E 
 
 433 
 
BANCROFT 
 LIBRARY 
 
 ~HE: BRARY 
 
 "HE UNIVERSI' T 
 
 OF CAI [FORNIA 
 
SPEECH 
 
 OF 
 
 J. WILEY EDMANDS, 
 
 OF MASSACHUSETTS, 
 
 DELIVERED 
 
 IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, MAY 20, 1854, 
 
 ON THE 
 
 NEBRASKA AND KANSAS TERRITORIAL BILL. 
 
 
 WASHINGTON, D. C. 
 BUELL & BLANCHARD, PRINTERS. 
 
 1854. 
 
SPEECH OF MR. EDMANDS. 
 
 The House being in Committee of the Whole on the state of the 
 Union 
 
 Mr. EDM ANDS said : 
 
 Mr. CHAIRMAN : When I took my seat in this Hall, nothing was 
 further from my purpose than to address the House on the subject of 
 Slavery it being a Southern institution, and to be treated plainly, hav 
 ing to be, to some extent, treated sectionally. But in deference to a 
 confiding constituency, who are greatly excited on this momentous ques 
 tion, and to those friends who have expressed their expectation that I 
 should do more than give a silent vote on it, I have decided, since the 
 commencement of the week, to occupy a portion of the time allotted to 
 this debate. I am, Mr. Chairman, opposed to the Kansas-Nebraska 
 bill, on principle and expediency. And yet, believing as I do, that 
 the success of this measure will result in reaction ; that this Slavery 
 movement will stir up mighty elements of agitation and antagonism, if 
 I gave my support to the bill, I should stand fully justified, I think, 
 by those opponents of Slavery, who commenced a political career on 
 agitation, have been sustained by agitation, and who expect to accom 
 plish their purposes through agitation. I profess to stand on the con 
 servatism of the party to which I belong. I am a moderatist in politics, 
 and I feel it my duty to do all that properly lies in my power to defeat 
 the bill before us. I do not intend to discuss the abstract question of 
 Slavery, but to offer very briefly to the Committee such general views 
 as the measure has suggested to my mind. 
 
 Let us consider the position of this country, in reference to the great 
 subject of Slavery, when the Representatives left home to attend 
 to their duties here. What were called the compromise acts of 1850 
 had been passed. Those measures were looked to, to settle the irrita 
 ting questions that were estranging the North and the South. One of 
 those measures was extremely repugnant to our people ; but, sir, with 
 all their sensitiveness to the requirements of Slavery, their aversion did 
 not overcome their acquiescence. Our people are a law-abiding people, 
 and they resolved to support the 1850 compromise for the sake of peace, 
 harmony, and good brotherhood, under the hope that it would put an 
 end to sectional strife. Both the great political parties, into which the 
 country has long been divided, at once entered into an adherence to the 
 compromises of 1850, and they both recorded their pledges of fidel 
 ity in the articles of political faith adopted by their respective National 
 Conventions. 
 
Hear what was declared as the policy of the Democratic party by the 
 Baltimore Convention, June 1, 1852 : 
 
 " Resolved, That the Democratic party will resist all attempts at renewing, in Con 
 gress or out of it, the agitation of the Slavery question, under whatever shape or color 
 the attempt may be made." 
 
 And by the Whig party, at the National Convention at Baltimore, 
 June 8, 1852. In their last resolve they say : 
 
 " We deprecate all further agitation of the questions thus settled, as dangerous to oar 
 peace, and will discountenance all efforts to continue or renew such agitation, when 
 ever, wherever, or however made." 
 
 They were no longer to countenance sectional agitation. The result 
 of the late Presidential election showed how ready the great mass of the 
 people of the North were to respond to those pledges. So far did the 
 compromise of 1850 become an active element in the campaign, that 
 thousands of Whigs at the North, having been made to believe that the 
 Democratic candidate for the Presidency was more favorable to them than 
 General Scott was, withheld their votes from their party's candidate, or 
 gave them for General Pierce. When they refrained from acting with 
 their own party, they had the satisfaction of feeling that the success of 
 their political opponents would secure peace and harmony to the coun 
 try, if nothing else. 
 
