33D CONG....2D SESS.

his errors of head) was wedded to the interests of that country for which he so often periled his life, supported, in 1828, the highest protective tariff ever made; and even now, he ought to know that a southern Secretary of the Treasury recommends the principle of protection.

The gentleman forgets, too, that the proudest page in the history of the lamented statesman of Kentucky-Henry Clay-under whose banner he fought gallant battles in by-gone days, is that which records him as the author of that great "American system," which embraced protection to American industry.

The gentleman says the South has never asked anything from our Government, and reminds us that the West and North ask for the improvement of their rivers and lakes. I am prepared, if it be comes necessary, to go fully into that question at the proper time. That, too, is a fruitful subjecta great national question-not involving the interests of the people of the West alone, but of the North, the East, and the South-of every section of our common country, so richly endowed by a generous Providence with all the natural elements of a true national independence. Whenever the President shall furnish his twice-promised reasons for vetoing what we have already done on this subject, a more suitable occasion will be presented for a discussion of the question. The gentleman

says:

"All that we ask of you is, keep your hands out of our pockets. That is all that the South ask, and we do not get even that."

We are told "the South gets nothing-asks nothing!" Certainly not! Let us take a glance at what we have done in the way of acquisitions of territory, and for the extension of the area of her institution of slavery. When the Union was formed, one of its objects was declared to be the restriction, if not the extinction, of African slavery. The preamble to the Constitution which our fathers made, and which we are sworn to support, declares its object: " to form a more perfect union' and "secure the blessings of liberty.' In no part of it is there any express provision for slavery certainly none to extend it or acquire for it new territory. The cotemporaneous events prove that the framers desired to rid the nation of it. Since the free States agreed to this bond of union, they have asked no acquisition of foreign territory, In one instance, sir, we yielded a just claim to terri. tory. We vauntingly raised over Oregon the banner of "540 40 or fight!" Our cause was in the hands of a southern President, and when Britain's lion growled, with humbled flag, we were ordered to take the backward step down to 490!

"The South asks nothing!" In 1803, we paid fifteen millions to get Louisiana.

"The South asks nothing!" In 1819, we paid five millions to get Florida.

"The South asks nothing!" In 1845, her policy brought Texas into the Union, with a promise that she might carve herself up into five States.

"The South asks nothing!" Her Texas annexation brought the war with Mexico, and more territory was demanded as "the fruits of that war!" I cannot now correctly state the thousands, and tens of thousands, and hundreds of thousands, and millions, and tens of millions of dollars paid out of our Treasury to prosecute it; but oh, Mr. Chairman, may I not point the honorable gentleman to the stained battle fields of Monterey, of Buena Vista, of Cerro Gordo, of Chepultepec, and Cherubusco, to prove that the North poured out freely her purest and best blood to satisfy your demands.

"The South asks nothing!" Did she not get about thirty-five millions to prosecute the Florida war? How many millions more it will take to capture that celebrated chief, old "Billy Bowlegs," God only knows.

"The South asks nothing!" I pass over the millions upon millions she has received at various times, either in money or lands, and come down to recent dates. In 1850, the gentleman himself, voted to give Texas $10,000,000, under pretext that we got from her territory, which she never owned, because she had neither conquered nor occupied it.

“The South asks nothing!" Why, Mr. Chairman, in this very Hall, ten millions were voted

Kansas and Nebraska, &c.—Mr. Campbell.

away last session for the purchase, from bankrupt|| Santa Anna, of the Mesilla valley. It was done, under whip and spur, when even the appeals of the venerable gentleman from Missouri, [Mr. BENTON,] for light and information, in regard to that Gadsden treaty, were of no avail.

"The South asks nothing!" Who but the South, in the midnight hours of last session, asked $10,000,000, as pocket change for the President, during our short recess, to be expended, doubtless, with a view to get Cuba, and who has sought $200,000,000, and even war with Spain, if necessary, to acquire that rich island?

