itself, in 1830, in this very place, in reply to one who had undervalued it and its author:

་་

'I spoke, sir, of the Ordinance of 1787, which pro hibits slavery, in all future time, northwest of the Ohio, as a measure of great wis tom and forethought, and one which has been attended with highly beneficial and permanent consequences.” And now hear what he said here, when advocating the Compromise of 1850:

wounds in the Federal system, and no more, which needed surgery, and to which the Compromise of 1850 was to be a cataplasm. We all know what they were: California without a Constitution; New Mexico in the grasp of military power; Utah neglected; the District of Columbia dishonored; and the rendition of fugitives denied. Nebraska was not even thought of in this catalogue of national ills. And now, sir, did the Nashville Convention of secessionists understand that, besides the enumerated boons offered to the slaveholding States, they were to have also the obliteration of the Missouri Compromise line of 1820? If they did, why did they reject and scorn and scout at the Compromise of 1850? Did the What irrepealable law, or what law of any Legislatures and public assemblies of the nonkind, fixed the character of Nebraska as free or slaveholding States, who made your table groan slave territory, except the Missouri Compro-braska was an additional wound to be healed with their remonstrances, understand that Ne

"I now say, sir, as the proposition upon which I stand this day, and upon the truth and firmness of which I intend to act until it is overthrown, that there is not at this moment in the United States, or any Territory of the United States, one sing e foot of land, the character of which, in regard to its being free territory or slave territory, is not fixed by some law, and some IRREPEALABLE law beyond the power

of the action of this Government."

mise act?

And now hear what Daniel Webster said when vindicating the Compromise of 1850, at Buffalo, in 1851 :

My opinion remains unchanged, that it was not

within the original scope or design of the Constitution to admit new States out of foreign territory; and for one, whatever may be said at the Syracuse Con. vention or any other assemblage of insane persons, I never would consent, and never have consented, that there should be one foot of slave territory beyond what the old thirteen States had at the time of the

formation of the Union! Never! Never!

"The man cannot show his face to me and say he can prove that I ever departed from that doctrine. He would sneak away, and slink away, or hire a mercenary press to cry out, What an apostate from Liberty Daniel Webster has become! But he knows himself to be a hypocrite and a falsifier."

That Compromise was forced upon the slaveholding States and upon the non-slaveholding States as a mutual exchange of equivalents. The equivalents were accurately defined, and carefully scrutinized and weighed by the respective parties, through a period of eight months. The equivalents offered to the nonslaveholding States were: 1st, the admission of California; 2d, the abolition of the public slave trade in the District of Columbia. These, and these only, were the boons offered to them, and the only sacrifices which the slaveholding States were required to make. The waiver of the Wilmot Proviso in the incorporation of New Mexico and Utah, and a new fugitive slave law, were the only boons proposed to the slaveholding States, and the only sacrifices exacted of the non-slaveholding States. No other questions between them were agitated, except those which were involved in the gain or loss of more or less of free territory or of slave territory in the determination of the boundary between Texas and New Mexico, by a line that was at last arbitrarily made, expressly saving, even in those Territories, to the respective parties, their respective shares of free soil and slave soil, according to the articles of annexation of the Republic of Texas. Again: There were alleged to be five open, bleeding

by the Compromise of 1850? If they did, why did they omit to remonstrate against the healing of that, too, as well as of the other five, by the cataplasm, the application of which they resisted so long?

Again: Had it been then known that the Missouri Compromise was to be abolished, directly or indirectly, by the Compromise of 1850, what Representative from a non-slaveholding State would, at that day, have voted for it? Not one. What Senator from a slaveholding State would not have voted for it? Not one. So entirely was it then unthought of that the new Compromise was to repeal the Missouri Compromise line of 36 deg. 30 min., in the region acquired from France, that one half of that long debate was spent on propositions made by Representatives from slaveholding States, to extend the line further on through the new territory we had acquired so recently from Mexico, until it should disappear in the waves of the Pacific Ocean, so as to secure actual toleration of slavery in all of this new territory that should be south of that line; and these propositions were resisted strenuously and successfully to the last by the Representatives of the non-slaveholding States, in order, if it were possible, to save the whole of those regions for the theatre of free labor.

