mover, the senator from Virginia. Such, then, was] ocean. That line, due north from the head of the not only the intent of the mover, but such is the Arkansas, leaves the whole middle part, described legal effect of the law; and I say that no man, in such glowing terms by Colonel Fremont, to after reading, the other sections of the bill, those the east of the line, and hence a part of the Louito which I have referred, can doubt that such was siana purchase. Yet, inasmuch as that middle both the intent and the legal effect of that law. part is drained by the waters flowing into the Then I submit to the Senate if I have not con- Colorado, when we. formed the territorial limits victed this manifesto, issued by the abolition con- of Utah, instead of running that air-line, we ran federates, of being a gross falsification of the laws along the ridge of the mountains, and cut off that of the land, and by that falsification that an erro- part from Nebraska, or from the Louisiana purneous and injurious impression has been created chase, and included it within the limits of the upon the public mind. I am sorry to be compelled territory of Utah.

to indulge in language of severity; but there is Why did we do it? Because we sought for a nano other language that is adequate to express the tural and convenient boundary, and it was deemed indignation with which I see this attempt, not only better to take the mountains as a boundary, than to mislead the public, but to malign my character by an air-line to cut the valleys on one side of the by deliberate falsification of the public statutes mountains, and annex them to the country on the and the public records. other side. And why did we take these natural In order to give greater plausibility to the falsi- boundaries, setting at defiance the old boundaries? fication of the terms of the compromise measures The simple reason was, that so long as we acted of 1850, the confederates also declare in their mani- upon the principle of settling the slavery question festo that they (the territorial bills for the organi- by a geographical line, so long we observed those zation of Utah and New Mexico) "applied to the boundaries strictly and rigidly; but when that was territory acquired from Mexico, and to that only. abandoned, in consequence of the action of freeThey were intended as a settlement of the contro- soilers and abolitionists-when it was superseded versy growing out of that acquisition, and of that by the compromise measures of 1850, which rested controversy only. They must stand or fall by upon a great universal principle-there was no their own merits." necessity for keeping in view the old and unnaI submit to the Senate if there is an intelligent tural boundary. For that reason, in making the man in America who does not know that that new territories, we formed natural boundaries, declaration is falsified by the statute from which irrespective of the source whence our title was they quoted. They say that the provisions of derived. In writing these bills I paid no attention that bill were confined to the territory acquired to the fact whether the title was acquired from from Mexico, when the very section of the law Louisiana, from France, or from Mexico; for what from which they quoted that proviso did purchase difference did it make? The principle which we a part of that very territory from the State of had established in the bill would apply equally Texas. And the next section of the law included well to either.

that Territory in the new Territory of Mexico. It In fixing those boundaries, I paid no attention took a small portion also of the old Louisiana to the fact whether they included old territory or purchase, and added that to the Territory of New new territory-whether the country was covered Mexico, and made up the rest out of the Mexican by the Missouri compromise or not. Why? Beacquisitions. Then, sir, your statutes show, when cause the principles established in the bills superapplied to the map of the country, that the Terri- seded the Missouri compromise. For that reason tory of New Mexico was composed of country we disregarded the old boundaries; disregarded acquired from Mexico, and also of territory ac- the territory to which it applied, and disregarded quired from Texas, and of territory acquired from the source from whence the title was derived. I France; and yet, in defiance of that statute, and say, therefore, that a close examination of those in falsification of its terms, we are told, in order acts clearly establishes the fact that it was the into deceive the people, that the bills were confined tent, as well as the legal effect of the compromise to the purchase made from Mexico alone; and in measures of 1850, to supersede the Missouri comorder to give it greater solemnity, they repeat it promise, and all geographical and territorial lines. twice, fearing that it would not be believed the Sir, in order to avoid any misconstruction, I first time. What is more, the Territory of Utah will state more distinctly what my precise idea is was not confined to the country acquired from upon this point. So far as the Utah and New Mexico. That territory, as is well known to every Mexico bills included the territory which had been man who understands the geography of the coun- subject to the Missouri compromise provision, to try, includes a large tract of rich and fertile coun- that extent they absolutely annulled the Missouri try, acquired from France in 1803, and to which compromise. As to the unorganized territory not the eighth section of the Missouri act applied in covered by those bills, it was superseded by the 1820. If these confederates do not know to what principles of the compromise of 1850. We all country I allude, I only reply that they should know that the object of the compromise measures have known before they uttered the falsehood, and of 1850 was to establish certain great principles imputed a crime to me. which would avoid the slavery agitation in all But I will tell you to what country I allude. By time to come. Was it our object simply to prothe treaty of 1819, by which we acquired Florida vide for a temporary evil? Was it our object to and fixed a boundary between the United States heal over an old sore, and leave it to break out and Spain, the boundary was made of the Ar-again? Was it our object to adopt a mere miserkansas river to its source, and then the line ran due able expedient to apply to that territory, and to north of the source of the Arkansas to the 42d pa- that alone, and leave ourselves entirely at sea, rallel, then along on the 42d parallel to the Pacific without compass, when new territory was ac