"The South asks nothing!" The gentleman's memory is bad. Did not he, or others from the South, get-and by the aid of my own vote, too$100,000 for a purely local improvement in Cape Fear river, which has comparatively no commerce? Did they not get it, too, with the approbation of the President, just after he had vetoed the bill granting land to every State in the Union, to aid in the construction of hospitals for the indigent insane, and just before he vetoed the river and harbor bill, which appropriated money for the improvement of the natural thoroughfares in every section of this broad land?

"The South asks nothing!" Does she not get her full share of appropriations for her navy-yards, for improvements on the sea-coast, for harbors, piers, breakwaters, light-houses, life-boats, &c.? Are not our people taxed for the Navy which protects her cotton on the high seas? And do we not pay largely more than our just proportion for the transportation of your southern mails? "The South asks nothing!" She never asks for any of the offices! She never gets any-certainly not! This proposition will be better demonstrated by the Blue Book, if gentlemen will turn to it! Mr. Chairman, the honorable gentleman's memory is not clear this morning. I advert to these things hastily and cursorily, by way of refreshing it not in any spirit of unkindness to the South, for I vote most cheerfully for her man to interfere with her constitutional rights. I measures of improvement, and would be the last mention them in a defensive spirit, under a necessity which the gentleman has created, by his course of remark in representing the free States of this Union as dependent upon the liberality of the slave States, who, he says, "ask nothing."

Mr. Chairman, the honorable gentleman discusses the causes which have produced the result of the late elections-a-result unprecedented in the political annals of this country. Everywhere, sir, as I predicted on this floor when the great wrong of repealing the Missouri compromise was about to be consummated, by what we regarded as a fraud upon the law and the rules of the House, the people have discarded all party ties, and have sent back a rebuke in the thunder tones of a true "popular sovereignty!" The gentleman need not flatter himself with the idea he has expressed, that "the Nebraska bill" was not the issue, and has had nothing to do in producing this result. He instances the case of yourself, Mr. Chairman, [Mr. CHANDLER in the chair.] I am not fully advised of the causes which produced the election of the honorable gentleman who is to occupy the place you have filled for many years with so much ability. But I assert that he is as much opposed to the repeal of the Missouri compromise as either you or 1. If it is not so, let me be corrected. Again, he refers to your colleague from the Lancaster district, [Mr. HIESTER,] and would draw the inference that his defeat was occasioned by his vote against the Nebraska act. Such is not the fact. His successor, too, as the gentleman will learn in due time, will come here pledged to aid in undoing that great wrong.

In every free State, where an election has been held, the result has been the same. Take the State of New York, to which the gentleman has of old parties there, she returns thirty-two memreferred. Notwithstanding the complex condition bers pledged against the repeal of the Missouri compromise, and one whose opinions, it is said,

have not been made known.

In regard to the character of the contests in other States, I can speak from personal knowledge as to three of them, in which I participated before the people-Indiana, Michigan, and Ohio. The Nebraska question was the great question in

HO. OF REPS.

Indiana, and every inch of ground was contested vigorously by both parties. The result is known. In Michigan how stands the case? I had the pleasure of passing through that State for a fortnight during the canvass. Everywhere on the stump, the Nebraska bill was the prominent topic. It brought to its aid all the power and long established influence of the distinguished Senator, [Mr. Cass,] who honors us with his presence and attention this morning. And, sir, he not only passed from point to point, all over the State, exerting all his personal influence, but he argued to his people that they should support the measure, because, under its provisions, slavery could not exist in these Territories under this act, whilst the gentleman from Georgia, and the southern friends, advocate it upon the ground that it secures them the right to take the institution there. (See his "speech at Romeo.") But even his power could not control the spirit of his people. They condemned the act, returning three anti-Nebraska men to the next Congress, and placing in the Governor's chair, by a majority of five thousand votes, Kingsly S. Bingham, who was a member of this body in the memorable Congress of 1849 and 1850, and left here an unmistakable record of his position on the principles of the Nebraska bill.

