An analysis of this vote. by States, presents the following results. There were sixteen States in favor of abiding by the line of 36 30. nine against it, three divided, and two not voting. There were then thirty States in the Union. Of the sixteen yeas, fourteen were Southern States, to wit, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, Tennessee, Kentucky, Missouri, Arkansas, and Texas, while only two were Northern States, to wit, Indiana and Pennsylvania. Of the nine nays, every one was a Northern State, to wit, Maine, New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, Vermont, New Jersey, Ohio, and Wisconsin. The three divided States were Northern, to wit, New York, Michigan, and Illinois. The two not voting, were Iowa, and Florida; one a Northern State, and the other a Southern State.

When this amendment was before the House, on the 11th of August, of the eighty-two votes for it, every one of them was from the South, except four. These were Ausburn Birdsall, of New York, Charles Brown, Charles J. Ingersoll and Richard Brodhead, of Pennsylvania. Of the one hundred and twenty-one against it, every one was from the North, except one, John W. Houston, of Delaware.

On the final vote, in the Senate, on receding, when the yeas were twenty-nine, and nays twenty-five, every Northern Senator voted with the yeas, and every Southern Senator with the nays, except Mr. Benton, of Missouri. His vote would not have changed the result. So that every Northern State, both in the Senate and in the House, abandoned this principle of division, on the 12th of August, 1848. The vote by States on this queston, thus presented for the last time in the Senate,

stands thirteen yeas for the Missouri Compromise line, to wit, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi, Arkansas, Tennessee, Kentucky, Louisiana, and Texas-all Southern States; and fourteen nays against it, to wit, Maine, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island, New Hampshire, Vermont, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Michigan, and Wisconsin, all Northern States. Missouri, a Southern State, was divided. Iowa and Florida failed to vote in this case as before.

Now in the face of all the facts of these Records, which no one can gainsay or deny, with any regard for truth, who can justly charge upon the South, or the Southern States, the abandonment of the Missouri Compromise, so-called, or a violation of this sacred Compact, so-called? If there was any breach of faith in this matter, to whose door is it to be laid? "Breach of faith, indeed!" I think you said. Well, then, I repeat, if there was any "breach of faith" on this subject, to which side is it justly to be charged? With what renewed force does your proverb react?

Having thus gone through with the Missouri Compromise, so-called, we will postpone the consideration of the other matters now in hand, until evening.

COLLOQUY XVI.

REPLY TO JUDGE BYNUM CONTINUED-COMPROMISE OF 1850-FULL EXPOSITION OF THIS NEVER BEFORE GIVEN-EXCITEMENT OF THE SESSION-ELECTION OF SPEAKER IN THE HOUSE-POSITION OF A PORTION OF SOUTHERN WHIGS -SPEECHES OF MR. TOOMBS-THE SENATE AT THAT TIME-POSITION OF MR. CLAY, MR. WEBSTER, AND MR. CALHOUN-MR. CLAY'S OMNIBUS BILL -PRINCIPLE ESTABLISHED BY COMPROMISE OF 1850, WAS THE ABANDONMENT OF TERRITORIAL DIVISION BETWEEN THE TWO GREAT SECTIONS OF THE UNION AND THE AFFIRMANCE OF THE PRINCIPLE OF NO CONGRESSIONAL RESTRICTION UPON ANY PORTION OF THE PUBLIC DOMAIN-THIS PRINCIPLE ENDORSED BY BOTH THE GREAT PARTIES AND BY THE PEOPLE OF THE STATES IN THE ELECTION OF MR. PIERCE IN 1852.

MR. STEPHENS. We come now to the Compromise of 1850. How far the measures of that year are entitled to that appellation, the facts will show. The general ideas in relation to them are quite as erroneous, as in relation to the one we have just gone through with. For a correct understanding of the subject then, this must be borne distinctly in mind, that the old principle of a division of the public domain between the sections having been presented by the North, and reluctantly accepted by the South, and then entirely rejected by the North, as we have seen, the whole Territorial controversy on this question came up before the Thirty-first Congress, which assembled in December, 1849, just as it did before the Fifteenth Congress, as to the then unsettled public lands. California, New Mexico, and Utah, were still undisposed of, in any way, as we have seen. It is true, two other attempts, besides those noticed, had been made to settle the controversy as to these new acquisitions, which had both failed. One was known as the "Clayton Com

promise" in 1848; and the other as the "Walker Amendment," in 1849. As neither of these measures, however, had any direct bearing on the point, which we now have in hand, they may both be passed by at this time, without any inquiry into their respective merits or demerits.*

The whole question, therefore, came up in 1849, as it did in the beginning in 1818. A new Administration had, in the meantime, come into power. The Democratic Party, under whose auspices these acquisitions of Territory had been made, had lost, not only the Presidential election in 1848, but had also lost their majority in the House of Representatives. Never had any Congress convened under so much excitement, or under so great responsibility as did the one on which then devolved the disposition of this question, under all the circumstances attending it. The embarrassments of the period were increased from the fact that, for the first time, Southern Senators and Members were greatly divided, as to the proper course to pursue, in view of the question with all its bearings. Some believed the time had come for a separation of the States, and that everything should be done with a view to effect that result. Others believed that the Union might still be preserved upon Constitutional principles, and that the object was worth the most earnest and patriotic efforts. This class believed, however, that the time had come for a total abandonment of all old Party associations, and that the united South should act in Party organization with those of the North only, who would maintain the Federal system, as it was established by the Constitution.

The principle of division having been abandoned by the North, from which side it had originally been pro

* For the author's views on the Clayton Compromise, see his speech on the subject, Appendix to Congressional Globe, 30th Congress, 1st Session, p. 1103.

posed, this class maintained that the South should now firmly and unitedly occupy their original position against the Restrictionists from the beginning of the Government, and present the distinct question to the North of a continued Union under the Constitution, or an immediate separation. They believed that on this issue, squarely presented, a majority of the North would stand by the Constitution. The entire South, with few ex ceptions, were resolved not to submit to the "Wilmot Proviso," or, what was the same thing, a total exclusion from the public domain. Nearly all of the Southern States, if not every one, had passed Resolutions to this effect.

But the particular class in Congress, so mentioned, who were then of opinion that the best policy for the South was thus to make a united effort, through a reorganization of Parties, to bring the administration of the government back to original principles, with hopes thus to preserve the Union, and the equality of the States, was confined at first, almost exclusively, to those known as Southern Whigs. They set the ball in motion by refusing to act further with the Whig organization, as it was then constituted, when the Party met in caucus to nominate a candidate for Speaker of the House. A Resolution, previously prepared, was submitted to this meeting, which in substance was, that Congress ought not to put any restriction upon any State Institution in the Territories, and ought not to abolish Slavery as it then existed in the District of Columbia. Upon the refusal of this Caucus even to entertain this proposition, this class retired from the meeting and would not act with the Whigs in the organization of the House. If all the Southern Members had then occupied the same position, with the view to an entire reorganization of Parties, as stated, it would, I doubt not, have been much better for