quired or new territorial organizations were to be agitation forever, if you observe good faith to the made? provisions of these enactments, and the principles established by them.

Was that the object for which the eminent and venerable senator from Kentucky [Mr. Clay] came Mr. President, I repeat that, so far as the queshere and sacrificed even his last energies upon the tion of slavery is concerned, there is nothing in altar of his country? Was that the object for the bill under consideration which does not carry which Webster, Clay, Cass, and all the patriots of out the principle of the compromise measures of that day, struggled so long and so strenuously? 1850, by leaving the people to do as they please, Was it merely the application of a temporary ex-subject only to the provisions of the Constitution pedient, in agreeing to stand by past and dead le- of the United States. If that principle is wrong, gislation, that the Baltimore platform pledged us the bill is wrong. If that principle is right, the bill to sustain the compromises of 1850? Was it the un- is right. It is unnecessary to quibble about phraderstanding of the whig party, when they adopted seology or words; it is not the mere words, the the compromise measure of 1850 as an article of mere phraseology, that our constituents wish to political faith, that they were only agreeing judge by. They wish to know the legal effect of to that which was past, and had no reference to our legislation.

the future? If that was their meaning; if that The legal effect of this bill, if it be passed as rewas their object, they palmed off an atrocious ported by the Committee on Territories, is neither fraud upon the American people. Was it the to legislate slavery into these territories nor out meaning of the democratic party when we of them, but to leave the people to do as they pledged ourselves to stand by the compromise of please, under the provisions and subject to the 1850, that we spoke only of the past, and had no limitations of the Constitution of the United States. reference to the future? If so, it was a gross de- Why should not this principle prevail? Why ception. When we pledged our President to stand should any man, north or south, object to it? I by the compromise measures, did we not under- will especially address the argument to my own stand that we pledged him as to his future action? section of country, and ask why should any Was it as to his past conduct? If it had been in northern man object to this principle? If you will relation to past conduct only, the pledge would review the history of the slavery question in the have been untrue as to a very large portion of the United States, you will see that all the great redemocratic party. Men went into that conven- sults in behalf of free institutions which have tion who had been opposed to the compromise been worked out, have been accomplished by the measures-men who abhorred those measures operation of this principle, and by it alone. when they were pending-men who never would When these States were colonies of Great have voted affirmatively on them. But, inasmuch Britain, every one of them was a slaveholding as those measures had been passed and the province. When the Constitution of the United country had acquiesced in them, and it was impor-States was formed, twelve out of the thirteen were tant to preserve the principle in order to avoid agi- slaveholding States. Since that time şix of those

tation in the future, these men said, we waive States have become free. How has this been our past objections, and we will stand by you and effected? Was it by virtue of abolition agitation with you in carrying out these principles in the in Congress? Was it in obedience to the dictates future. of the federal government? Not at all; but