 When we assembled together here last December, no sectional strife 
 existed within the borders of the land. Southern men and Northern 
 men met as brethren of one family ; and, so far as regards sectional dis 
 turbance, all was harmonious. But, sir, how is it now? How happens it 
 that the whole North, from the Atlantic to the Mississippi, is excited 
 and agitated to a degree unprecedented? Is it because they are dis 
 loyal to the compromise of 1850, or unfaithful to the pledges given in 
 1852? No, sir. It is because they see a "ruthless hand, reckless 
 enough to disturb that compromise which had become canonized in the 
 hearts of the American people,"* stretched forth to destroy that which 
 they have, for a third of a century, been taught, and accustomed them 
 selves to consider, as sacred and inviolable. It is because they see a 
 portion of the representatives of the American people ready to desecrate 
 the " canonized" works of their forefathers, and to remove the ancient 
 landmarks set up by those who have gone before us men whose acts 
 of patriotism and integrity we may be proud to imitate. 
 
 Sir, in the midst of a profound peace throughout the land, and while 
 no one was dreaming of danger or disturbance, a measure was suddenly 
 introduced into the other branch of Congress, which has produced all 
 this turmoil and excitement. Conscious that it would stir up sectional 
 strife and bitter opposition, the attempt was made to push it through, 
 without giving the people time scarcely to express their sentiments, cer 
 tainly before another Congress .should be here, chosen by the people in 
 reference to this issue. Uncalled for by any one over whom its action 
 directly extends ; unwelcomed by any body of the people ; " brought 
 into the world scarce half made up ; ?? amended again and again, until 
 it appears before us a different creature from that which sprung from 
 
 * See address of Senator DOUGLAS to his constituents, in 1848. 
 
the committee's first incubation, it still retains the blind partiality of 
 its originator. 
 
 In the Senate it was forced through in the night, all other measures 
 being compelled to give way ; and in this body the track has been 
 cleared for its triumphant march. The fiat went forth last week 
 Monday that debate must be closed, and the vote taken before 
 Tuesday week, the day on which the Pacific railroad bill had been made 
 the special order. Bills of the most pressing importance were laid 
 aside. The Deficiency bill, for the passage of which we were told by 
 the Committee of Ways and Means there was great urgency, its delay 
 involving public waste and private losses ; the important Army and 
 Navy appropriation, and the Civil and Diplomatic appropriation bills, the 
 French spoliation bill responding to the claims of injured citizens for 
 simple justice, all were summarily set aside as of minor importance. 
 Not being able to accomplish their purpose of closing debate, as the 
 friends of the bill announced, they insisted upon overriding the Pacific 
 railroad bill. A minority, to which I have the satisfaction of belonging, 
 determined to use all proper parliamentary means to resist this pro 
 ceeding, believing the consideration of the Pacific railroad bill should 
 come up in its regular order. We were defeated, on a suspension of 
 rules, by some votes that we supposed would not be found against us at 
 the very point on which all previous efforts had been hinging. 
 
 The history of such proceedings would lead one to infer that the bill 
 before us was a measure fraught with blessings and benefits for all ; that 
 it was a measure of peace, coming to a distracted country fraught with 
 healing on its wings and the olive branch in its hand, instead of bearing 
 in its arms a Pandora box, from which have already flown discord, dis 
 sension, and distrust. 
 
 The historical argument has been made so often in this discussion, 
 that I shall not enter upon it here ; but I would ask by whom is this 
 Territorial bill demanded, and how great the necessity for the immediate 
 organizing of the Territory ? It is not by or for the people there, there 
 being not more than fifteen hundred, all told, besides Indians, in the 
 Territory. The Commissioner of Indian Affairs, in a report made by 
 him November 9, 1853, says : 
 
 " On the llth October, the day on which I left the frontier, there was no settle 
 ment made in any part of Nebraska. From all the information I could obtain, there 
 were but three white men in the Territory, except such as were there by authority of 
 law, and those adopted, by marriage and otherwise, into Indian families." 
 
 It ought to be an urgent necessity indeed, to justify us in organizing this 
 Territory, and calling our people to settle there before making treaties 
 with the Indians, fourteen tribes of whom were transplanted there by our 
 own act and under our own guarantee of security. There surely is 
 nothing in the manifest tendency argument to justify it, though dwelt 
 upon with much emphasis during this debate. Ordinary considerations 
 of justice and policy should have prevented any attempts to open the 
 country for settlement, until we had treated with, and attempted to 
 satisfy, the Indians there located. The Commissioner, in this connection, 
 says in the report already referred to, " the enunciation of the opinion 
 that the country was open to occupation and settlement at the time it 
 was promulgated, was most unfortunate." 
 
