Remarks of Jefferson Davis on the bill to establish a territorial government in Oregon. July 12, 1848.

OREGON BILL.

On motion of Mr. BRIGHT, the Senate proceeded to the consideration of the special order, being the bill to establish a Territorial Government in Oregon; when

Mr. DAVIS, of Mississippi, addressed the Senate. He commenced with a reference to the importance of the bill, the twelfth section of which discourses abolition. He denied that there was any intention to force slavery on Oregon. The South only desired to show the ground on which she has stood from the commencement of the Confederacy to this moment; and further, that she should be let alone. He stated that the Missouri compromise had obtained its validity from the consent of the States. Congress might enact laws on the subject, or make compromises; but without the consent of the States interested, they would have no validity.

As to the introduction of slavery into Oregon, no southern Senator had ever asked it. The fact that the slave is property, which its owner may carry with him into any part of the Union, was that which they were desirous to see recognized. The clause in the Constitution relative to the regulation of commerce was a constitutional admission that the slave is property. It is because slaves are considered property that the importation of slaves from Africa has been carried on under the sanction of this clause in the Constitution. The words "slave, or any other property," in the Constitution, are conclusive on this point. If the existence of the slave as property be admitted, what power has Congress to interfere with it? He denied that there was any such power in Congress. What powers Congress possesses, he showed by reference to the Constitution itself. Congress had no power to change the condition of slavery, or to strip the master of his right in his property. Entering a Territory with this property, the citizen has a right to its protection.

On the acquisition of territory, the condition of slavery was not changed. The Government acquired no new power over it, but stood merely in the position of an agent for its protection. He spoke depreciatingly of the persons who had assumed in Oregon the right to make laws for the Territory, contending that they were without qualifications for the task. They were far inferior in intelligence, in morals, and in personal wealth, to the population lying south of the Oregon boundary.

As to the inviolability of the law which prevailed in a Territory when acquired, he admitted that until abrogated, the existing law or municipal regulation must remain in force within the territory itself. He denied that there was any power in Congress, or in the people of the Territory, to interrupt the slave system. He gave his views as to the motives which induced Virginia to cede the Northwestern Territory, which originated in a patriotic and generous feeling on the part of the mother State. He regarded the course pursued by the northern States in relation to fugitive slaves as an outrage on justice, and a violation of that principle of the equality of the States which is guarantied by the terms of that instrument. The owner of a slave, when he entered some of these States, if he took his slave with him, was either exposed to the mortification of seeing his slave seduced from his side, or seized and carried away by violence.

He went into many other views, which, from indisposition, the reporter felt himself utterly unable to report.

He stated that if the opponents of slavery wished to emancipate the slaves, they were taking the wrong course. Slavery could not be abolished without a long series of preliminary preparations; and during these preparations, great dangers would menace the peace of the South. The most judicious course was to let the institution alone, and permit it to spread itself through the adjacent States, so that it may assume a new and more liberal character. The practical and useful emancipation of the slave will not be the labor of one generation. The slave must be made fit for his freedom by education and discipline, and thus made unfit for slavery. And as soon as he becomes unfit for slavery, the master will no longer desire to hold him as a slave.

What remedy has been proposed by the opponents of slavery? What good have they done? They have abducted slaves, but emancipated none. Do they expect to persuade the South to give up slavery? It is probably for the political advantage of the section in which the agitation against slavery originates. The spirit of concession exhibited by the South had failed to produce a corresponding spirit in the North. The latter still continued to assail the South as influenced only by a desire to increase the slave power, and obtain still greater political influence in the scale of States.

He insisted that the disorder and agitation which prevailed in the southern States, was not of domestic origin, but came from New England and from Great Britain.

He asserted it to be the duty of the United States to protect

the property of a slave-owner during the transit from one State to another. The resolutions of the States who favored abolition were adopted entirely with a view to obtaining additional political power, and imposed on the South the strongest obligation to rise in self-defence. He referred to the fraternal feeling which induced the southern States to make common cause with the North in the war of the Revolution. The South had no especial cause of complaint; it was flourishing by its trade with Great Britain. But it was actuated by fraternal feeling and principle to take up arms; and now, was she to be asked to give up her domestic institutions? The South asked for no new guarantee, no new security; but she desired that the Constitution should be preserved from violation.

If the spirit of the Missouri compromise was to be invoked, as was proposed by his friend from Indiana, [Mr. BRIGHT,] he had a right to ask that the South should be placed on a basis of permanent security, so that there may hereafter be no new agitation on the subject. He was willing to go far, as far as his principles would permit, to meet the North. But if nothing would satisfy the North short of the destruction of this institution, then was the time for dissolution come; but let us separate peacefully, and with good feelings towards each other. Let not the battle-fields of our country be stained with the blood of brother fighting against brother. He trusted the danger would pass away, and that this agitation would turn out to be nothing more than a temporary struggle between politicians.