Such I understand to be the meaning of the two they have become free States under the silent but great parties in Baltimore. Such I understand to sure and irresistible working of that great princihave been the effect of their pledges. If they did ple of self-government which teaches every people not mean this, they meant merely to adopt resolu- to do that which the interests of themselves and tions which were never to be carried out, and their posterity morally and pecuniarly may rewhich were designed to mislead and deceive the quire.

people for the mere purpose of carrying an elec- Under the operation of this principle, New tion. Hampshire became free, while South Carolina I hold, then, that, as to the territory covered by continued to hold slaves; Connecticut abolished the Utah and New Mexico bills, there was an ex-slavery, while Georgia held on to it; Rhode press annulment of the Missouri compromise; Island abandoned the institution, while Maryland and as to all the other unorganized territories, it preserved it; New York, New Jersey, and Pennwas superseded by the principles of that legisla-sylvania abolished slavery, while Virginia, North tion, and we are bound to apply those principles Carolina, and Kentucky retained it. Did they do to the organization of all new territories, to all it at your bidding? Did they do it at the dictawhich we now own, or which we may hereafter tion of the federal government? Did they do it acquire. If this construction be given, it makes in obedience to any of your Wilmot provisoes or that compromise a final adjustment. No other ordinances of '87? Not at all: they did it by construction can possibly impart finality to it. By virtue of their rights, as freemen under the Constiany other construction, the question is to be re- tution of the United States, to establish and opened the moment you ratify a new treaty ac- abolish such institutions as they thought their quiring an inch of country from Mexico. By any own good required.

other construction you re-open the issue every Let me ask you, where have you succeeded in time you make a new territorial government. excluding slavery by an act of Congress from one But, sir, if you treat the compromise measures of inch of the American soil? You may tell me 1850 in the light of great principles, sufficient to that you did it in the Northwest Territory by the remedy temporary evils, at the same time that ordinance of 1787. I will show you by the history they prescribe rules of action applicable every- of the country that you did not accomplish any where in all time to come, then you avoid the such thing. You prohibited slavery there by law,

but you did not exclude it in fact. Illinois was a consin to Iowa, and makes them of force therein, part of the Northwest Territory. With the ex- also provides that those laws are subject to be ception of a few French and white settlements, it altered, modified, or repealed by the territorial was a vast wilderness, filled with hostile savages, legislature of Iowa. Iowa, therefore, was left to when the ordinance of 1787 was adopted. Yet, do as she pleased. Iowa, when she came to form sir, when Illinois was organized with a territorial a constitution and State government, preparatory government, it established and protected slavery, to admission into the Union, considered the suband maintained it in spite of your ordinance and ject of free and slave institutions calmly, dispasin defiance of its express prohibition. It is a curi-sionately, without any restraint or dictation, and ous fact, that, so long as Congress said the terri- determined that it would be to the interest of her tory of Illinois should not have slavery, she ac- people, in their climate and with their productions, tually had it and on the very day when you with- to prohibit slavery; and hence Iowa became a free drew your Congressional prohibition, the people of State by virtue of this great principle of allowing Illinois, of their own free will and accord, pro- the people to do as they please, and not in obedivided for a system of emancipation. ence to any federal command. Thus you did not succeed in Illinois Territory The abolitionists are also in the habit of referwith your ordinance or your Wilmot Proviso, be- ring to Oregon as another instance of the triumph cause the people there regarded it as an invasion of their abolition policy. There again they have of their rights; they regarded it as an usurpation overlooked or misrepresented the history of the on the part of the federal government. They re- country. Sir, it is well known, or if it is not, it garded it as violative of the great principles of ought to be, that for about twelve years you forgot self-government, and they determined that they to give Oregon any government or any protecwould never submit even to have freedom so long tion; and during that period the inhabitants of as you forced it upon them. that country established a government of their Nor must it be said that slavery was abolished own, and, by virtue of their own laws, passed by in the constitution of Illinois in order to be ad- their own representatives before you extended mitted into the Union as a State, in compliance your jurisdiction over them, prohibited slavery by with the ordinance of 1787; for they did no such a unanimous vote. Slavery was prohibited there thing. In the constitution with which the people by the action of the people themselves, and not by of Illinois were admitted into the Union, they virtue of any legislation of Congress. absolutely violated, disregarded, and repudiated It is true that, in the midst of the tornado which your ordinance. The ordinance said that slavery swept over the country in 1848, 1849, and 1850, a should be for ever prohibited in that country. The provision was forced into the Oregon bill prohibitconstitution with which you received them into ing slavery in that territory; but that only goes the Union as a State provided that all slaves then to show that the object of those who pressed it in the State should remain slaves for life, and that was not so much to establish free institutions as to all persons born of slave parents, after a certain gain a political advantage by giving an ascendency day, should be free at a certain age, and that all to their peculiar doctrines in the laws of the land; persons born in the State after a certain other day for slavery having been already prohibited there, should be free from the time of their birth. Thus and no man proposing to establish it, what was their State constitution, as well as their territorial the necessity for insulting the people of Oregon by legislation, repudiated your ordinance. Illinois, saying in your law that they should not do that therefore, is a case in point to prove that when- which they had unanimously said they did not ever you have attempted to dictate institutions to wish to do? This was the only effect of your le any part of the United States, you have failed. gislation so far as the Territory of Oregon was The same is true, though not to the same extent, concerned.