6 
 
 Is it wanted by the South ? They profess that Slavery will not go 
 there to any extent. This has been repeatedly stated by the Southern 
 advocates of the bill. Senator BUTLER, of South Carolina, said, in his 
 speech in the Senate, "It is certain that Nebraska and Kansas will 
 never be slaveholding States." Senator BADGER, of North Carolina, 
 said, " I have no more idea of seeing a slave population in either Kan 
 sas or Nebraska, than I have of seeing it in Massachusetts." Senator 
 HUNTER, of Virginia, expressed the same views. This being true, this 
 great Territory might remain unorganized for a half century, so far as 
 the South is concerned. They are not a migratory people. They are 
 fixed to their institutions, and, comparatively, have neither the dispo 
 sition nor ability to pioneer in the wilderness. Not so with the North. 
 Their people are moving westward, and, having reached the confines, are 
 now ready to occupy the adjoining country. But they want it in an 
 available condition, a condition fit for their occupancy and improve 
 ment. Where they plant themselves, the sunlight of -Freedom must 
 shine, knowing, as they do, that in. the train of Slavery follow clouds 
 and darkness, unpropitious to growth and prosperity. Here is a Terri 
 tory eight times as large as the six States of New England ; and the 
 question is, Will you allow it to the North, and refuse it to the South 1 
 I speak of their respective institutions, wjiose elements are as different 
 as oil and water, and without reference to binding agreement between 
 the two sections. It will be admitted that the introduction of one is, 
 to a certain extent, a bar to the other. It is well adapted to the 
 occupancy of one, and professedly unfavorable to the other. But we 
 find the South clamorous for this Territory. They are either demand 
 ing what they do not need, or they have aims and purposes not pro 
 fessed. This is manifest in the fact that a bill simply for the organi 
 zation of this Territory they would utterly oppose. Such a bill would 
 be acceptable to a very large majority of this House, uninfluenced by 
 party appliances. But, to be sanctioned by them, it must be accompa 
 nied by another bill a bill to repeal the eighth section of the act of 
 1820, prohibiting Slavery in the Louisiana Territory north of 36 80'. 
 This would ordinarily be the method of disposing of that portion of the 
 act of 1820, and it would probably have been the mode adopted at this 
 time, were it not thought too inconvenient. In doing this, another 
 compromise would have to be made, and the proposition must bear an 
 equivalent. To save this, they concluded to put the creation and the 
 abrogation of law into one and the same bill, hitch it on to the old 
 1850 compromise acts, though by very long traces and make them 
 draw the load. That this was an after-thought, our people fully be 
 lieve. In my own State, you could not find enough to make a jury who 
 ever imagined the acts of 1850 had anything to do at the time with 
 the abrogation of the old 36 30' line; in which they are sustained 
 by their own Representatives, who were actors in that legislation. I 
 should like to know how the consideration in offset for free California 
 (free, too, when acquired) and the abolition of the slave trade in the Dis 
 trict of Columbia, was marked out respectively in that compromise what 
 proportion for Utah, what for New Mexico, and what for the enactment 
 of the Fugitive Slave Law 7 We were told by gentlemen from the 
 
South, in 1850, that there was so little of New Mexico north of 36 30' 
 that it was of no account ; there was no possibility of Slavery in Utah ; 
 that the Fugitive Slave Law was called for by the Constitution ; but .as 
 for repealing the Missouri restriction, that was not mentioned. Was 
 it on account of its insignificance ? 
 
 But, Mr. Chairman, hear Mr. DOUGLAS himself on this point. In a 
 published letter of his, of 23d October, 1850, he writes, in reference to 
 the compromises of 1850 : 
 
 "Neither party has gained or lost anything, so far as the question of Slavery is con 
 cerned." 
 
 Or, in other words, there was no loss to the North of the Missouri 
 compromise. 
 
 Mr. WEBSTER said, July IT, 1850, in the Senate Chamber : 
 
 " The next inquiry is, What do Massachusetts and the North, the Anti-Slavery States, 
 lose by this adjustment? I put the question to every gentleman here, and to every man 
 in the country. They lose the application of what is called the Wilmot Proviso to these 
 Territories, and that is all. 'They wish to get California into the Union, and to quiet 
 New Mexico. They wish to terminate the dispute about the Texas boundary, cost what 
 it may. They make no sacrifice in all these. What they sacrifice is this : the application 
 of the Wilmot Proviso to the Territories of New Mexico and Utah, and that is all" 
 
 No abrogation of the Missouri compromise is hinted there. 
 Mr. CLAY said : 
 
 "Neither party makes any concessions of principle at all, though the concessions of 
 forbearance are ample." 
 
 The abrogation of the Missouri compromise was not reached in 
 these controversies, either in fact or by implication. The wish is 
 father to the thought. 
 