Jefferson Davis to H. R. Davis and Others

(From Mississippi Free Trader, Oct. 26, 1848.)

Warren County, Mi. Oct. 6, 1848.

Gentlemen: I have the honor to acknowledge your complimentary letter of the 3d, inviting me to a mass meeting on the 14th inst. to be assembled at Cold Springs, and to be composed of both the political parties of your county. Domestic affliction confines me at home, and I decline your invitation with a regret proportionate to the pleasure it would give me to meet my fellow citizens of Wilkinson, the county with which my earliest recollections and dearest associations are connected.

Seldom, if ever, has there been a period in the history of our confederacy, more critical and momentous than the present. Questions of ancient origin and slow growth, have recently hastened to maturity, and present issues which, to be met suc

cessfully, must be met promptly. At such a time, it would be especially agreeable to confer with you about the future, and to render to you an account of my past conduct as a representative of Mississippi.

The choice of a president, which from your letter, I infer will be the special subject of consideration at your proposed meeting, must depend upon the policy we adopt and the party with which we decide to affiliate for the future. Who shall be president, is a question of passing and minor importance except as connected with the principles which will govern and the measures which will follow his administration: These, under the political organization of our day, are to be judged by the party which sustains his election and upon which he must rely for support when in power. There has been a change in the dress in which measures are presented, but parties are divided as heretofore on principles; the difference is radical, and is to be decided by the same reasons which have influenced different minds, and in times gone by, drawn them from the same premises, to opposite conclusions; forming among our people two great classes of political opinion. We are called to choose between the whig and democratic parties of the United States, and as there is no well founded personal objection to either of their candidates for the presidency, we are free from this disturbing influence, and left to decide upon the measures and principles they avow.

Separating myself as far as possible from the prejudice I may very naturally feel for the creed of my entire political life, it seems to me evident and demonstrable, that the South should fraternize with the Democracy. This is the party of strict construction, of checks and balances, and constitutional restraints. We of the South are the minority and such we must remain; our property, our security in the Union depends upon the power of the constitutional curb with which we check the otherwise, unbridled will of the majority. So long as the Federal government limits its interference with the currency to the constitutional grant of power to coin money, and regulate the value thereof, the minority have little to fear from its abuse; so long as duties are laid for no other purpose than to provide money as a means to execute the specific grants of the constitution, the weak have little to fear from the class legislation of the strong; or one section nothing to dread from the power of another, by indirect taxation, to drain its substance for the improvement of rivers, the construction of roads, canals, and harbors for that other's benefit. Let me not be understood as

claiming unanimity of the Democratic party upon these great principles, but only that they find their support and must rely for their success on the ranks of the democracy. Among the checks provided in our federal compact the executive veto is prominent, as well for its popular nature, as for the beneficial effects which it has produced in past times and for the salutary influence it may be expected to exert hereafter; especially in protecting the constitutional rights of the minority.

For the first consideration, it well becomes the democracy to advocate its preservation and use, for the latter consideration. it might have been expected, that all Southern men would insist upon its remaining with all its original scope and power. Though in our form of government, politicians can never become a class, warring against the people, they may nevertheless have private interests controlling their public conduct, and it is a truth established by many examples that representatives do not always reflect the will of their constituents; in some such cases the executive veto has been exhibited in its popular character, but its great object and use is to restrain irresponsible majorities from unconstitutional aggression on minorities, No power could be less liable to abuse because no corrupt or ambitious motive could induce to its exercise; neither one nor the other would bend to the strong, take protection under the legislative expression of popular will, instead of braving a dominant majority to protect the weak or to maintain a principle. The veto of the president gives to a considerable minority a power which may be relied on to shield it from legislative invasion of a vital right. For instance, the wide spread, settled and increasing hostility in the north to our domestic slavery must be expected to manifest itself in every form in which that institution can be assailed. In the present division of parties it is in the power of the South, if united, to dictate terms to one party or the other and to elect, by co-operating with it, a president, pledged, by his constitutional veto, to prevent he passage of a law which would violate a right, paramount with us to all other considerations.

Upon the right of slaveholders to migrate with their property into territory belonging in common to the States of the Union, you have been presented, by the north, with an issue as offensive to your self-respect as unjust to your constitutional rights.

It has been assumed, that domestic slavery is a moral and political evil, and from this hypothesis of those who are practically ignorant of the subject, the conclusion is drawn that its further extension should be prevented. In the face of all his