33D CONG....2D SESS.

State of Illinois in spite of the ordinance of 1787, and of its so far insinuating itself into the interests of that young people as to array in its favor a respectable minority at the formation of our State constitution. It was in vain we urged the fact that it required but a few slaves, in the first instance, to establish the character of the Territory for slavery; that a few slaves in New Orleans had made Louisiana a slave State; a few slaves in St. Louis had made Missouri a slave State; that twenty slaves landed from a Dutch man of war on the coast of Virginia, had darkened with the curse of slavery that old mother of States from that time to this. It was in vain that we referred to the aggressive spirit of slavery, that she wanted more territory, more States, more Senators and Representatives, more political power, to nationalize slavery, to make it the dominant and ascendant policy of the Government. By such and numerous other arguments we endeavored to point out the strong probabilities of Kansas becoming a slave State under the operation of that clause in the Nebraska bill which left the people of the Territory"perfectly free to regulate their institutions in their own way.' ""

But, sir, we were met by our opponents, and the idea that slavery would go there was laughed at as an absurdity; it could not get there; and if it did, the people would exclude it." And not only this, they went still further, and contended, that the repeal of the Missouri compromise would be the means of establishing freedom, not only in Kansas, but also south of the line of 360 30'; for these gentleman had not the candor to tell the people that the Missouri compromise did not, in the slightest degree, effect the territory south of 360 30', either for freedom or slavery. And, sir, for pointing out these dangers of the extension of slavery, we were denounced as agitators, as the allies of Abolitionists and fanatics, as the enemies of freedom and self-government, while our opponents claimed that they were the peculiar friends of the freedom of Kansas and all south of 360 30', and the true friends of the country and the Union. I now repeat, sir, had the people of the State of Illinois been impressed with the serious conviction that the effect of the Kansas bill would have been to ingraft slavery on the young limbs of that infant Territory, I believe, sir, she would not have returned a single member to Congress known to favor that bill.

And now, sir, what has been the result? Scarce two months had elapsed, and the designs of the South were made clearly manifest. Kansas now has her Delegate on this floor, whose views, I believe, are well known to be favorable to making that Territory a slave State. The second highest functionary in the Government, the acting Vice President of the United States, was, as we are informed, but a few months since upon the confines of that Territory, making harangues to the people in favor of carrying out his darling project of southern institutions in Kansas, and erecting there, where free labor was to have had her home, and freedom to have erected her temples, another altar to the God of human bondage. There, sir, has been illustrated and displayed to the gaze of Christendom the beautiful workings of that system of self-government, which elicited the eulogies of the Senator from Illinois and the gentleman from Georgia. There, sir, if reports be true, the great question of human freedom has been decided in the Territory of Kansas, not by the people of the Territory who were to govern themselves, but by the people of another State.

Ab! sir, did the gentleman from Georgia, at the last session of Congress, when silence reigned along these aisles, and the people's Representatives gathered around him, and listening ears bent over these parapets, and beauty's bright eye flashed from the galleries upon that eloquent Georgian, did he dream that before the moon had waxed and waned three times, we should have such a practical delineation of the great principles of popular sovereignty for which he contended? The materials of our own country were not sufficient. The musty records of the past were scarce ample enough to afford scope for his illustrations of the grandeur and greatness of the great principles of popular sovereignty. He stood in Parliament where the younger Pitt stood when he thundered against Lord North and the tyranny of the

The State of Parties, &c.—Mr. Yates.

British Crown towards the infant Colonies. He ranged himself by the side of Webster, when, driven from Faneuil Hall, he planted himself upon the compromises, the Constitution, and the Union. Ah! sir, here was the mistake of the gentleman; he fought, not as Pitt did, for universal freedom, for the God-given, natural and inalienable rights of all men, for the right of every people to govern themselves, but he fought for the right of a people to govern others; not for freedom, but for an extension of that sort of despotism which sullies our national escutcheon, and concerning which Jefferson said he "trembled for his country when he knew that God was just.'

I say the result is known. Kansas is on the road to slavery. Some gentlemen may say Kansas will still be free. Deceive not yourself. Without the interposition of Congress, Kansas is doomed, and doomed forever, to slavery.

When, on the 23d day of January, 1854, the bill for the territorial government of Nebraska was amended in two important particulars, one for the repeal of the Missouri compromise, and the other for the creation of two Territories instead of one, it was not difficult to divine what had been the deliberations of caucuses and committee rooms; it was not difficult to know that freedom had yielded to slavery, and that two Territories were to be created upon the principle of compromisethat Kansas was to be slave, and that Nebraska might stand her chance for freedom. The South will never consent that a free State shall come into the Union without a slave State is also admitted as a countervailing force. For every star of light and freedom which is to shine in our political constellation, she must have her corresponding orb of darkness and slavery.

Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Georgia, in a sort of rhapsody, declared the Nebraska bill a great national movement"-as "a grand step in the progress which characterized the age.' One would infer, from such extravagant eulogy, that some new principle in political economy had been discovered, which was to constitute an epoch in our national progress, and to ameliorate the condition of the world. What does he mean? The right of a people to establish slavery if they desire it? This is his great national movement; it can be nothing else; for the right of a people to govern themselves, in the true sense of self government, can certainly be no new principle to Amercans. This right was consecrated by the blood of Bunker Hill, is proclaimed in the Declaration of American Independence, is secured in the Constitution of the United States, and is now enjoyed by every State of the Union. Does he mean to say, that a prohibition of slavery in a Territory is the denial of a right of self-government? As well might he say that a prohibition of orders of nobility was a deprival of the right of self-government. Will the people of Indiana, or Illinois, admit that they were deprived of the blessings of self-government, simply because they were interdicted by the ordinance of 1787 from establishing slavery? The argument of the gentleman is, that every system of self-government is, and has been, incomplete which deprived the people of the Territories of the right to hold their fellow beings in bondage. No, sir, it is a misnomer. The gentleman misnames, as self government, what is no less than a denial of the first principles of justice, right, and humanity. His self-government means not, that one class of people may govern themselves, but that they shall have the control of others, that the labors and burdens of society shall be borne by one class and its advantages and blessings enjoyed by another. Tell it not in Washington, not to the Representatives of a free people, not beneath the stars and stripes which float from the dome of our Capitol, that our systems of self-government in the great Northwest have all been incomplete, because they have been prohibited from establishing slavery there. This great national movement of the gentleman, then, is self government for the Territorics; which, according to that gentleman, means to govern others, not ourselves. Under the sacred name of liberty we establish slavery; under the sacred plea of self-government we darken the bright domains of Kansas and Nebraska-upon which the stars of Heaven have, for six thousand years shined as free territory-with the pall of slavery. We ask for the right to send men into

HO. OF REPS.

those fair regions-not free men-not human beings in the full proportions and God-like image of free men; but with the limping, halting gate of slaves and bondmen. This, sir, is the great national movement of the age. It was the boast of the Irish orator, that the moment a slave put his foot upon British soil, his chains and shackles fall, and he breathed the air of emancipation; but it is to be our boast, it is to be the ensign of our progress, that we have set aside the law which made our soil forever free, and given full license on that soil to establish slavery. The gentleman's progress is a fearful step backwards. Washington, and Jefferson, and many of the signers of the Declaration of Independence, and many of the framers of the Constitution were slaveholders, but they were the purest minded men of any age or clime-the picked men of the world, and seeing the wrong and evils of slavery, they denounced it as the supreme curse of the country, and they left on record an imperishable monument of their detestation of slavery. They imposed a duty on the importation of slaves, and provided for its prohibition altogether in a limited period after the adoption of the Constitution; and from the first territory acquired by the United States, and from all the territory then owned, they prohibited slavery by the ordinance of 1787.

But, sir, Washington, and Jefferson, and Franklin, were, I suppose, all Old Fogies; and, not understanding the great principles of self-government or squatter sovereignty, in their blindness, deprived the people of Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Michigan, and Wisconsin, of the great blessings of that peculiar self-government for which Young America, in this age of Christian and enlightened progress, now contends. The error of the gentleman from Georgia consists in the confounding of right and wrong, and in denying to one class all rights, natural and civil. I maintain that, as slavery is a violation of natural right, of every law, human and divine, and involves the great wrong of giving to one man the labor of another, sunders the dearest of human ties, separates the husband from the wife, and the father from the child; therefore, I say that to insist upon the right to establish slavery as an act of self-government is the veriest absurdity, and that the exercise of such a right, so far from being the act of self-government, is the act of absolute despotism.

Mr. Chairman, I am in favor of giving the people the broadest latitude in deciding every question for themselves, consistent with the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution of the United States, and the well-defined principles of free government. And, sir, if Kansas were a separate empire, in no way connected with us, or bound to us, then, according to our policy of non-intervention in the affairs of other nations, while we might deeply deplore, we could not interpose against, the establishment of slavery, the existence of polygamy, or the legalization of any institution however variant from our form of government, at war with human rights or the genius of our civilization. But these Territories are united to us by the closest relations. They belong to us-the people of all the States-and they propose to come in as partners in our great American partnership, and as States in our great brotherhood of confederated Commonwealths. And is it nothing to us what institutions they may have? Is it nothing to us that they propose to establish an institution which places the weak in the power of the strong, an institution which, from the beginning of our national existence to the present hour, has been, and still continues to be, almost the only element of antagonism and of disturbance in our midst, and which statesmen look forward to as the only rock upon which our noble ship of State may be stranded.

Gentlemen seem to forget that the Territories are not sovereign, that the Constitution imposes upon the General Government the paternal duty of providing for their wants, and supervising their le gislation, until the sovereignty of Congress ceases, and that that sovereignty ceases only with the admission of the Territories into the Union as States. Thus, and thus only, the power of the General Government ceases, and State sovereignty resteand then the State, in the full exercise of that sovereignty, may establish its own institutions, and is responsible in her sovereign capacity to

33D CONG....2D SESS.

the world and to God, for any infraction of the great and inalienable rights of man.