 The fourteenth section of the bill before us provides : " 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 Terri 
 tory of Nebraska as elsewhere 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 
 principle of non-intervention by Congress with Slavery in the States 
 and Territories, as recognised by the legislation of 1850, commonly 
 called the compromise measures, is hereby declared inoperative and 
 void." 
 
 The thirty-second section makes the same provision for Kansas. 
 
 Thus consistency is made the plea in the bill for repealing the Mis 
 souri compromise, and its advocates rest on the principles of legislation 
 established in 1850. That there really was nothing intended in those 
 acts to operate in this way I have shown by the evidence of the chief 
 actors in that legislation. I should like to know, Mr. Chairman, when 
 this keen sense of consistency first came to the originators of this bill. 
 Professing to be actuated by principle, would they not reveal their own 
 views, at least on the first occasion of territorial legislation *? Now, 
 the first Territory which was organized after 1850 was Washington 
 Territory, in 1853, and we heard not a word then of any principle of 
 consistency existing to affect their legislation. If three long years were 
 not sufficient time to open to their astute perceptions the discovery of 
 
8 
 
 a new principle in the legislation of 1850, abolishing that of 1820, is it 
 surprising that the people should be unable to discover it now 1 Again : 
 If the act of 1850 is paramount, because the later, and supersedes 
 that of 1820, why are not the principles of the legislation of 1850 
 superseded by those of 1853, for there is no inconsistency between the 
 act of 1820 and the Territorial act of 1853, and upon the same reason 
 ing the legislation of 1853 would confirm that of 1820. 
 
 Without the clause repealing the old Missouri compromise restriction, 
 the South would not have attached any value to it as an act of legisla 
 tion. It is this, which has " edged the appetite of action." But why 
 should the South urge with such pertinacity the abrogation of this re 
 striction on a Territory which they say Slavery will not enter to any 
 extent? It is fair to conclude there is an object before them, somewhat 
 proportionate to the ardent struggle which they are making for it. If 
 it be not the extension of Slavery there, it must be some other object, 
 outweighing, in their estimate, the tremendous evils which they must 
 know that struggle is producing, in the disturbance of the whole coun 
 try, in the alienation of good feelings, and the kindling of sectional 
 animosities. Will they risk all this for an imaginary purpose? Is 
 there any ulterior object outside of the Territory itself? And is this 
 only a feeder to the great stream of Slavery aggression ? Are there 
 any nascent germs yet unexposed, to be forced hereafter in the hot-bed 
 of Slavery? 
 
 So far as I have observed, our Southern friends seem more sensitive 
 on the subject of rights of property than on any other in this connection, 
 and they ask why a man from the North should be allowed to carry his 
 property to the Territories, and the man from the South be refused the 
 privilege of carrying there the property which he owns ; and they seem 
 not satisfied with the reply, that the slave is a chattel only by local law. 
 One would suppose that the slaveholders imagined that they had a nat 
 ural right to their slaves as property. There are ten slaves, on an 
 average, to each slaveholder in the United States. Now, when the 
 individual slaveholder rests his claim to his ten slaves on the ground of 
 natural right solely, he rests it on a right to be tested by natural power, 
 and he must trust to that issue. The only right by which he holds his 
 slaves is a legal right ; and in the absence of laws fixing the relations of 
 each, the slave has the rights of a free man. The Constitution has not 
 interfered to prevent the holding of slaves as property under State 
 legislation, but it does not carry Slavery anywhere. In the absence of 
 local legislation, there is no such thing as property in man by any other 
 means than force ; and the slaveholder takes the risks and conditions 
 of this species of property when he invests in it. But practically he 
 stands on the same footing as the man who emigrates from Massachu 
 setts, who carries not with him, and does not there use, the property 
 possessed at home. He leaves behind him his farm, his cattle, &c. 
 They are still in Massachusetts, and if sold, their representative, in 
 money ', is taken to his new home. The proceeds of the property of the 
 slaveholder can go in the same way, and any inequality in this respect, 
 is more imaginary than real. But on the ground of equity, this prop 
 erty question will not bear discussion. In its political bearings, its 
 
9 
 
 operation is all against the North. We acknowledge our constitutional 
 obligations, and have no disposition to fall behind them, but we have no 
 intention of yielding to requirements beyond them. Here let me say, 
 the elements of this peculiar institution of our Southern brethren, serve 
 their turn, as circumstances offer. The property element is presented 
 when their interests are to be protected, and the population element 
 serves them when political power is to be acquired. 
 