with reference to the Territory of Indiana, where How was it in regard to California? Every one there were many slaves during the time of its of these abolition confederates, who have thus territorial existence, and I believe also there were arraigned me and the Committee on Territories a few in the Territory of Ohio. before the country, and have misrepresented our

But, sir, these abolition confederates, in their position, predicted that unless Congress interposed manifesto, have also referred to the wonderful re- by law, and prohibited slavery in California, it sults of their policy in the State of Iowa and the would inevitably become a slave-holding State. Territory of Minnesota. Here again, they happen Congress did not interfere; Congress did not proto be in fault as to the laws of the land. The act hibit slavery. There was no enactment upon the to organize the Territory of Iowa did not prohibit subject; but the people formed a State constituslavery, but the people of Iowa were allowed to tion, and therein prohibited slavery. do as they pleased under the territorial govern- Mr. WELLER. The vote was unanimous in ment; for the sixth section of that act provided the convention of California for prohibition. that the legislative authority should extend to all Mr. DOUGLAS. So it was in regard to Utah rightful subjects of legislation except as to the dis- and New Mexico. In 1850, we who resisted any position of the public lands, and taxes in certain attempt to force institutions upon the people of cases, but not excepting slavery. It may, how-those territories inconsistent with their wishes ever, be said by some that slavery was prohibited and their right to decide for themselves, were in Iowa by virtue of that clause in the Iowa act, denounced as slavery propagandists. Every one which declared the laws of Wisconsin to be in of us who was in favor of the compromise force therein, inasmuch as the ordinance of 1787 measures of 1850 was arraigned for having advowas one of the laws of Wisconsin. If, however, cated a principle purposing to introduce slavery they say this, they defeat their object, because into those territories, and the people were told, the very clause which transfers the laws of Wis- and made to believe, that, unless we prohibited it

by act of Congress, slavery would necessarily and mate, and soil, and of the laws of God, should be inevitably be introduced into these territories. run to establish institutions for a people contrary Well, sir, we did establish the territorial gov- to their wishes; yet, out of a regard for the peace ernments of Utah and New Mexico without any and quiet of the country, out of respect for past prohibition. We gave to these abolitionists a full pledges, and out of a desire to adhere faithfully opportunity of proving whether their predictions to all compromises, I sustained the Missouri comwould prove true or false. Years have rolled promise so long as it was in force, and advocated round, and the result is before us. The people its extension to the Pacific ocean. Now, when there have not passed any law recognising, or that has been abandoned, when it has been superestablishing, or introducing, or protecting slavery seded, when a great principle of self-government in the territories. has been substituted for it, I choose to cling to

I know of but one territory of the United States that principle, and abide in good faith, not only where slavery does exist, and that one is where by the letter, but by the spirit of the last comyou have prohibited it by law; and it is this very promise.