We have an interest, because we want the Territory of Kansas as a home for our white laboring classes. The Territories north of Texas, and west of Missouri, and the valleys between the Sierra Madre and Sierra Nevada mountains are the heart of the North American continent. There, bright streams and broad and noble rivers flow; fertile savannas, adapted to the cultivation of grains, fruits, and grapes; temperate and salubrious climate; forests cleared by the hand of nature, and rich prairies ready for the plow; coal, minerals, mountains, and lakes of salt, capa. ble of sustaining the densest agricultural population, and to be the great continental thoroughfare through which is to pass the commerce between the two oceans, and the occidental and oriental worlds. Now, if these things be so, if these fair Territories are yet to be the center and heart of the continent, shall we tamely surrender them to polygamy, or to slavery, or to other institutions subversive of the great principles of justice, liberty, and right, or shall those delightful regions be the future home of a race of freemen, successfully and gloriously carrying out our great experiment of humanity and self-government? If slavery is permitted there, it is, in effect, saying to our fifteen millions of laboring men of the free States they shall not go there, for they will not go to a State where their labor is to be cheapened and degraded by a competition with slave labor. The last census clearly shows that slavery drives the poor white inan out of the States where it exists to the free States, and that the emigration from the slave to the free States is three times greater than from the free to the slave States. By the repeal of the Missouri compromise, the high wall erected by patriot sires and patriot hards was leveled to the dust, and the fair domain upon which freedom had fixed her hopes, and where freedom had hoped to find a home, is to be the abode of slaves and bondmen. As a friend of free American labor, I am utterly opposed to all such schemes to make slave territory of that which our fathers, by a solemn compact, dedicated to freedom.

The gentleman from Georgia is bold enough to array statistics to prove that one slave State, out of the whole number, has arisen superior to the difficulties by which she is surrounded, and to compare her progress with those of the free States. Let me say to that gentleman that his State is an exception to the South; she manifests some spirit and enterprise akin to those of her sister free States. It is highly creditable to her that the indomitable energy and unfaltering public spirit of her citizens has borne her onward on the tide of prosperity in spite of her slavery. But let me say to him, had she pursued that policy which the wise and good men who founded her colony and administered her early affairs advocated; had she eschewed slavery, and relied upon the hardy arms of free white labor, where now she grows her one bushel of wheat, she would grow her two bushels; and where now she has her one thousand miles of railroad, she would have her two thousand. It is not in one of the free States, but in all the free States, where the life-inspiring and energizing power of free labor has carried commerce to its full development, and successfully prosecuted all the arts of industry and peace.

In 1831, I removed from the State of Kentucky to the State of Illinois. At that time Kentucky had a population of six hundred and ninety thousand souls; Illinois was then almost a wilderness. A few counties in the State were thickly settled, but the prairie, for the most part, bloomed in its native wildness. The settlements were confined to the forests which skirt her water courses, or were hugging closely around the groves which intersperse her prairies. And now, sir, in the brief space of twenty-three years, Illinois, under the giant power of free labor, has marched up to the side of old Kentucky, and while Kentucky has but her ten Representatives on this floor, Illinois already has her nine, and in the next decade will, in all probability, have twice the number of her sister State of Kentucky. Is not the comparison fair? Where is the State of richer soil, of braver hearts or stouter hands than those of old Kentucky?

The State of Parties, &c.-Mr. Yates.

representation in the Government. While we acknowledge the constitut onal obligation to suffer the representation of slaves in our Federal Legislature, so far as the original States are concerned, yet, sir, we never agreed to adopt this principle as to subsequently acquired territory and newly admitted States. The State of Maine has twice the white population of the State of South Carolina, and a fraction 7.350, and yet, sir, Maine and South Carolina each have an equal number of Representatives on this floor. Will the free States willingly submit to the establishment of a system in our Territories, which will make one man in a slave State the equal of two in a free State, which destroys our political equality, and dwarfs down the citizens of our northern free States into the mere fractions of men.

I wish now to make a remark as to the purpose which it was avowed was to be carried out by the principles of the Nebraska bill. The plea for that bill was that the Missouri compromise had to be repealed to carry out the policy and principles established by the compromises of 1850, especially in the Utah and New Mexico bills. Have they done this? Now, sir, under the Kansas bill, the people of the Territory may, at any time, as soon as a Territorial Legislature is elected, establish or prohibit slavery; and yet, sir, the Territories of Utah and New Mexico were precluded from the exercise of any such power, until they come to form their State constitutions, preparatory to their application for admission into the Union. This was the principle established in 1850.

But, sir, the Kansas bill and its advocates went

further, and empowered the people of the Territory at any time to establish slavery. And it is understood now, is it not, that the Legislature of Kansas may establish slavery at any time?

Mr. KEITT. Yes.

Mr. YATES. Then, sir, here is a greater power conferred on the Territories than upon the people of any one of the sovereign States of the

Union.

The different State conventions were

afraid to trust so important a power to their Legislatures, and slavery cannot be established now in Illinois, or any other State, without calling a convention and changing her constitution-her organic

law.

Mr. KEITT. Did not the people of Illinois themselves make that organic law to which he alludes, and did they not by that organic law restrict the Legislature? Congress had nothing to do with it.

