aristocratic position and dominion in the slave States, and be content to share with the freemen of the North the political power of this Government upon the terms and conditions prescribed in the Constitution, we should have no agitation, no strife, connected with the subject of slavery. We claim no right to interfere with slavery or any of the prerogatives it confers, in the southern States of this Union. It may stand there for centuries to come, if it can so stand, as it has stood for centuries that have passed, without let or hindrance, or molestation on the part of this Government. But when it attempts to pass beyond State limits and plant itself upon our national territories, and puts forth demands subversive of our institutions of Government, then slavery loses its local and domestic character and becomes a subject of vital concern to the people of the whole Union.

Mr. Chairman, some gentlemen, apparently with a view to excuse their conduct, and to lull the free States into a fatal sense of security, confidently assume, that slavery can never exist in any part of the territory acquired from Mexico. This assumption, it is worthy of note, comes exclusively from northern men, and from that class of northern men who reconcile it with their duty to act upon all occasions in harmony with the interest and policy of slavery. It is directly and flatly contradicted, by almost every southern man who has spoken upon the subject, and is in the face of every fact, connected with the history and progress of slavery upon this continent. Of all our vast possessions, owned at the time of the organization of the Government, together with those acquired from France and Spain, and by the annexation of Texas, not one foot can be found to-day, free from the institution of slavery, that was not secured to freedom by the positive law of this Government. The existence or nonexistence of slavery in a country, does not depend upon soil, or climate, or production. It is regulated by pecuniary considerations, and the demand for labor. The number of slaves, that can be profitably employed upon a given extent of territory, will depend much upon the character of its productions; but wherever labor is in demand-wherever there is work to do, there the slave is valuable, and there he will be taken, unless legal barriers are interposed to prevent it. This is proved by the whole history of the settlement of this continent. There is no branch of labor in which slaves can be

more profitably employed than in mining the precious metals. It was for this purpose that slaves were first employed in America.

It is a mockery, Mr. Chairman, to pretend that slavery cannot exist in the territories acquired from Mexico. It can, and it surely will go there, unless prevented by the action of this Government, or the early organization of those territories as States, before slavery has time to diffuse itself over them. Let our action in these halls be controlled by the threats and policy of a slaveholding aristocracy--organize territorial governments without any prohibition of slavery-break down all barriers against its introduction by a submission on our part to the constitutional dogmas of the South, and slavery will as certainly overrun those territories, as that it has spread from the Potomac, south and west, to the Gulf of Mexico and the banks of the Rio Grande. This result is not only admitted by the South, but it is openly and boldly proclaimed as her settled and fixed policy-a policy necessary, as she avers, to her safety, and from which, sooner than depart, she is willing to dissolve the Union. Yet, in the face of all this, we are mocked with the idle assurances of northern men, that there is no danger that slavery will be extended. Sir, what is this controversy about? For what is this protracted and exciting struggle? It has but one foundation. It grows out of the declared undisguised policy of the South to extend and perpetuate the system of human slavery. The issue is upon us. It cannot be evaded. Its responsibilities are ours-let us meet them like men. The judgment of posterity and the tribunal of a just God will hold us accountable for the issues of this great question of FREEDOM or SLAVERY.

IV

SPEECH ON THE CALIFORNIA QUESTION

WILMOT'S Speech on July 24, 1850, on the California question had unquestionably been germinating for the preceding months in the heated atmosphere of the California discussion, but it was forced suddenly into flower by the events of the day.1 On the motion of Bayly, of Virginia, the California message had been laid aside in favor of a bill making appropriations for the Military Academy, and the chairman's reply to an inquiry had left it uncertain whether or not the committee would return to the California question after the academy bill was disposed of. Wentworth, of Illinois, "entreated northern men who had just now deserted the friends of California, to return when the next bill came up. Unless they did so, they could not avoid the charge of opposing the admission of California; for, if it came in at this session at all, it must come in before the appropriation bills." To a direct inquiry from Johnson, of Arkansas, whether it was to be understood "that the Free-Soilers are to change front, and hereafter oppose the appropriation bills, as a part of their California policy," Wentworth replied that he could not speak for the Free-Soil party; he had never attended any caucuses except the democratic. He believed, however, that "all this cry about the loss of the appropriation bills was humbug-a mere pretense on the part of the men pledged to support California." And then the floor was secured by John A. McClernand, of Illinois, who had been the only northern democrat to vote against the Wilmot Proviso when it was first offered, in August, 1846, and had grown in hostility to it as more and more of his political fellows came over to his position, seeking peace and party strength through concessions to slavery.