Nebraska country. In defiance of the eighth Sir, I do not recognise the right of the abolisection of the act of 1820, in defiance of congres- tionists of this country to arraign me for being sional dictation, there have been, not many, but, a false to sacred pledges, as they have done in their few slaves introduced. I heard a minister of the proclamations. Let them show when and where Gospel the other day conversing with a member I have ever proposed to violate a compact. I of the Committee on Territories upon this subject. have proved that I stood by the compact of 1820 The preacher was from the country, and a member and 1845, and proposed its continuance and obput this question to him: "Have you any negroes servance in 1848. I have proved that the freeout there?" He said there were a few held by soilers and abolitionists were the guilty parties the Indians. I asked him if there were not some who violated that compromise then. I should held by white men? He said there were a few like to compare notes with these abolition confedunder peculiar circumstances, and he gave an erates about adherence to compromises. When instance. An abolition missionary, a very good did they stand by or approve of any one that was man, had gone there from Boston, and he took his ever made? wife with him.

Did not every abolitionist and freesoiler in

He got out into the country, but could not get America denounce the Missouri compromise in any help; hence he, being a kind-hearted man, 1820? Did they not for years hunt down ravenwent down to Missouri and gave $1,000 for a ne ously, for his blood, every man who assisted in gro, and took him up there as "help." [Laughter.] making that compromise? Did they not in 1845, So, under peculiar circumstances, when these free- when Texas was annexed, denounce all of us who soil and abolition preachers and missionaries go went for the annexation of Texas, and for the into the country, they can buy a negro for their continuation of the Missouri compromise line own use, but they do not like to allow any one through it? Did they not, in 1848, denounce me else to do the same thing. [Renewed laughter.] as a slavery propagandist for standing by the prinI suppose the fact of the matter is simply this: ciples of the Missouri compromise, and proposing there the people can get no servants-no "help." to continue it to the Pacific ocean? Did they not as they are called in the section of country where themselves violate and repudiate it then? Is not I was born-and from the necessity of the case, the charge of bad faith true as to every abolitionthey must do the best they can, and for this reason ist in America, instead of being true as to me and a few slaves have been taken there. I have no the committee, and those who advocate this bill? doubt that whether you organize the territory of They talk about the bill being a violation of the Nebraska or not, this will continue for some little compromise measures of 1850. Who can show time to come. It certainly does exist, and it will me a man in either house of Congress who was increase as long as the Missouri compromise ap- in favor of those compromise measures in 1850, and plies to the territory; and I suppose it will continue who is not now in favor of leaving the people of for a little while during their territorial condition, Nebraska and Kansas to do as they please upon whether a prohibition is imposed or not. But the subject of slavery, according to the principle when settlers rush in-when labor becomes plenty, of my bill? Is there one? If so, I have not and therefore cheap, in that climate, with its pro- heard of him. This tornado has been raised by ductions-it is worse than folly to think of its abolitionists, and abolitionists alone. They have being a slaveholding country. I do not believe made an impression upon the public mind, in the there is a man in Congress who thinks it could be way in which I have mentioned, by a falsification permanently a slaveholding country. I have no of the law and the facts; and this whole organizaidea that it could. All I have to say on that sub- tion against the compromise measures of 1850 is ject is, that when you create them into a territory, an abolition movement. I presume they had some you thereby acknowledge that they ought to be hope of getting a few tender-footed democrats considered a distinct political organization. And into their plot; and, acting on what they supposed when you give them in addition a legislature, you they might do, they sent forth publicly to the thereby confess that they are competent to exer- world the falsehood that their address was signed cise the powers of legislation. If they wish slavery, by the senators and a majority of the representathey have a right to it. If they do not want it, tives from the State of Ohio; but when we come they will not have it, and you should not attempt to examine signatures, we find no one whig there, to force it upon them. no one democrat there; none but pure, unmitiI do not like, I never did like, the system of gated, unadulterated abolitionists. legislation on our part, by which a geographical Much effect, I know, has been produced by this line, in violation of the laws of nature, and cli- circular, coming as it does with the imposing title