I admit that these are only negative proofs, although they are pregnant with conviction. But here is one which is not only affirmative, but positive, and not more positive than conclusive:

In the fifth section of the Texas Boundary bill, one of the acts constituting the Compromise of 1850, are these words:

section of the joint resolution for annexing of them, when good and cherished interests are Texas? Here it is: secured by them.

employed by the Government, in connection with the administration of Indian affairs, and other persons temporarily drawn around the post of Fort Leavenworth. It is clear, then, that this abrogation of the Missouri Compro- | mise is not necessary for the purpose of establishing Territorial Governments in Nebraska, but that, on the contrary, these bills, establishing such Governments, are only a vehicle for carrying, or a pretext for carrying, that act of abrogation.

graphical extent of the laws we are now passing, so that there may be no such mistake hereafter as that now complained of here. We are now confiding to Territorial Legislatures the power to legislate on slavery. Are the Territories of Nebraska and Kansas alone within the purview of these acts? Or do they reach to the Pacific coast, and embrace also Oregon and Washington? Do they stop there, or do they take in China and India and Affghanistan, even to the gigantic base of the Himalaya Mountains? Do they stop there, or, on the contrary, do they encircle the earth, and, meeting us again on the Atlantic coast, embrace the islands of Iceland and Greenland, and exhaust themselves on the barren coasts of Greenland and Labrador?

It is alleged, that the non-slaveholding States have forfeited their rights in Nebraska, under the Missouri Compromise, by first breaking that Compromise themselves. The argument is, that the Missouri Compromise line of 36 deg. 30 min., in the region acquired from Sir, if the Missouri Compromise neither in France, although confined to that region which its spirit nor by its letter extended the line of was our westernmost possession, was, never-36 deg. 30 min. beyond the confines of Louisitheless, understood as intended to be prospect-ana, or beyond the then confines of the United ively applied also to the territory reaching States, for the terms are equivalent, then it was thence westward to the Pacific Ocean, which we should afterwards acquire from Mexico; and that when afterwards, having acquired these Territories, including California, New Mexico, and Utah, we were engaged in 1848 in extending Governments over them, the free States refused to extend that line, on a proposition to that effect made by the honorable Senator from Illinois.

It need only be stated, in refutation of this argument, that the Missouri Compromise law, like any other statute, was limited by the extent of the subject of which it treated. This subject was the Territory of Louisiana, acquired from France, whether the same were more or less, then in our lawful and peaceful possession. The length of the line of 36 deg. 30 min, established by the Missouri Compromise, was the distance between the parallels of longitude which were the borders of that possession. Young America-I mean aggrandizing, conquering America-had not yet been born; nor was the statesman then in being, who dreamed that, within thirty years afterwards, we should have pushed our adventurous way, not only across the Rocky Mountains, but also across the Snowy Mountains. Nor did any one then imagine, that even if we should have done so within the period I have named, we were then prospectively carving up and dividing, not only the mountain passes, but the Mexican Empire on the Pacific coast, between Freedom and Slavery. If such a proposition had been made then, and persisted in, we know enough of the temper of 1820 to know this, viz: that Missouri and Arkansas would have stood outside of the Union until even this portentous day.

The time, for aught I know, may not be thirty years distant, when the convulsions of the Celestial Empire and the decline of British sway in India shall have opened our way into the regions beyond the Pacific Ocean. I desire to know now and be fully certified of the geo

no violation of the Missouri Compromise in 1848 to refuse to extend it to the subsequently acquired possessions of Texas, New Mexico, and California.

But suppose we did refuse to extend it; how did that refusal work a forfeiture of our vested rights under it? I desire to know that.

Again: If this forfeiture of Nebraska occurred in 1848, as the Senator charges, how does it happen that he not only failed in 1850, when the parties were in court here, adjusting their mutual claims, to demand judgment against the free States, but, on the contrary, even urged that the same old Missouri Compromise line, yet held valid and sacred, should be extended through to the Pacific Ocean?

I come now to the chief ground of the defence of this extraordinary measure, which is, that it abolishes a geographical line of division between the proper fields of free labor and slave labor, and refers the claim between them to the people of the Territories. Even if this great change of policy was actually wise and necessary, I have shown that it is not necessary to make it now, in regard to the Territory of Nebraska. If it would be just elsewhere, it would be unjust in regard to Nebraska, simply because, for ample and adequate equivalents, fully received, you have contracted in effect not to abolish that line there.

But why is this change of policy wise or necessary? It must be because either that the extension of slavery is no evil, or because you have not the power to prevent it at all, or because the maintenance of a geographical line is no longer practicable.

I know that the opinion is sometimes advanced, here and elsewhere, that the extension of slavery, abstractly considered, is not an evil; but our laws prohibiting the African slave trade are still standing on the statute book, and express the contrary judgment of the American Congress and of the American People. I pass on, therefore, from that point.

