily for us, fortunate, indeed, for the 
 welfare of the country, the great State Rights Dem 
 ocratic party holds the reins of government. That 
 ! party in the North, which has more ^than once 
 i thrown itself into the breach and checked the mad 
 career of fanaticism which has furnished to our 
 national councils the good and true men who have 
 1 firmly stood by the Constitution, and maintained 
 the equal rights of all sections, consistent and 
 faithful to the pledges of the past, nonv rallies to 
 the rescue, ready and willing to cooperate with 
 their brethren of the South in the settlement of 
 this vexed and dangerous question. Their patri- 
 i otic devotion to the cause of right will riot be for-' 
 gotten by those who wish well for their country. 
 The South has yet to prove herself ungrateful to 
 the friends of constitutional equality. 
 
 The immediate effect following the passage of 
 this measure will be to silence that mischievous 
 agitation in these Halls which has so often dis 
 turbed our quiet, clogged the wheels of legislation , 
 and threatened the overthrow of our institutions; 
 to transfer the discussion of this question to where 
 it legitimately belongs to the people whose in 
 terests for good or evil are to be affected by it; to 
 remove the disease from the vitals to the extrem 
 ities, where agitation may expend itself unfelt by 
 the great center and heart of the country. 
 
 The policy of the majority in Congress would 
 necessarily be to confine the institution of slavery 
 within its present limits. Under the provisions of 
 this bill, it may be extended to meet the wants 
 and wishes of those who shall settle the new Ter 
 ritories. He must, indeed, be blind who cannot 
 ;! see that to confine slavery to its present area, 
 I would ultimately destroy the institution, and dis- 
 | rupt the Government. Nor would the time be 
 : very distant; for under the mild and humane treat 
 ment of the southern slaves, that population has' 
 grown to be as large as the whole population of 
 the thirteen Colonies during the period of the 
 Revolution; and in the third of a century, should 
 they increase in the same ratio, without assistance 
 from foreign immigration, must equal the present 
 entire population of the southern States. No legis 
 lative enactments can prevent its extension. The 
 only question to be settled is, shall it take place 
 peaceably or violently? in conformity with the 
 principles of our association, and in pursuance of 
 , liberal and wise legislation, or in spite of arbi- 
 *- iinba u;u:: -. jt ig bt 
 
8 
 
 believe this bill not only contemplates, but will j 
 accomplish, the former, that I am induced to give i 
 it my support. It sweeps from the statute-book { 
 all foreign legislation, and, under the limitations of | 
 the Constitution, leaves the people free to regulate ' 
 their domestic affairs in their own way, 
 
 1 do not understand the Badger proviso to alter 
 the intent and meaning of the bill; it serves rather 
 to explain the object than to change the features. 
 It fixes clearly the principle to be faithfully car 
 ried out in all territories hereafter to be acquired 
 that American laws, passed and approved by 
 American citizens, shall control their destiny, and 
 r.ot the loose edicts left behind by the retiring 
 foreigner. It substitutes the will of the people 
 who emigrate thither for the French law which 
 allows slavery and the Mexican law which dis 
 allows it. It opens the Territories for the immi 
 gration of every class of our people, with their 
 property, without discrimination, and leaves them 
 free in the choice of their institutions; not making 
 the question of whether it shall be free or slave 
 territory to depend upon the contingency of pur 
 chasing from England, Mexico, or Spain. 
 