 The doctrine of non-intervention is put forth and relied on, by our 
 Northern friends, to justify their support of this bill. An examination 
 of the bill shows that it is non-intervention mainly on one point, and 
 non-intervention on that is to be effected by actual intervention. The 
 Territory is now restricted from the approach of Slavery by law, and it 
 can only enter by the intervention of Congress. An act of intervention 
 is now to be resorted to, to carry out the principles of non-intervention 
 said to be established in 1850. Under the plea of consistency with the 
 principles of that legislation, a law is proposed, involving the greatest 
 inconsistency. The doctrine of non-intervention is to be maintained by 
 a direct act of intervention, in the abrogation of the old Missouri com 
 promise. Moreover, the principle of non-intervention in our own Ter 
 ritories is to be made to sanction intervention with foreign Governments, 
 and anticipated success in the extension of Slavery at home, comes her 
 alded with warlike demonstrations to suppress emancipation abroad. But 
 they say it is the great principle of Democracy self-government 
 which they are advocating. When we consider, that so fa% from the 
 people of Nebraska Territory having the right to self-government, it 
 is expressly provided in this bill 'that the general laws made by Con 
 gress shall apply over them, they having no representation in the body 
 which makes them, and that their Governor is to be appointed by the 
 President, with a veto power over two-thirds of the Legislature, as well 
 as their judges, the whole system of non-intervention in Territories so 
 popularly phrased becomes a farce. It is the acting of Hamlet with 
 out the prince. 
 
 We have been told that the principles involved in this Territorial 
 system are those of the old contest of the British Colonies ; that we are 
 imposing unjust restrictions; that we deny to our fellow-citizens a ca 
 pacity for republican government ; that the policy which Lord North 
 and his Tory confederates held towards the Colonies is the policy which 
 we, the opposers of this bill, recommend towards the people of the 
 Territories. This is said because we are resisting the attempt to open 
 the gates of Slavery, now closed by law ; and this charge is made by men, 
 too, who have given us a Territorial bill which provides for taxation with 
 out representation, and, as I have said before, militates against many 
 other principles of self-government? To make their case analogous to 
 that of the Colonies, is assuming for them a position which they never 
 had under any interpretation of Territorial relations since the Govern 
 ment was established. And this is not the most fortunate subject of 
 legislation wherewith to prove the analogy of the case. Chief among 
 the charges of complaint made by our Colonial fathers against George 
 III, was this : " that he, had prostituted his negative for suppressing 
 every legislative attempt to prohibit or restrain this execrable com- 
 
merce " of Slaver} 7 . If we were now forcing Slavery into the Territory, 
 instead of " restraining its commerce " there, the argument of analogy 
 would have some application. 
 
 The doctrine that the people, in forming a State Constitution, had the 
 right to decide for themselves whether they would prohibit or tolerate 
 Slavery, was first formally announced in February, 1847, by Mr. Cal- 
 houn, who offered the following resolution to the Senate : 
 
 " Resolved, That it is a fundamental principle in our political creed, that a people, in 
 forming a Constitution, have the unconditional right .to form and adopt the Government 
 which they may think best calculated to secure their liberty, prosperity, and happiness; 
 and that, in conformity thereto, no other condition is imposed by the Federal Constitu 
 tion on a State, in order to be admitted into the Union, except that its Constitution shall 
 be republican, and that the imposition of any other by Congress would not only be in 
 violation of the Constitution, but in direct conflict with the principle on which our po 
 litical system rests." 
 
 The argument now addressed by the South on Territorial organi 
 zation is, that non-intervention being established by Congress, the 
 rights of Slavery will be established, and that slaves can be carried 
 into the Territory, by rights secured by the Constitution by that in 
 strument which, in reference to human bondage, declares u that no per 
 son shall be deprived of life or liberty without due course of law ! ' 
 Listen to what was said by Mr. CLAY, in a speech before the Senate, 
 July 22, 1850 : 
 
 "You cannot put your finger on the part of the Constitution which conveys the right 
 or the power to carry slaves from one of the States of the Union to any Territory of the 
 United States. Nor can I admit for a single moment that there is any separate or sev 
 eral rights, upon the part of the States, or individual members of a State, or any portion 
 of the people of the United States, to carry slaves into the Territories, under the idea 
 that these Territories are held in common between the several States." 
 
 Were he now living, he would join us heart and hand in resisting 
 Southern dogmas. 
 