Sir, I do not like, more than others, a geographical line between Freedom and Slavery. But it is because I would have, if it were possible, all our territory free. Since that cannot be, a line of division is indispensable; and any line is a geographical line.

The honorable and very acute Senator from North Carolina [Mr. BADGER] has wooed us most persuasively to waive our objections to the new principle, as it is called, of non-intervention, by assuring us that the slaveholder can only use slave labor where the soils and climates favor the culture of tobacco, cotton, rice, and sugar. To which I reply: None of these find congenial soils or climates at the sources of the Mississippi, or in the valley of the Rocky Mountains. Why, then, does he want to remove the inhibition there?

on condition of surrendering their constitutional objections.

For argument's sake, however, let this reply be waived, and let us look at this constitutional objection. You say that the exclusion of slavery by the Missouri Compromise reaches through and beyond the existence of the region organized as a Territory, and prohibits slavery FOREVER, even in the States to be organized out of such Territory, while, on the contrary, the States, when admitted, will be sovereign, and must have exclusive jurisdiction over slavery for themselves. Let this, too, be granted. But Congress, according to the Constitution, may admit new States." If Congress may admit, then Congress may also refuse to admit— that is to say, may reject new States. The greater includes the less; therefore, Congress may admit, on condition that the States shall exclude slavery. If such a condition should be accepted, would it not be binding?

But again: That Senator reproduces a pleasing fiction of the character of slavery from the Jewish history, and asks, Why not allow the modern patriarchs to go into new regions with It is by no means necessary, on this occasion, their slaves, as their ancient prototypes did, to to follow the argument further to the question, make them more comfortable and happy? whether such a condition is in conflict with the And he tells us, at the same time, that this in- constitutional provision, that the new States redulgence will not increase the number of slaves. ceived shall be admitted on an equal footing I reply by asking, first, Whether slavery has with the original States, because, in this case, gained or lost strength by the diffusion of it and at present, the question relates not to the over a larger surface than it formerly cov-admission of a State, but to the organization of ered? Will the Senator answer that? Second- a Territory, and the exclusion of slavery withly, I admire the simplicity of the patriarchal in the Territory while its status as a Territory times. But they nevertheless exhibited some shall continue, and no further. Congress has peculiar institutions quite incongruous with power to exclude slavery in Territories, if they modern Republicanism, not to say Christianity, have any power to create, control, or govern namely, that of a latitude of construction of the Territories at all, for this simple reason: that marriage contract, which has been carried by find the authority of Congress over the Terrione class of so-called patriarchs into Utah. Cer- tories wherever you may, there you find no extainly, no one would desire to extend that pecu- ception from that general authority in favor of liar institution into Nebraska. Thirdly, slave- slavery. If Congress has no authority over holders have also a peculiar institution, which slavery in the Territories, it has none in the makes them political patriarchs. They reckon District of Columbia. If, then, you abolish a five of their slaves as equal to three freemen in law of Freedom in Nebraska, in order to esforming the basis of Federal representation. If tablish a new policy of abnegation, then true these patriarchs insist upon carrying their in- consistency requires that you shall also abolish stitution into new regions, north of 36 deg. 30 the Slavery laws in the District of Columbia, min., I respectfully submit, that they ought to and submit the question of the toleration of reassume the modesty of their Jewish prede- slavery within the District to its inhabitants. cessors, and relinquish this political feature of the system they thus seek to extend. Will they do that?

If you reply, that the District of Columbia has no local or Territorial Legislature, then I rejoin, so also has not Nebraska, and so also Some Senators have revived the argument has not Kansas. You are calling a Territorial that the Missouri Compromise was unconstitu- Legislature into existence in Nebraska, and tional. But it is one of the peculiarities of another in Kansas, to assume the jurisdiction compromises, that constitutional objections, like on the subject of slavery, which you renounce. all others, are buried under them by those who Then consistency demands that you call into make and ratify them, for the obvious reason existence a Territorial Legislature in the Disthat the parties at once waive them, and re-trict of Columbia, to assume the jurisdiction ceive equivalents. Certainly, the slaveholding here, which you must also renounce. States, which waived their constitutional ob- you do this? We shall see. jections against the Compromise of 1820, and accepted equivalents therefor, cannot be allowed to revive and offer them now as a reason for refusing to the non-slaveholding States their rights under that Compromise, without first restoring the equivalents which they received

Will

To come closer to the question: What is this principle of abnegating National authority, on the subject of slavery, in favor of the People? Do you abnegate all authority, whatever, in the Territories? Not at all; you abnegate only authority over slavery there. Do you abnegate

which ought to be renounced last of all, in favor of Territorial Legislatures, because, from the very circumstances of the Territories, those Legislatures are likely to yield too readily to ephemeral influences, and interested offers of favor and patronage. They see neither the great Future of the Territories, nor the comprehensive and ultimate interests of the whole Republic, as clearly as you see them, or ought to see them.