Then, sir, there is my own native Ohio. The gentleman's attention has been attracted to the number of bushels of potatoes her free-born sons produce, but, in his flourish about the elections, he omits to notice the character of their votes on the Nebraska bill. There's the record of "the young giant of the West-the first born under the Jefferson ordinance of '87." Look at it! A

majority of eighty thousand; which might have been more, but is certainly enough for all practical purposes, as her delegation to the Thirty-Fourth Congress is a unit against the repeal of the Missouri compromise. That is the verdict of Ohio. 1 point to it with as much pride as I shall take in meeting the challenge of the gentleman, and showing that her “step in progress" is unlike the gentleman's great step in repealing the Missouri compromise, which was a step backwards of thirty-four years. Ohio's march, thank God, morally, intellectually, and in "physical develop ment," from the day she was born into this Union, has been onward and upward, with the strides of a mighty young giant. Looking to her with filial affection, for all that I have been in the past, and all I hope for in the future, may I not say, in the language of a distinguished statesman, "There she stands! God bless her!"

The honorable gentleman seems to challenge a comparison of the products of Ohio with those of Georgia. 1 should be false to my State in declining to take up the gauntlet in her defense. He proposes, by this line of argument, to show that the labor of an African slave is better calculated to develop the natural resources of our great country than the labor of an American freeman. If that be a true proposition, would it not be better that we should all be slaves? It involves higher considerations than those prompted by mere State pride in a comparison of the products of turnips, &c.! Holding, as I understand the gentleman does, that slavery improves the African race, his proposition, if substantiated, would lead to the reopening of the African slave trade, with all its train of atrocities, now made piracy by laws upon your statute-book. If gentlemen from the slave States seriously believe that enslaving the African makes him happy-is a moral, a social, and a political blessing, both to the master and the slave, and that it develops more successfully those rich elements with which the God of Nature has endowed this, "our native land," why do they not meet the great question boldly at once by introducing " a bill to repeal all laws prohibiting the African slave trade?" and tendering bounties for natives brought from Africa to slavery, as we do for codfish taken from the bed of the ocean?

Mr. Chairman, I did not desire to travel over the whole ground of the slavery question. The gentleman parades, in this contest, slave labor against free labor! He has presented his case with that marked ability which characterizes all his efforts-an ability which has, more than once, commanded my admiration. In presenting the other side, I will not be charged with making improper, or even voluntary war on the institu

33D CONG....2D SESS.

tions of the South, in calling his attention briefly, again, as I have done heretofore, to high authority, exclusively southern. Let us look at the ancient doctrine of the fathers, compared with the modern ideas of the gentleman. In the early period of our history, the opposition to slavery was of the most unrelenting character, for reasons then asserted. I give but a few references on this point.

In 1774, a spirited effort was made by the slaveholding colonies to check the further progress of slavery. They did not regard it as the best means of improving the country. A meeting of the people of Culpepper county, Virginia, adopted the following resolution:

"Resolved, That the importing slaves and convict servants is injurious to this Colony, as it obstructs the population of it with freemen and useful manufacturers; and that we will not buy any such slaves or convict servants hereafter to be imported."-American Archives, 1st vol. 4th series, page 523.

We find similar resolves in July, 1774, in Prince George's county, (p. 493;) Nansemond county, (p. 530;) Caroline county, (p. 541;) Surry county, (p. 593;) Fairfax county, Washington presiding, (p. 600;) Harrison county, (p. 616;) in Princess Anne county, (p. 641.) Also, the Virginia Provincial Convention, (p. 687;) the North Carolina Provincial Convention, (p. 735;) the first convention of Provinces, to form a Union, meeting at Philadelphia, (p. 740.)

On this point, of free and slave labor, I quote Georgia sentiments, (p. 1136,) as she uttered them in 1774, when her revolutionary men appealed to the God of battles to aid them. By the side of them I present the sentiments of the gentleman, [Mr. STEPHENS,] as uttered here this morning: Georgia on slavery in 1774. "In a general philanthropy for ALL MANKIND, of what ever climate, language, or complexion, we hereby declare our disapprobation and abhorrence of the unnatural

practice of slavery in America, (however the uncultivated state of our country or other specious arguments may plead for it,) a practice founded in injustice and crueity, and highly dangerous to our liberties, as well as lives, debasing part of our fellow creatures below men, and corrupting the virtue and morals of the rest, and is laying the basis of that liberty we contend for, (and which we pray the Almighty to continue to the latest posterity,) upon a very wrong foundation. We therefore resolve, at all times, to use our utmost endeavors for the manumission of our slaves in this colony, upon the most safe and equitable footing for the maser and themselves. "

Georgia on slavery in 1854.