 The grand idea of popular sovereignty, said to be contained in this 
 Territorial bill before us, is but a tub to catch the whale. It is reduced 
 down mainly to non-intervention by Congress on the subject of Slavery, 
 for the benefit of the South, and it should be so considered. Legal 
 gentlemen differ as to the effect of non-intervention even on this subject. 
 Constitutional law is variously construed, and the extended discussion 
 of the Senate on this point has done but little to enlighten us on its 
 practical operation. It appears to me that the Southern institution 
 rests on intervention ; that when the principle is establishad of non-in 
 tervention by Congress, that Slavery will lose its main support. 
 Whether the old Louisiana law would be revived, on the repeal of the 
 36 30' restriction, has become a question. And while there is a doubt 
 on it, let us adhere to that proviso in the bill, which was introduced to 
 prevent it, " Provided^ That nothing herein contained shall be con 
 strued to revive, or put in force, any law or regulation which may have 
 existed prior to the act of March 6, 1820, either protecting or estab 
 lishing, prohibiting or abolishing Slavery." It was added by a South 
 ern Whig Senator, [Mr. BADGER,] who should have the credit of this 
 attempt to do something for Northern benefit, in extracting the claws 
 of the monster, which, when full grown, might be used to our injury. 
 
Let that proviso stand, for it marks a boundary, even though it be an 
 outer one. 
 
 But the details of this bill all sink into insignificance, compared 
 with that one feature, which provides that Slavery may be made 
 lawful where it is now unlawful, and it has become a moral as well as 
 political question. The extent of territory to which this is to apply, 
 the length of time which has passed since the law of Freedom was there 
 established, the law being more than half as old as the Constitution it 
 self, the recklessness with which this pledge of public faith is proposed 
 to be broken, must necessarily excite and alarm the people of the 
 North. 
 
 Aggression of Slavery is the main feature of the movement now being 
 made. Not content with the secured rights of the slaveholders in the 
 States, not satisfied with those portions of acquired territory made 
 slave territory by consent of parties, it now seeks an extension of limits. 
 Moreover, it is not on a new region, just acquired, that the demands of 
 Slavery are now made, based on common rights in undivided es 
 tate, but on a portion of the Western territories, held by the North, by 
 mutual agreement with the South, under which they have secured and 
 now hold so much slave territory on their part. From this great terri 
 tory which, by arrangement, by legislation, and by common understand 
 ing, has been given to Freedom, they now attempt to remove that re 
 striction which has, up to this time, effectually barred the progress of 
 Slavery. Is not this an aggressive movement of Slavery 1 The line 
 of 36 30', established in 1820, ordained by law, acquiesced in by the 
 people, so far as the then existing territory is concerned, is ajixedfact^ 
 whether wisely or unwisely made. You may argue on it from now until 
 doomsday ; your expositions of law and the Constitution will be all in 
 vain to satisfy the people that the Missouri Compromise is morally re- 
 pealable. True, Congress can repeal technically the laws they have 
 made ; but they cannot annul the circumstances creating the original 
 necessity of this law, nor the doings of the people under the law. The 
 South cannot practically do it, if the North and South were willing to 
 have all placed back as in 1820. 
 
 The argument of progress has been made in the course of the debate. 
 It has been said that we are more enlightened for legislation now, and 
 that we are not placed under the same necessities and circumstances as 
 in 1820. The one will find illustration in our action on this bill the 
 other ignores all obligations under agreements. The lapse of time has 
 but added to the strength of pledges, and the weight of obligation has 
 been accumulating. 
 
 It is too late now to discuss the constitutionality of what is called the 
 Missouri compromise act. I would as soon think of doubting the con 
 stitutionality of the Constitution itself, as to bring that of the Missouri 
 compromise into question now. The work, as it was, of some of the 
 most distinguished statesmen of that day, approved, as it has been, by 
 the most learned jurists of our country, confirmed by universal acqui 
 escence, and long considered as inviolable by the whole American peo 
 ple, sanctioned by such men as Pinckney, Adams, Crawford, Calhoun, 
 Wirt, Clay, Webster, Lowndes, Barbour, and King, it requires some self- 
 