of a representation of a majority of the Ohio That is their single exception. They acknowledge delegation. What was the reason for its effect? that the people of the territories are capable of Because the manner in which it was sent forth deciding for themselves concerning white men, but implied that all the whig members for that State not in relation to negroes. The real gist of the had joined in it; that part of the democrats had matter is this: Does it require any higher degree signed it; and then that the two abolitionists had of civilization, and intelligence, and learning, and signed it, and that made a majority of the delega- sagacity, to legislate for negroes than for white tion. By this means it frightened the whig party men? If it does, we ought to adopt the abolition and the democracy in the State of Ohio, because doctrine, and go with them against this bill. If they supposed their own representatives and it does not-if we are willing to trust the people friends had gone into this negro movement, when with the great, sacred, fundamental right of prethe fact turns out to be that it was not signed by scribing their own institutions, consistent with the a single whig or democratic member from Ohio. Constitution of the country-we must vote for Now, I ask the friends and the opponents of this bill. That is the only question involved in the this measure to look at it as it is. Is not the bill. I hope I have been able to strip it of all the question involved the simple one, whether the misrepresentation, to wipe away all of that mist people of the Territories shall be allowed to do as and obscurity with which it has been surrounded they please upon the question of slavery, subject by this abolition address.

only to the limitations of the Constitution? That I have now said all I have to say upon the is all the bill provides; and it does so in clear, present occasion. For all, except the first ten explicit, and unequivocal terms. I know there minutes of these remarks, the abolition confedare some men, whigs and democrats, who, not erates are responsible. My object, in the first willing to repudiate the Baltimore platform of place, was only to explain the provisions of the their own party, would be willing to vote for this bill, so that they might be distinctly understood. principle, provided they could do so in such equi- I was willing to allow its assailants to attack it Vocal terms that they could deny that it means as much as they pleased, reserving to myself the what it was intended to mean in certain localities. right, when the time should approach for taking I do not wish to deal in any equivocal language. the vote, to answer in a concluding speech all the If the principle is right, let it be avowed and arguments which might be used against it. I still maintained. If it is wrong, let it be repudiated. reserve-what I believe common courtesy and Let all this quibbling about the Missouri compro- parliamentary usage awards to the chairman of a mise, about the territory acquired from France, committee and the author of a bill-the right of about the act of 1820, be cast behind you; for summing up after all shall have been said which the simple question is, will you allow the people has to be said against this measure. to legislate for themselves upon the subject of I hope the compact which was made on last slavery? Why should you not? Tuesday, at the suggestion of these abolitionists, When you propose to give them a Territorial when the bill was proposed to be taken up, will Government, do you not acknowledge that they be observed. It was that the bill, when taken up ought to be erected into a political organization? to-day, should continue to be considered from day and when you give them a legislature, do you not to day until finally disposed of. I hope they will acknowledge that they are capable of self-govern- not repudiate and violate that compact, as they ment? Having made that acknowledgment, why have the Missouri compromise and all others which should you not allow them to exercise the rights have been entered into. I hope, therefore, that we of legislation? Oh, these abolitionists say they may press the bill to a vote; but not by depriving are entirely willing to concede all this, with one persons of an opportunity of speaking. exception. They say they are willing to trust the I am in favor of giving every enemy of the bill Territorial legislature, under the limitations of the most ample time. Let us hear them all pathe Constitution, to legislate upon the rights tiently, and then take the vote and pass the bill. of inheritance, to legislate in regard to religion, We who are in favor of it know that the principle education, and morals, to legislate in regard to on which it is based is right. Why, then, should the relations of husband and wife, of parent and we gratify the abolition party in their effort to get child, of guardian and ward, upon everything up another political tornado of fanaticism, and put pertaining to the dearest rights and interests of the country again in peril, merely for the purpose white men, but they are not willing to trust them of electing a few agitators to the Congress of the to legislate in regard to a few miserable negroes. United States?