Mr. YATES. Yes, sir, the people of Illinois made that organic law, but they were required to do so by Congress-by the ordinance of 1787. But the point I make is this, that there can be no doubt of the power of Congress over the subject of slavery in the Territories during the Territorial existence, or until those Territories come to make their organic law, and to exercise the powers necessary to constitute them sovereign States.

Again, the legislation of 1850 expressly provided that every act of the Territorial Legislatures of Utah and New Mexico should be first submitted to Congress for its approval or rejection. But, sir, this provision is omitted in the Kansas bill. The Legislature of that Territory may establish, by law, polygamy, slavery, or any other wrong institution, but Congress has no supervisory power or control over any such law.

But, again; the principle established by the acts of 1850 was, that in Territory from which slavery was excluded by positive law, Congress would not repeal that law, so as to give slavery the right to enter previous to the time of the establishment of a State constitution. The strongest ground urged by Mr. Webster against the application of the Wilmot proviso to the Territories of Utah and New Mexico was, that there was no necessity for such application, because those Territories were already free by the acts and edicts of the Mexican Government. And I am prepared to show, upon the authority of Senator DOUGLAS, as late as January 4, 1854, that to repeal the Missouri compromise would be a departure from the principles contained in the acts of 1850. When Senator DOUGLAS, as chairman of the Committee on Territories, first introduced into the Senate his bill, it was silent on the subject of slavery, and said not We are interested, also, upon the score of equal a word on the subject of the repeal of the Missouri

"Congress deemed it wise and prudent to refrain from deciding the matters in controversy then, either by affirming or repealing the Mexican laws, or by an act declaratory of the true intent of the Constitution and the extent of the protection afforded by it to slave property in the Territories; so your committee are not prepared now to recommend a departure from the course pursued on that memorable occasion, either by affirming or repealing the eighth section of the Missouri act, or by any act declaratory of the meaning of the Constitution in respect to the legal points in dispute.

Now, Mr. Chairman, here Senator DOUGLAS informs us that, as in 1850, Congress refrained from repealing the Mexican law by which slavery was prohibited in the Territories of Utah and New Mexico, so now (on the 4th January, 1854) it would be a departure from the principles of the acts of 1850, to repeal the Missouri compromise, which prohibited slavery in the Territories of Kansas and Nebraska. And yet, sir, in nineteen days from that time, on the 231 day of January, 1854, we find the Senator introducing into his bill an amendment repealing this same Missouri compromise; and thus violating the principles of the acts of 1850, which he professes to be so anxious to carry out. Thus I have shown that the principles of the Kansas bill are in every material aspect, variant from the principles of the acts of 1850. The plea that the object of the repeal of the Missouri compromise was to carry out the principles of the acts of 1850, is, then, a mere hollow and hypocritical pretext; a pretext which I have exposed; and I leave it, sir-the whole fraud-exposed to the sunlight, and palpable to the simplest comprehension.

Mr. Chairman, where is this doctrine of popular sovereignty to lead to? If Congress can have no control over the institutions of the Territories,

and if she is bound to admit into the Union every Territory which presents a constitution republican in its form, what, sir, is to be done with the Territory of Utah, when she knocks at the door of Congress for admission into the Union?

A new paper has just been started in the city of New York entitled "The Mormon," and the first number of which has been sent to each member on this floor, from which I read the following

extract:

"We are not ashamed to proclaim to this great nation, to rulers and people, to the President, Senators, legislators and judges, to high and to low, rich and poor, priests and peopic, that we are firm and conscientious believers in polygamy, and that it is part and parcel of our religious creed."

Now, sir, if each Territory is to have the unrestricted right of deciding for itself what its domestic institutions shall be, then we are bound to receive into this Union Utah with a constitution, or laws, or usages, tolerating polygamy. Here, sir, is an institution which is at war with the ge nius of our laws, our civilization, and Christianity; which virtually annuls the Bible-taught and Heaven-ordained institution of marriage itself; a crime more destructive to the morals and wellbeing of society than the crime of larceny, than horse-stealing, or highway robbery. It was highly gratifying to see Congress at this session, by its vote on the bill to make donations of the public lands to Utah, stamp with the seal of its reprobation this embryo outrage. And Congress will prove derelict to itself, to the country, and to the civilization of the age, if it does not promptly rebuke and suppress this crime of polygamy. Let the people of Utah understand, now and forever, that if they propose, under the sanction of law or usage, to practice an immorality which is shocking to the sense and moral feelings of the civilized world, that they must seek another Territory in which to do it. I am not in favor of making any Territory of the United States which proposes to come into this Union, a brothel. Let Utah understand, that if she expects a dollar from the Federal Treasury, or an acre of the public lands, that she must deport herself with the decency and propriety which become a civilized and Christian people. And I now wish to say, that should I happen to be a member of this body when Utah presents

83D CONG....2D SESS.

her constitution preparatory to her admission into the Union, I shall vote against her admission if that constitution, or her laws, or her usages, tolerate the beastly and prostituting crime of polygamy. Unless she clears her skirts of this crime, I would keep her out of the Union forever. As the guardian of the Territories, it is the duty of Congress to provide against the existence of that institution in that Territory, and thus save that Territory from the pauperism, and misery, and the depreciation of public and private virtue, which, if not provided against, is to leave a lasting impress upon that people to the latest posterity.