 But I have heard objections urged to this mode 
 of settlement, for the reason that, according to the 
 decision of some of the courts, slavery being con 
 sidered a creature of municipal law solely, that 
 the absence of laws for its establishment and pro 
 tection will as effectually exclude it as positive 
 prohibitions. That some of our courts may have 
 so decided I will not dispute; but that such a con 
 clusion is in accordance with the truth of history, 
 I most positively deny. It is an admitted fact that 
 siavery once existed in all the original States. 
 When, and where, and by whom was it estab 
 lished? Point to the positive enactment which 
 brought it into being. If such be the fact, the 
 records will settle the question; it has not been 
 done. Laws have been passed , I grant you , recog- 
 r.izing its existence, and regulating its relations. 
 The custom was introduced by consent, has 
 grown with our growth, and strengthened with 
 our strength, and, under the providence of God, 
 has been so intimately interwoven with the 
 frame-work of society, that its eradication is be 
 yond the reach of human ingenuity without most 
 disastrous consequences. This is not the place 
 to discuss its morality or policy. It is outside 
 of our jurisdiction. The Constitution has prop 
 erly left it to the disposition of the communities 
 where it exists. Whether right or wrong in prin 
 ciple, good or evil in its effects, is not for us to 
 determine. In spite of all that may be said against 
 it here or elsewhere, history discloses the fact that 
 it has existed from the earliest ages of the world 
 down to the present time. The Saviour at his 
 advent found it in existence, but did not condemn 
 it. Both He and his apostles recognized the re 
 lationship, and defined the obligations growing 
 out of it. When the Constitution was formed, it 
 existed in all the States of the Union , or nearly all ; 
 
 i and then , again , we find it recognized , but the duty 
 i of regulating it was left to the ''States respect- 
 I ively, or to the people." We do not demand 
 j legislation for its establishment, but we do require 
 i that Congress let it alone, and accord to all our 
 ! people an equal participation in the enjoyment of 
 i the common property of our country. 
 
 The bill as it passed the Senate contained what 
 I is known as the "Clayton amendment." The 
 i design of it is to confine the right of suffrage to 
 
 I citizens of the United States. It is proposed by 
 the substitute to modify this amendment by 
 
 ; inserting the following: 
 
 "That the right of suffrage shall he exerctecd only by 
 
 citizens of the United States, and those who shalJ have 
 
 declared on oath their intention to become such, and shall 
 
 have taken an oath to support the Constitution of the United 
 
 States, and the provisions of this act." 
 
 I would much prefer that the amendment offered 
 ! by Mr. CLAYTON should remain a part of the bill. 
 
 I 1 will not, however, make its retention an indis- 
 ; pensable requisite to obtain my support. Since a 
 j different policy has been pursued in all our former 
 ! territorial legislation without detriment to thepub- 
 | lie interests, I am prepared to yield my preference 
 ! in this respect rather than endanger the passage 
 j of the bill. 
 
 I have heard it charged, and it is believed by 
 | many to be true, that the doctrine of what is 
 I termed " squatter sovereignty" lurks in its pro- 
 : visions; that, power ia given to the Territorial 
 : Legislature to prohibit the introduction of slave 
 i property. It will be readily perceived that this 
 j view of the meaning of the act cannot be correct, 
 I since Congress cannot be supposed to grant a 
 j power which it does not itself possess. When a 
 1 people shall have passed their territorial pupilage, 
 I and are in that state of quasi sovereignty which 
 | enables them to form a constitution, then, and net 
 j till then, are they invested with this high attribute 
 i of sovereign power to settle definitely for them- 
 ! selves the character of their institutions. Should 
 I unauthorized legislation on the part of any Terri- 
 1 tory hereafter look to the exercise of this ungranted 
 I power, it will remain for the judicial tribunals to 
 i settle the question according to the principles of 
 ! the Constitution. 
 
 Sir, the passage of this bill may not restore the 
 1 lost equilibrium between the two sections of our 
 I Union, so important to be preserved, if we admit 
 the doctrine of congressional intervention; but it 
 ! will go very far to avoid the danger so justly ap- 
 ! prehended, growing out of a disparity of their 
 I political strength. Should its enactment settle the 
 I principle which it embodies, and thus fix a per- 
 I manent rule to be observed in the organization of 
 i governments for all our future territorial acqaisi- 
 | tions, then will the apple of discord have been 
 j removed from our legislative halls, and good rea- 
 j son left us to hope for peace and friendship be 
 tween our people and a glorious future for ouf 
 beloved country.