12 
 
 esteem, as well as wisdom, to attempt to prove it unconstitutional now. 
 But, for argument's sake, admitting the Southern view of its unconsti 
 tutionally, neither, sir, was the purchase of the country constitutional 
 to which this compromise applies. The purchase of Louisiana was ad 
 mitted by Mr. Jefferson, and all the distinguished men of the day, to be 
 a violation of the Constitution, but no one on that account would un 
 dertake to undo Jefferson's acts. It has been approved and sanctioned 
 by the people's acquiescence for fifty-one years, as the Missouri com 
 promise has been for thirty-four years ; and are they now to be over 
 turned because they were originally illegal 1 Sir, suppose after a man 
 had been married thirty-four years, with children and grandchildren 
 settled about him, he should conclude that the clergyman who perform 
 ed the marriage ceremony w r as unauthorized to do so, and that his mar 
 riage was illegal would he repudiate the mother of his children 1 And 
 so w r ill not the American people repudiate the Missouri compromise. Mr. 
 Chairman, is there any one who believes that the annexation of Louisiana, 
 by purchase, was more constitutional than the establishment of the old 
 Missouri compromise line? Is there a member from the South in this 
 House who would act in that direction upon his scruples ; and do not gen 
 tlemen lay themselves open to a charge of want of honest fairness, when 
 they present this as a reason for pushing the measure now before us ? 
 I truly believe, sir, that the people of the North, South, and West, 
 without the intervention of politicians, would stand by this old compro 
 mise with as much unanimity as they would give to any great question 
 that is likely to come before them. I view this question practically ; 
 and let us not forget that the popular mind is never affected perma 
 nently by any wire-drawn theories of law or politics. Whether it was 
 constitutional or not ; whether those eminent men who concurred in its 
 constitutionality really believed it to be so or not ; whether the deci 
 sions of courts are sound or not, practically and morally the Mis 
 souri compromise is irrepealable. 
 
 It has been said here that the South must have more room ; that dif 
 fusion of the slaves is asked for, not because it will increase their num 
 ber, but because it is unsafe to have the slaves of the country so con 
 fined in space as they will be in a few years ; and that, in this view, it 
 is unreasonable to shut them out of common territory. The slave States 
 have now nearly fifty per cent, more territory than the free States, and 
 the free States have nearly fifty per cent, more population than the 
 slave States. Now, if there is anything in the argument of expansion 
 of the slave area to preserve Slavery, and that is to be the principle of 
 future application, is it not time for the free States to come to a conclu 
 sion at once to resist all future Slavery aggression 1 What has given to 
 the slave power the ascendency, the management of Government, the 
 wielding of the political power of the nation, and the control over our 
 legislation! It is not population, for they have now only nine millions, 
 (including their three million slaves,) against the thirteen millions of 
 the free States. Of the two, it must be territory ; for there are in 
 the slave States nine hundred thousand square miles, in the free States 
 only six hundred thousand. We have the advantage in population, 
 and_lose ; they the most territory , and gain the power. This should 
 
13 
 
 be well considered, at a time when they are grasping at additional power 
 through the removal of a Slavery barrier, time-honored, and heretofore 
 sacred, the very attempt furnishing a striking illustration of the reck 
 lessness of Slavery aggression.* 
 
 Heretofore the South has complained of agitation in the North, but 
 now the North has reason to complain not only of agitation but aggres 
 sion from the South. The South may succeed in this encroachment on 
 the rights of the North, but I ask gentlemen to consider what is to enure 
 to the South by this bill to abrogate the restricting clause of the Mis 
 souri compromise. The North are not going to sit down supinely, and 
 see this work of aggression go on. You will drive them to means 
 which they well know how to use. They will form Nebraska associa 
 tions, and furnish the pecuniary means for emigrating there. They will 
 send out their people by thousands ; and, sir, you may judge what dis 
 position towards Slavery such settlers will possess. Yankee free 
 schools will be established, u meeting houses" erected, and Northern 
 clergymen will be on that field of duty. The free press, that busy and 
 mighty agent, will be there too. After you have driven the North to 
 secure by these artificial appliances what w r as theirs by law, when those 
 who have been carried there under such circumstances shall have got 
 this moral machinery at work, I ask, again, what will the South have 
 gained? Sir, in my opinion, so far as regards their cherished object 
 the propagation of Slavery institutions they have proceeded most 
 unwittingly in pressing this measure, so obnoxious to the North. 
 
 I well recollect, Mr. Chairman, that in 1850 a Southern Senator, 
 [Mr. BADGER,] strongly appealing to the North against applying the 
 Wilmot proviso to the Territories of Utah and New Mexico, after show 
 ing that nothing could be gained by so doing, as Slavery would not be 
 come part and parcel of those Territories, asked why the North, having 
 nothing to gain thereby, would insist upon doing an act which the South 
 considered ungracious and unneighborly, and provocative of resentment 
 and ill-feeling? How is it with the South now? Is it because the 
 North refrained at that time from doing what w r as represented as so 
 distateful to the South, that they are now pushing a measure so offen 
 sive to the North, not merely in reference to the future, but by the re 
 peal of an act in which the legislation of the past thirty years has been 
 involved ? 
 