The gentleman from Georgia says that this principle of squatter sovereignty is right, and ought "to prevail universally wherever the American flag floats;" that every community ought to have the uncontrolled right to make just such laws and institutions as may suit them. Now, sir, I believe slavery ought to be abolished in the District of Columbia. The Metropolis of a great nation like ours should be free; the footsteps of no bondman should tread the soil which is dedicated as the capital of a nation, whose struggles for existence were conducted under the sacred name of liberty, and whose high mission is to establish the great principles of human equality, to vindicate the rights of man, and to prove the great problem of humanity-the capacity of man to govern himself. No human being in slavery should ever be permitted to gaze upon our flag, and shake his chains and shackles in mockery of our system of boasted equality. Now, sir, entertaining these sentiments, suppose I were to introduce a bill providing that, at the next election for municipal officers in Georgetown and Washington, polls should be opened in every ward, and the people of the District should be left perfectly free to decide, in their own way, at the ballot-box, whether slavery should longer exist in the District? Would the gentleman from Georgia vote for it? Sir, should I bring in a bill referring the question of the existence of slavery in this District to a vote of the people, I should be denounced the land over as an agitator, a fanatic; and, instead of being considered thereby the friend of popular sovereignty, I would be decried as a deadly foe to the peace, concord, and welfare of the country; while, on the other hand, the gentleman who proposes to abrogate a solemn compact, which makes a Territory free, and to open that Territory to the incursions of slavery, is to be hailed as a national man, a Union man, and the great champion of popular sovereignty!

Mr. KEITT.' I would ask the member from Illinois whether he would or not vote for a bill remitting to the inhabitants of the District of Columbia the power to determine the existence of the institution among them? And whether, if they voted for its abolition, he would vote for the bill on the ground of the right of the inhabitants of the District?

Mr. YATES. Mr. Chairman, I never yet said that I was in favor of unrestricted popular sovereignty in the Territories; but I do believe that slavery ought not to exist in this District. I believe that Congress has the same power over this District which the Legislature of the State of Illinois has over that State-complete and plenary sovereignty in the management of all its civil policy. Hence, I believe it has power to abolish slavery in the District of Columbia, and should a bill be introduced into Congress submitting to the people to decide whether they would have slavery, I should vote for it. But wish to state further, that should that vote result in the emancipation of the slaves, then I would also be in favor of Congress paying, to the full value, for every slave in the District. I am not in favor of injustice. The question I ask is, whether these gentlemen would be in favor of carrying out this principle of popular sovereignty? They tell us that self-government, that popular sovereignty should prevail wherever the American flag floats. That was the language of the gentleman from Georgia. Are these gentlemen in favor of the people of this District deciding the question for themselves? for surely your flag floats here, or ought to float here, as proudly as anywhere else. Ah, Mr. Chairman, here is the rub. Whenever it is proposed to make slave territory out of free territory, then popular sovereignty is a sweet and delightful thing.

Mr. KEITT. I would ask the member from

The State of Parties, &c.—Mr. Yates.

Illinois whether, whenever free territory is to be made out of slave territory by vote of the people, he is not for popular sovereignty?

Mr. YATES. That takes me out of the line of remark that I intended to make, but I will answer the gentleman. And I affirm, sir, that in my estimation, there is a clear distinction to be drawn as to the objects and powers of our Government, and that, according to my view of the case, our Government may properly and constitutionally go to almost any limit in promoting the great principles of freedom, but cannot go one step towards the establishment of slavery. Hence, sir, I contend that the Nebraska bill, repealing the law by which slavery was already prohibited in the Kansas-Nebraska Territory, and opening that Territory to the incursion of slavery, was directly at war with the genius, objects, and mission of our Government.

I cannot better illustrate my meaning of the doctrine of popular sovereignty than by referring to a democratic principle which was evolved by the Revolution. The great principle' was then decided that taxation and representation should go hand in hand; and yet now, that principle is totally subverted by the Kansas-Nebraska bill. For, sir, all the States-the people of all the States-are taxed in the purchase of our Territories, in erecting public buildings for the Territories, in paying the salaries of their Legislature and all their public officers, and in defraying all the expenses of their territorial governments; and yet, sir, the people of all the States, though thus taxed, are to have no voice in the affairs of the Territory, and must tamely submit to the establishment of any institution, whether it be slavery, polygamy, cannibalism, or other wrong thing, which a few first settlers may deem it proper to impose.

Mr. KEITT. I do not wish to be unkind to the gentleman from Illinois, but was he not an anti-Nebraska candidate at the last election, and defeated?

Mr. YATES. I thank the gentleman for the question, and I reply, I was a candidate, and was defeated. But, sir, my district is largely against me in politics. It gave General Pierce nearly twelve hundred majority, while I only was defeated by the meager majority of two hundred votes; and those conversant with the facts, I believe, would inform you, that but for local divisions in two of the counties in my district, I should have been returned here by a handsome majority.