I have heard sectional excuses given for supporting this measure. I have heard Senators from the slaveholding States say that they ought not to be expected to stand by the nonslaveholding States, when they refuse to stand by themselves; that they ought not to be expected to refuse the boon offered to the slaveholding States, since it is offered by the nonslaveholding States themselves. I not only

even that? No; you do not and you cannot. In the very act of abnegating you legislate, and enact that the States to be hereafter organized shall come in whether slave or free, as their inhabitants shall choose. Is not this legislating not only on the subject of slavery in the Territories, but on the subject of slavery even in the future States? In the very act of abnegating, you call into being a Legislature which shall assume the authority which you are renouncing. You not only exercise authority in that act, but you exercise authority over slavery, when you confer on the Territorial Legislature the power to act upon that subject. More than this: In the very act of calling that Territorial Legislature into existence, you exercise authority in prescribing who may elect and who may be elected. You even reserve to your selves a veto upon every act that they can pass as a legislative body, not only on all other sub-confess the plausibility of these excuses, but I jects, but even on the subject of slavery itself. Nor can you relinquish that veto; for it is absurd to say that you can create an agent, and depute to him the legislative authority of the United States, which agent you cannot at your own pleasure remove, and whose acts you cannot at your own pleasure disavow and repudiThe Territorial Legislature is your agent. Its acts are your own. Such is the principle that is to supplant the ancient policy-a principle full of absurdities and contradictions.

ate.

Again: You claim that this policy of abnegation is based upon a democratic principle. A democratic principle is a principle opposed to some other that is despotic or aristocratic. You claim and exercise the power to institute and maintain government in the Territories. Is this comprehensive power aristocratic or despotic? If it be not, how is the partial power aristocratic or despotic? You retain authority to appoint Governors, without whose consent no laws can be made on any subject, and Judges, without whose consideration no laws can be executed, and you retain the power to change them at pleasure. Are these powers, also, aristocratic or despotic? If they are not, then the exercise of legislative power by yourselves is not. If they are, then why not renounce them also? No, no. This is a far-fetched excuse. Democracy is a simple, uniform, logical system, not a system of arbitrary, contradictory, and conflicting principles!

But you must nevertheless renounce National authority over slavery in the Territories, while you retain all other powers. What is this but a mere evasion of solemn responsibilities? The general authority.of Congress over the Territories is one wisely confided to the National Legislature, to save young and growing communities from the dangers which beset them in their state of pupilage, and to prevent them from adopting any policy that shall be at war with their own lasting interests, or with the general welfare of the whole Republic. The authority over the subject of slavery is that

feel the justice of the reproach which they imply against the non-slaveholding States, as far as the assumption is true. Nevertheless, Senators from the slaveholding States must consider well whether that assumption is, in any considerable degree, founded in fact. If one or more Senators from the North decline to stand by the non-slaveholding States, or offer a boon in their name, others from that region do, nevertheless, stand firmly on their rights, and protest against the giving or the acceptance of the boon. It has been said that the North does not speak out, so as to enable you to decide between the conflicting voices of her Representatives. Are you quite sure you have given her timely notice? Have you not, on the contrary, hurried this measure forward, to anticipate her awaking from the slumber of conscious security into which she has been lulled by your last Compromise? Have you not heard already the quick, sharp protest of the Legislature of the smallest of the nonslaveholding States, Rhode Island? Have you not already heard the deep-toned and earnest protest of the greatest of those States, New York? Have you not already heard remonstrances from the Metropolis, and from the rural districts? Do you doubt that this is only the rising of the agitation that you profess to believe is at rest forever? Do you forget that, in all such transactions as these, the people have a reserved right to review the acts of their Representatives, and a right to demand a reconsideration; that there is in our legislative practice a form of RE-ENACTMENT, as well as an act of repeal; and that there is in our political system provision not only for abrogation, but for RESTORATION also? And when the process of repeal has begun, how many and what laws will be open to repeal, equally with the Missouri Compromise? There will be this act, the fugitive slave laws, the articles of Texas annexation, the Territorial laws of New Mexico and Utah, the slavery laws in the District of Columbia.