 I know, Mr. Chairman, that there are some here, and I would fain 
 hope that there are many, to whom this measure has as few charms as 
 it has to me, bnt who, nevertheless, are constrained to take a course 
 different from that which my judgment and my conscience dictate to 
 
 * The last census shows 
 
 The area of the slave States to be 928,947 square miles. 
 
 That of the free States 643,326 " 
 
 Difference in favor of slave States 285,621 
 
 Population of slave States 9,663,997 
 
 Population of free States - 13,434,849 
 
 Difference in favor of free States ----------- 3,770,842 
 
14 
 
 me. Considering it a sectional movement, and that, as such, the bill 
 before us will not receive, in full measure, the opposition which the 
 merits of the details of the bill would independently elicit, I am pained 
 to see it supported by Northern men, without whose aid this fountain 
 of the bitter waters of strife could never be opened. Well may the 
 North exclaim, on reading the list of ayes on this measure, " and you, 
 too, my sons ! r - 
 
 The passage of the abrogation of the Missouri compromise should 
 be no cause for exultation to any lover of his country. He only who 
 can enjoy the angry contentions of different sections, who can laugh at 
 those convulsions which cause patriots to mourn, can see cause to re 
 joice in the passage of the bill before us. I am not of the school of 
 political Abolitionists. Their motto, as given by the honorable gentle 
 man from New York, [GERRIT SMITH,] is " unconditional, entire, and 
 immediate abolition." To such a doctrine I cannot subscribe. Noth 
 ing seems to me more visionary, however sincere ; nothing more imprac 
 ticable, however earnestly sought. They may be the instruments of 
 ultimate good ; but oh ! through what evil would that good come, if 
 their system were tested by actual accomplishment ! I would as soon 
 undertake to extinguish the running fire of the prairie, by treading 
 with naked feet the burning grass, as to abolish Slavery through the 
 way proposed by the Abolitionist. It has grown with our growth, and 
 strengthened with our strength. It must be treated in the light of 
 political economy, as well as by a theory of morals. The problem, I 
 know, is a difficult one to solve. 
 
 The present political power of Slavery is startling. The three hun 
 dred thousand slaveholders, scattered through one half the States of 
 the Union, hold not the balance of power, but constitute the political 
 power of the Government ; and this they do through the three millions 
 of slaves they hold. How long this is to continue, none can tell. I 
 have faith in the progress and prosperity, moral and material, of my 
 country. God, in his infinite wisdom, has ways past finding out. A 
 few years ago, Ireland, with her famishing people, was a subject of deep 
 anxiety to the leading men of Great Britain, and presented to the 
 world a problem of humanity which neither philanthropy, philosophy, 
 nor patriotism, could solve. But the whole was made plain when the 
 Irish exodus to the land of liberty commenced. I believe that America 
 is an instrument of christianizing, civilizing, and elevating the negro 
 race, though the elements of civilization come to them through the bit 
 ter draught of Slavery. But this no more justifies the propagation of 
 Slavery than the improved political and social condition of the Irish 
 here justifies the hard policy of England, which drove them from their 
 country. I do not consider this question in reference to the blacks 
 merely. It is one affecting the 'moral interests of our own people. 
 
 Whatever good and whatever evil there is in agitation, is now to be 
 shared between the Southern politician and the political Abolitionist. 
 The conservatism of the North, so long attacked by the Abolition par 
 ty, is now made the object of taunt by the South. The slaveholder 
 and Abolitionist have become political agitators, and on this ground are 
 political allies ; allied, too, against those who have been disposed to 
 
15 
 
 denounce radicalism, from whichever side. Too late now for the South 
 to point the finger at the sectional agitator, for they are taking their 
 turn at the same game. If they succeed in passing this bill, they will 
 have served the purposes of their bitterest opponents on the Slavery 
 question. Succeeding in this, you strike down not solely the Missouri 
 compromise act, but the superstructure and foundation of every com 
 promise go with it, and no ground left whereon to construct another 
 nothing left to interpose between the Southern institution and the sharp 
 demands of the extremist of the North. If the South want this state 
 of things, let me assure them they will certainly secure it through the 
 passage of the bill before us. Moreover, aggression brings resistance, 
 and restoration will follow abrogation. 
 
 XOTE. The bill \vas adopted on Monday, May 22d, by the following vote : 
 
 For. Against. 
 
 Democrats from slave States 57 4 
 
 Democrats from free States - 43 43 
 
 Whigs from slave States ______ 13 5 
 
 Whigs from free States - 41 
 
 Free-Soil - _ _ _ _ _ 4 
 
 113 100