HO. OF REPS.

great national parties, and by the people in almost every section, still southern slavery and northern servility were insatiate, and under the false and fraudulent pretense of carrying out those compromises, unsettled and broke them up by a death blow at the very finality they had established. Even yet slavery must have more power, more extension, more patronage. Freedom had been written by the Missouri compromise on the suil of Kansas, on her hills and valleys, on her prairies and noble streams, on the sky above and the earth beneath, and Kansas, like our Northwest Territory, was, in all time to come, to be the enduring and happy home of freemen, free labor, and free institutions. But, sir, even that sacred compact was no obstacle to the demands of the slave power, and ruthless and reckless hands have been laid upon it, and slavery now goes undisturbed to occupy those fair and delightful regions.

And, sir, now slavery has its longing eye on California, on Utah, and New Mexico. She is calculating on four slave States in Texas. Cuba looms up in her vision, and is to be considered cheap at any number of millions of dollars capable of enumeration. Mexico and Central America are also in the prospect, and overstepping the barriers of the continent, her insatiate eye is regaling itself on the States of the southern contment. But, sir, that we may further discern the signs of the times, look at the things which are passing before our eyes. During the last session of Congress, some of the distinguished men of the South, in both political parties, have gone so far as to maintain that slavery was a positive good; that it was Bible-taught, and Heaven-ordained; that it is a political, social, and moral blessing; and to be consistent, they not only advocate its extension into the common Territories of the United States, but many have gone so far as to advocate the repeal of all laws for the suppression of the African slave trade. This startling proposition has been broached even in the Senate of the United States. Leading papers of the South, the Richmond Examiner, and Charleston Mercury, have taken open ground in favor of the African slave trade; yes, sir, in favor of the revival of that trade which is now, by the laws of the United States, declared to be piracy, and is deservedly punished with death, and is regarded with horror throughout the civilized and Christian world.

Yes, Mr. Chairman, the question now rises up before usa present question, not to be avoided, but to be met-whether slavery is to be nationalized; whether the spread of slavery is to be the chief concern and leading policy of this Government; whether it is to have the political ascendency in the Government; whether it is to be the figure-head of the ship of State, and whether a trade of unequaled barbarity, shocking to the senses of mankind, is to be revived under the full sanction of our General Government?

Mr. Chairman, when such were the phases of the slavery question presented to the people of the free States during the last elections, is it a wonder, sir, that they gave such unequivocal expressions of their condemnation of the repeal of the Missouri compromise? Why, sir, the people of the free States voted against the repeal of that great

Mr. Chairman, we are now at a turning point, a crisis in the history of the American people; and the action of the next Congress will decide the question whether slavery or freedom will be the dominant policy of the Government. If the next Congress shall fail to restore the Missouri compromise on the statute-book, then, sir, we may from that time date our Government as the avowed apologist for slavery, and need interpose no further barriers to the aggressions of the slave power; they will be vain. The triumph of the slave interest now, is its triumph forever. It is not enough that since the formation of the Constitution of the United States, nine slave States should have been brought into the Union, while only eight free States have been admitted; it is not enough that free States quietly submit to non-in-law of freedom as naturally as water flows to its tervention as to slavery in the slave States; it is not enough that they yield their assent, though a reluctant one, to slavery in this District; it is not enough that the free States should be made to do the servile work of arresting and returning the poor fugitive, who is in the pursuit of freedom, to slavery; that the sacred rights of Magna Charta, trial by jury, and of habeas corpus, should be denied him; it is not enough that our officers should be paid a higher fee for deciding against a slave than for him; and that northern courts should be made the unwilling instruments of sending back the slave to chains and hopeless bondage-but the Territories, which are the property of the whole people, are now to be declared open to the incursion of this blighting evil.

After the free States had yielded to the masterly and persuasive eloquence of Mr. Clay and Mr. Webster, and consented to the adoption of the compromises of 1850, under the conviction that the fearful controversies of the slavery question would be forever put to rest, and the acts of finality and conciliation were ratified by both the

level or the sparks fly upward. No power, however great, can subvert the eternal laws of nature. And, sir, no names, however distinguished, or party, however powerful, can suppress the Godgiven impulses of the human heart in favor of liberty and humanity. The sentiment of opposi tion to slavery in the free States is a God-given and God-implanted sentiment. A man like the Senator from Illinois, the leader of a powerful party, may do much; an Administration, with one hundred thousand offices at its disposal may do much; but woe to them, if they ask American freemen to lay their consciences in the dust; and to vote for slavery. The false and delusive cry of popular soɣereignty may deceive some, but the thinking, unprejudiced, and uncowering masses saw no other reason in the repeal of the Missouri compromise but the extension of slavery, and the ballot. box has written a fearful sentence upon the illadvised attempt to trample in the dust a sacred compact, and to extend the area of human bondage.