1 Cong. Globe, July 24, 1850, pp. 1443 et seq. See end of Chapter XXIIL

What now, he asked, was the present position of these same gentlemen (the friends of California)? They profess to be in favor of the admission of California; but, no doubt, for the same reason that they were formerly opposed to her admission. They formerly opposed her admission, because her area was an addition to the territory in regard to which they could agitate the question of slavery. They now favor her admission as a separate measure, because the result will be to leave the territories of Utah and New Mexico open for the application of the Proviso. . . . Hence the admission of California is not the main object with these gentlemen. She is not their first love, but the "Wilmot"-the Wilmot Proviso-is their first love. They are opposed to the joint settlement of all the territorial questions, because then the occupation of Othello would be lost to him; because then they would be left without a plank to swim them above the depth of political oblivion. The "Wilmot," not California, he repeated, was the aim and object of those gentlemen who claimed to be the peculiar friends of California. . . .

The movements of to-day corroborated a report which had pervaded the city for some days past, and, as far as Mr. McClernand knew, without contradiction. The report was, that what was called the "free-soil" party in the House had determined "to rule or ruin"-to pass the admission of California, in the way they had arrogantly prescribed, or otherwise to stop the wheels of Government. To be more particular, it was a part of this report that members of this party had agreed in caucus, probably in that Hall, in the first place to oppose everything except the appropriation bills, until California should be admitted, let the consequences be what they might. Afterwards this condition was struck out, and they resolved to oppose everything, at all hazards and to the last extremity, until California should be admitted by herself independently, and irrespective of governments for the other territories.

It was in rejoinder to these charges that Mr. Wilmot obtained the floor and addressed the Committee (of the Whole) for an hour. Christopher H. Williams, of Tennessee, tried to stop him on a point of order, but the chair overruled the objection, holding that the remarks were within the rules governing debate

in Committee of the Whole, and he was sustained by the Committee, on appeal. Mr. Wilmot's address follows: 2

Not until to-day, and from the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. McClernand), had he heard this charge of a desire to defeat the appropriation bills, made upon the friends of freedom. He had risen to repel any such charge, and to brand as false, all such rumors. Indeed, it was astonishing to him how such rumors. could have obtained currency. He suspected that they existed only in the imagination of the gentleman from Illinois, and that he is the first to give them breath and circulation. In the caucus to which the gentleman refers, there was not a word said which could be tortured into such a construction. It is true that the friends of California desire action; it is true, they begin to apprehend that those who came here professedly her friends, are not so in good faith, but are prepared to give her the go-by. He desired to give to California precedence over the appropriation bills. He believed that the friends of California desired that course now; and the reason is this: the history of the Government, for twenty years, proves that the appropriation bills are not passed until the last days of the session; and he felt satisfied that when those bills were passed the day of adjournment will have arrived. The same men who now seek to stave off the admission of California-to put the consideration of that great measure behind other business, after a shameful delay of eight monthsthe same men, sir, will vote for and carry an adjournment, so soon as the appropriation bills shall have been passed. It is to

2 Cong. Globe, Thirty-first Congress, 1st session. Appendix, pp. 940 et seq.

This passage was challenged by McClernand in the House, July 30. Cong. Globe, p. 1475. He said he had not heard this allusion to himself in Wilmot's speech, nor was it remembered by others with whom he had talked. If he had heard it uttered he would have felt himself called upon to notice it as it deserved. A rather sharp skirmish followed, in which Wilmot repeated several times that he had made no charges against McClernand. What he said in his speech, and now said again, was that it was a matter of surprise to him how such a report could have been circulated, and he "could not but imagine that it existed only in the imagination of the gentleman." His speech as printed in the Globe, he insisted, however, was substantially the speech delivered on the floor. He had written it carefully from the reporters' notes and avoided introducing any new

matter.