to which her truly national interests entitle her, she could obtain, at the hands of the Democracy of this House, the full measure of protection that is desired for her iron and coal. . . . The sooner, in my judgment, that the Democracy of Pennsylvania severs its alliance with Eastern Federalism and the Whig party, and placing her interests upon high and national grounds, appeals to the Democracy of the Union for liberality and support, the better for those interests and far better for her republican character.

Sir, I shall probably support this bill on the question of its passage through this House. I trust, however, that the duties upon iron and coal will be increased at least 10 per cent above the present rates of the bill, if they are not made specific, which I prefer. If these amendments are not made here, I shall look with confidence to their being made in the Senate; and if mistaken in this, and the bill again comes before this House upon amendments from the Senate, I shall then act as to me seems right, not regarding my present support as a final commitment for the bill.

II

SPEECH ON SLAVERY IN THE TERRITORIES

1

I shall avail myself of the present opportunity to discuss the great issue now before the country-first presented by an amendment which, some two years since, I had the honor to offer for the consideration of this House. That amendment asserted no new principle. I was but the copyist of Jefferson in the reaffirmance of a principle consistent with the uniform and settled policy of this Government-in harmony with the whole history of its legislation. Neither was the subject improperly introduced into our National deliberations. There was no design in its introduction, beyond what appeared on its face. It arose necessarily out of the circumstances in which we were placed. We were engaged in a war with Mexico. The policy of the Administration to acquire vast territories as an indemnity for past injuries, and for the expenses of the war, had been frankly made known to the country and to the world. Congress was called upon by the Executive to appropriate money, not for the prosecution of the war, but confessedly as a means to further this policy of acquisition. In my judgment, then as now, there was no more fitting occasion, upon which to declare the future policy of this Government, in respect tc the territory to be acquired, than the one offered by the bill to which the "Proviso" was originally attached. Such, I believe at the time, was the judgment of Congress and of the country. The amendment was carried by a large majority in the House, and would, I doubt not, have received the prompt sanction of the Senate, had time been afforded that body to act upon it, then in the last hour of its session. It is unfortunate for the country, and for the great interests at stake, that the Senate had not then been permitted to come to a vote. The question would have been settled quietly, and without agitation. No controversy of a sectional

1 This speech of Mr. Wilmot's, delivered in the House of Representatives Aug. 3, 1848, is reported in full in the Cong. Globe, Thirtieth Congress, 1st session, Appendix, pp. 1076 et seq. See Chapter XVII.

character would have grown up, engendering unfraternal feelings between the people and States of this Confederacy. The South, I am persuaded, would have cheerfully acquiesced, at that day, in a policy so just, and in the establishment of which southern statesmen had borne a leading and honorable part.

The failure of prompt action on the part of the Senate threw the question into the arena of party politics. It was caught up by politicians, and used as an element to combine the power of the South, and enable that section of the Union to reward with the honors of a Presidential nomination him who should prove himself the most pliant instrument of the Slave power. Through the press, in their legislative assemblies, in State and county conventions, and in the primary meetings of the people, the voice of the United South was heard, in resolve upon resolve, declaring that she would support no man for the Presidency who did not openly repudiate the doctrine of preserving freedom in free territory. The Presidency, in fact, was held up to the highest northern bidder, and the humiliating spectacle presented to the world, of an ignominious rivalship between the leading men of the North, in a race of subserviency to southern demands. Those who should have led in the inculcation of a sound and virtuous public sentiment, who should have been the champions of the rights of free labor, the standard bearers in this struggle of freedom, were first and foremost in yielding to the mandates of the slave power. I speak as I believe truth demands, and as the iron pen of history will make up the record of the times. A great question, affecting the honor and character of the Republic, vital to the interests of the white laboring man, has been jeoparded and endangered in a selfish scramble for office.