The earliest impressions of my boyhood were that the institution of slavery was a grievous

wrong, and with riper years that sentiment has become a conviction deep and abiding, and I should not be true to myself did I not oppose this institution whenever I can do so consistently with the Constitution of my country. And here upon these declarations, now in these the last days of my congressional career, I plant myself, and shall abide the issue. And, sir, I have no fears for the futurein the clouds of the present I see "the brightness of the future." This sentiment of opposition to slavery is a growing, a rising sentiment; it is the sentiment of the Declaration of American Independence, and it will stand bold, dominant, defiant, and rising and flaming higher and higher, as long as that proud charter of American liberty shall endure, or freedom find a home in the human heart,

Mr. Chairman, I am no statesman. I arrogate no such claim; but were I called upon to point out a public policy for my country, I should adopt, as great cardinal principles

1. No interference by Congress with slavery in the States.

2. No further extension of the area of slavery. 3. No more slave States.

4. The abolition of slavery in the District of Columbia, and wherever else it can be constitutionally done.

5. The rights of trial by jury and habeas corpus in all cases, and in the State where the arrest is made, as well as in the State from which the escape is made.

6. A home on the public domain for every landless American citizen, American or foreign-born, upon condition of actual settlement and cultivation for a limited period.

7. The improvement of the harbors of our lakes and the navigation of our rivers by appropriations from the Federal Treasury.

8. A tariff for revenue, with incidental protection, and specific duties, discriminating in favor of articles the growth and manufacture of our own country.

9. Liberal donations of the public lands for the construction of railroads, securing to the Government the full price for the same by reserving alternate sections and doubling the price therefor.

10. A more just and humane policy towards the Indian tribes, surrounding them with the influences of Christianity and civilization.

11. The encouragement by liberal appropriations from the Treasury, and donations of public lands for agriculture, the mechanic arts, and sci

ences.

These, gir, are the leading features of a public policy, which would speedily crown our nation with prosperity and glory, far transcending every people of ancient and modern times.

SPEECH OF HON. C. W. UPHAM,

OF MASSACHUSETTS,

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

February 27, 1855.

favor of a proffer of mediation by this Government, to arrest the progress of the Eastern war, the chairman of the Committee on Foreign Affairs stated that a suggestion, to that effect, had been discountenanced by persons supposed to know the views of one or more of the Powers engaged in that war. He therefore considered that the movement ought to be suspended, if not wholly dropped. The press, so far as it has met my eye, appears to have reached a similar conclusion. The subject interested me deeply from the first, but I had no strong purpose to take part in its discussion until the proposed mediation seemed thus to be abandoned. From that moment a feeling has grown up in my mind on the subject, which has, at last, assumed the character of a sense of duty, constraining me to leave my sentiments on record here, in this House, and before the country. I have great respect for the opinions of the Committee on Foreign Affairs. On all occasions I have expressed my sense of the obligation the country is under to that committee, and its able chairman in particular, for the prudence, caution, and wisdom with which it has dealt with our foreign relations. But on this point I differ from that distinguished gentleman. Sir, there would be no occasion whatever for a mediation, if either of the combatants were willing to allow themselves to be regarded as desirous of it. In that case, diplomacy and negotiation would be adequate to the exigency. When there is a will there is a way. But if all the parties are in hot blood, and stand upon points of honor, that is precisely the case for the mediation of a friendly Power. While such is the temper of the nations they represent, of course, ministers resident here will not compromise their sovereigns by encouraging an interposition. The fact that it has been thus discouraged shows, to my mind, that the exigency demanding it really exists.

Let it be borne in mind that it is not proposed that Congress should at all interfere in the matter, in the way of dictation, or in any other way than to give the moral weight of that public sentiment which we represent to the act of the President, should he see fit to act. The language of the joint resolution is, that "we would view with satisfaction a tender to the belligerents of the mediation of the United States, provided it should be in accordance with the President's views of the public interests." If, at this crisis, a voice of friendly remonstrance is uttered, it will be much more likely to subdue the storm and arrest the strife, if it is the voice, not of one man, however high in office, or of one branch of the Government, but of the whole American people, uttered through all their constitutional organs.

ΟΙ

The introduction of the proposition before us, by the honorable member from North Carolina, [Mr. CLINGMAN,] struck me, at the moment, as a peculiarly happy suggestion. If sustained by the action of Congress, it will give to our relations with the great Powers of the world, and to our connection with the interests of civilization and humanity, a character and a dignity most gratify

Mr. UPHAM said:

Mr. CHAIRMAN: It will be remembered by the committee that when the honorable member from North Carolina had concluded his remarks, several weeks since, in support of his resolution* in

A Joint Resolution requesting the President to tender the mediation of the United States to the Powers engaged in the Eastern war.

Whereas, the people of the United States see, with regret, that several of the great Powers of Europe are engaged in a war which threatens to be of long duration, and disastrous in its consequences to the industrial and social interests of a large portion of the civilized world; and being, under the favor of Providence, in the full enjoyment of the blessings of peace, distant from the theater of conflict, disconnected with the causes of quarrel between the parties belligerent, and, as a nation, having no immediate interest in the contest, and no purpose to interfere, forcibly or in an unwelcome mannner, nevertheless are of opinion that the controversy may be susceptible of pacific adjustment, through the interposition of a neutral and friendly Power: Therefore

Be it resolved by the Senate and House of Representa tives of the United States of America in Congress asseinbled, That we would view with satisfaction a tender to the belligerents of the mediation of the United States, provided

it should be in accordance with the President's views of the public interests.

heart. If this resolution passes, and the Executive should find occasion to carry it into effect, one of If it fails, there will be a defect in our history that our highest national obligations will be discharged., can never be supplied, a blemish that can never be removed. Have gentlemen appreciated the special propriety, the singular felicity, and, if I may use the expression, the poetic justice, and artistic finish to our public history, of such a procedure on our part, at this juncture, as the Committee on Foreign Relations recommends?

HO. OF REPS.

winter encampment at Valley Forge-an experience of privation and suffering that would have broken the spirit of any other people. Let me read to the House General Washington's announcement to his troops of the great event, "in the orders of the day," at Valley Forge. It presents a scene well worthy the pencil of the artist, in which the Army of liberty, and its great leader, rise to view and pass before us as in real life:

General Washington's announcement to the Army of the Alliance with France, dated at Valley Forge, from the Orderly Book, May 6th, 1778.

"It having pleased the Almighty Ruler of the universe to defend the cause of the United American States, and, finally, to raise us up a powerful friend among the princes of the earth to establish our liberty and independency upon a lasting foundation, it becomes us to set apart a day for gratefully acknowledging the divine goodness, and celebrating the important event, which we owe to His divine interposition. The several brigades are to be assembled for this purpose at nine o'clock to-morrow morning, when their chaplains will communicate the intelligence contained in the postscript of the Pennsylvania Gazette of the 20 instant, and offer up thanksgiving, and deliver a discourse suitable to the occasion. At half after ten o'clock a cannon will be fired, which is to be a signal for the men to be under arms; the brigade inspectors will then inspect their dress and arms, and form the battalions according to the instructions given them, and announce to the commanding offi cers of the brigade that the battalions are formed.

"The commanders of the brigades will then appoint the field-officers to the battalions, after which each battalion will be ordered to load and ground their arms. At half past eleven a second cannon will be fired as a signal for the march, upon which the several brigades will begin their march by wheeling to the right by platoons, and proceed by the nearest way to the left of their ground by the new position; this will be pointed out by the brigade inspectors. discharge of thirteen cannon, after which a running fire of A third signal will then be given, in which there will be a

the infantry will begin on the right of Woodford's, and continue throughout the front line; it will then be taken up on the left of the second line, and continue to the right. Upon a signal given, the whole Army will huzza Long LIVE THE KING OF FRANCE; the artillery then begins again, and fires thirteen rounds; this will be succeeded by a second general discharge of the musketry in a running fire, and buzza LONG LIVE THE FRIENDLY EUROPEAN POWERS. The last discharge of thirteen pieces of artillery will be given, followed by a general running fire, and huzza THE AMERICAN STATES."

An officer who was present described the scene in a letter, as follows:

"The Army made a most brilliant appearance; after which His Excellency dined in public with all the officers of his Army, attended with a band of music. I never was present where there was such unfeigned and perfect joy, as was discovered by every countenance. The entertainment was concluded with a number of patriotic toasts, attended with huzzas. When the General took his leave there was a universal clap, and loud huzzas, which continued till he had proceeded a quarter of a mile, during which úme there were a thousand hats tossed in the air. His Excellency turned round, with his retinue,and buzzaed several times."

Robert Morris, in a letter to Washington, expressed that sense of the momentous importance of the event which the whole country then entertained, and which will be cherished in every American heart to the end of time:

"When I congratulate your Excellency on the great good news lately received from France, you will not expect me to express my feelings. Were I in your company my countenance might show, but my pen cannot describe them. Most sincerely do I give you joy. Our Independence is undoubtedly secured; our country must be free."

It is not necessary to enlarge upon the importance of the aid France rendered us in that critical period. All admit the truth of the sentiment of Robert Morris-from that moment our Independence was secured, and our country forever free.

It is true that a subsequent arrangement, by which.our Government assumed obligations to its own citizens, which have been twice solemnly acknowledged by the concurrent action of both branches of our National Government, being the constitutional Legislature of the Union, and will at last be discharged, released us from all entangling obligations of the revolutionary alliance with France; still we, and our children after us, can never fail to cherish a sense of the deepest grati

France has been our ally, as no other nation ever can be. She came to our rescue in the darkest hour of the birth-struggle of our independence. It is well to keep forever bright, in the memory and heart of the American people, the grateful exultation with which the country was electrified when intelligence was received of the French alliance. The Army had just passed through its dreary

expressing it, on all occasions, and in every form consistent, as that now proposed is, with our settled and unalterable policy of neutrality in all European or foreign wars, and of equal and impartial intercourse with all nations.

It is well known that our diplomatic relations with Russia have invariably been of the most friendly nature. This fact was stated in an interesting manner, and by that member of our body whose experience enables him, more than any one else, to speak with authority, [Mr. BENTON,]