A new creed was set up, a new platform and test of party fidelity erected. Denunciation and proscription followed all who would not bow down at the shrine of Slavery Propagandism. Northern men who dared to vindicate the rights of free labor, to speak and vote in favor of the white man and his children, were proscribed by an Administration that owed its existence to the sacrifices and noble efforts of the democracy of the North. Its organ here was pleased to proclaim that the advocates of freedom would find no favor with those who, but for their support, would have slumbered on in the shades of retirement.

The

patronage of the Government, and the money of the people, were employed to prostrate the cause of freedom, and to overwhelm and crush its advocates. A press, largely dependent upon patronage for support, was actively engaged in misrepresenting the true nature of the great issue involved, and in denouncing those who, in the face of power, and in defiance of its mandates, remained true to principle, and to their solemn convictions of duty.

Such were the influences, and such the means employed, to break the ranks of the northern democracy, and to raise up on free soil, advocates for the propagation and extension of human slavery. It is time that the white laboring man should know that the Government which he supports by his labor, and defends by his strong arm, is against him in this struggle for his rights. It is time he should understand the influences that pervade this capital, and which exert so powerful a control over the legislation of this country. The efforts of their friends will be unavailing, so long as the patronage of the Government is wielded against them.

Mr. Chairman, this is a day of changes, and of new theories, in the political world. Novel and most extraordinary doctrines have recently been put forth by the advocates of slavery extension. Our right to legislate for territory has been gravely questionedour sovereignty over it denied. I have examined, with some care, the history of our legislation with respect to territories; and I affirm, without the fear of contradiction, that from the first year of the organization of this Government down to the present session of Congress, our sovereignty over them has been continually exercised in the most perfect and plenary manner; that we have extended over them our sole and exclusive jurisdiction and authority, in all respects and in all things, appertaining to their government and laws.

Territories possess no inherent political sovereignty. Sovereignty appertains to organized States. It is that power which prescribes laws, and to which the citizen is required to yield obedience. This power no more resides in a territory than it does in a county or a township. As well might the inhabitants of the latter claim the right to make laws, and regulate their own affairs, as that the people of a territory should assume to themselves such high prerogatives and powers. Such a doctrine is unknown to the legislation of this country. During the whole period of our

national existence, not an example can be found in which a territory has been permitted to exercise a single act of independent political sovereignty. This doctrine is of recent origin-a new invention. It originated in the necessities of the occasion, as a cover behind which to take shelter, and avoid the responsibility of meeting directly the great question of the extension of slavery into territories now free. It is not the doctrine of the Constitution. It is unsupported by authority and wholly at variance with the teachings of those who have gone before us.

Commencing with the celebrated Ordinance of 1787 down to the organization of a territorial government for Iowa in 1838, this Government has exercised full and exclusive sovereignty over its territories. This long record of sixty years furnishes no precedent to justify this doctrine of territorial sovereignty. We have invariably prescribed the fundamental law, and laid down the great landmarks, within which every territorial government should move. We have regulated the descent of lands, and the distribution of the property of intestates; the mode in which estates should be conveyed and devised. We have prescribed qualifications for the exercise of the right of suffrage, and for eligibility to office; fixed the ratio of representation, established courts, defined their powers and jurisdiction, and directed the manner of the selection of jurors. We have provided for the appointment and election of executive, judicial, legislative and military officers, prescribing their qualifications, duties and terms of office. We have guaranteed the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus, and the right of trial by jury. Such are some of the usual and ordinary provisions, most, if not all of which, are to be found in every act organizing a territorial government.

What other or stronger evidence could be adduced or required, to establish the general and exclusive sovereignty of this Government over its territories? Why were not all these matters of local concern left to the people? Why not permit them to say who should vote, and who should not? These powers are among the highest prerogatives of sovereignty, and have been asserted from time to time by almost every Congress since the adoption of the Constitution. The novel and extraordinary doctrine has been promulgated from high quarters, that we have no power over our territories, beyond the making of "needful rules and regulations"