"I believe, too, that the system of government, as adopted by the South, defining the status or relation of these two races, is the best for both of them; and I am

prepared to argue that question with the gentleman, here or anywhere. Could Howard, the philanthropist, who has left an undying fame for his deeds of humanity, have taken the same number of Africans from their native country and raised them from their barbarous condition to that of the slaves of the South, he would have added much to that stature of immortality which, in his day, he erected to himself. It would have greatly added to that reputation, which now sanctifies his memory in the hearts and affections of mankind."

And Thomas Jefferson (page 696) said:

THE ABOLITION OF DOMESTIC SLAVERY IS THE GREATEST OBJECT OF DESIRE IN THESE COLONIES, where it was unhappily introduced in their infant state." And Henry Clay, after witnessing its effects until 1830, said in this Hall:

"Our friends who are cursed with this greatest of human evils, deserve the kindest attention and consideration. Their property and their safety are both involved. But the liberal and candid among them will not, cannot, expect that every project to deliver our country from it is to be crushed because of a possible and ideal danger."

I might quote volumes of such declarations to disprove the gentleman's position. If they are "Abolition doctrines," let him denounce, if he chooses, those who uttered them. I refer him to the record they have left behind.

The gentleman may tell me that these are but the opinions of men, and that experience has proven them fallacious. They are the opinions of wise men of patriots-of the best men America has ever produced; of the men who periled all for American independence. In quoting them, I only echo, in feeble tones, the voice of our Washington, our Jefferson, our Madison, our Patrick Henry, our Hoopers and Caswells, our Pendletons, and Lees, and Harrisons, and Middletons, and Rutledges, and a host of other southern patriots, whose names are engraven upon the grateful hearts of the American people. But feebly, indeed, do I now repeat the sentiments uttered in the trying hour of our national history, by the

old Colonies of Virginia, of North Carolina, of South Carolina, of Maryland, and of Georgia. They declared that the effect of slavery upon our common country was to "obstruct the population of it with freemen and useful manufacturers." But Georgia, this morning, as represented by the honorable gentleman, who comes before the House with his "grand step of progress"-with "the great movement made by the National Legisla. ture on this question" of repealing the Missouri compromise-uttering the high sounding declaration that "revolutions never go backwards," brings up statistics to prove the declarations of the old Continental men untrue! He tells us, in effect, that it is now demonstrated that slavery, rather than freedom, is the true principle on which to trust "physical development!" He parades Georgia against Ohio. I know his State exhibits a degree of prosperity as great, if not greater, than any other where slavery prevails. I rejoice that her people are prosperous, and am willing to vote her all proper aid to facilitate her onward march. Similarity in the character of climate, soil, productions, &c., would have furnished a more just criterion on which to predicate the test of a great principle like this. Virginia and Ohio, separated only as they are by the river Ohio, (which is regarded here as insignificant when compared with Cape Fear!) would have furnished a fairer field for comparison. Had the gentleman selected Virginia as the soil upon which he would display his great point of "physical development," I should have contented myself by saying to him, "go to the city of Pittsburg, and as you descend upon the smooth surface of the beautiful Ohio, cast your piercing eye to the left, and then to the right. On the one hand behold" physical development" under the institution which your southern men of the Revolution said they would abolish-on the other, witness the fruits of Jefferson's ordinance of 1787. There you see the "Old Dominion," and the "mother of presidents," as she now is. Her proud history tells you what she once was; and her rivers and plains her mines, and her mountain streams show that the old Commonwealth embraces as many of the natural elements of wealth as the most favored portions of the footstool of the Almighty! Here you see the State called the "giant of the West." From the embryo which seems to have slumbered from the morning of creation, she sprang into active life when the magic pen of Jefferson wrote, and the wise patriotism of the Continental Congress solemnly declared, "slavery shall not go there!" And as the gentleman should descend to the city of Cincinnati, the "Queen of the West," (although she has no works of antiquity to charm the wayfarer,) I would whisper in his ear, "look upon this picture, and then upon that." I would not, Mr. Chairman, show him these comparative results by way of exultation over Virginia, or in a spirit of selfish State pride. Oh, no! My most sacred memories are identified with her. My ancestors, from the highlands of Scotland, first enjoyed American liberty there. The blood of one whom memory makes dear to me, stained her soil in the battle of Eutaw. I have an affectionate regard for her, sir. Although, as a native Ohioan, I do not feel much like singing:

"Oh carry me back to Old Virginia, To Old Virginia's shore," yet I have the hope in my heart there is "a good time coming," when the true spirits of that ancient Commonwealth will, in reality, make some "great movement," and "a grand step in that progress which characterizes the age!"

The honorable gentleman invites, perhaps forces me, to Georgia, for comparison. I go cheerfully; even further than the sunny fields of his constituents, am I ready to follow him on this question. With the brief history of young Ohio in my hand, I will go with him, in this examination, to the remotest corners of the earth, and with true statistics as the test, assert, that within the same period of time, no people can make a better exhibit in the "grand step in that progress which characterizes the age," than hers.

Upon the subject of physical development, let me say that the gentleman, in showing the agricultural products of my State, has probably selected a particular year when the drouth has swept over it, destroying the products of our labor. If the

Ho. OF REPS.

gentleman wishes to institute a fair comparison between the two States, let him take any five or ten years and exhibit the aggregate results, and there will be more justice in it.

Mr. STEPHENS, of Georgia. I did not "pick out" any particular year either for Ohio or Georgia. I said that I took the census returns for 1850 for both States. The gentleman knows that I opposed the collection of such statistics in the census. I have never thought such returns very accurate, but they were taken though against my vote, and I referred to them as I found them so returned and published. I did not "pick out" any particular year.

Mr. CAMPBELL. I have no time now to examine the correctness of the gentleman's statistics; but I will prepare and publish with my remarks a full statement of the facts.

I make reference to the annexed tables, which are taken from the census. [See appendix.] On minute examination of the gentleman's statistics, I find he adopts a singular system of getting up the comparative value of agricultural products. It reminds me of England's old system of the "sliding scale,' in levying duties on corn. The census gives the number of bushels of wheat, corn, &c., and the quantity of agricultural products, but it does not furnish the market value. The gentleman fixes the price himself, and does not give Ohio the benefit of equality, and besides, he puts those articles, in the product of which Ohio excels, at very low figures. In exposition of his system, I will instance the important items to Ohio of wheat, corn, and oats, three of her greatest staples: He credits Georgia with wheat at $1.00 per bushel. Ohio 80 Georgia with corn at Ohio

64

66

46

46

66

46

50

37" 25 66

Georgia with oats at Ohio These being among Ohio's chief products, the gentleman arranges his "sliding scale," makes up a particular aggregate, and then boastingly presents the result. Why, sir, he slides the price up in Georgia, and then slides it down in Ohio! I ought, perhaps, to thank him for not sliding so far on this scale as to show that my State, under her system of free labor, is making beggars of her citizens, and that they would make a more “grand step" in "physical development," to convert a portion of her freemen into slaves!

Again, the gentleman throws "hay" entirely out of his estimate-an important agricultural product in Ohio-on the ground that no return is made in the census for Georgia "fodder!" He omits to state that no return of fodder is made for

Ohio, and Indian corn being her great staple, it must follow that her crop of fodder is vastly greater than that of Georgia. But, "fodder or no fodder," I must bring the gentleman's argument up to the "rack" of a just test. He forces me to do so.

In the tables I present, I adopt equality in the value, and take the quantity of agricultural products as returned by the census. In fixing the prices for items of Ohio produce, I have rated them considerably below the market value at New York; while for the staples of Georgia and the South, such as cotton, sugar, tobacco, rice, &c., I give him the benefit of the highest average prices of that city. I have taken the current prices of the present, time, too, because they are more easily ascertained, and the comparison will be more satisfactory to the country than the rates of 1850; and, besides, the public is more concerned to know the relative advantages of free and slave labor now, than then.

Upon this equitable basis of calculation, the result shows (see the table) that, in agriculture, Ohio produces.. .$145,838,232 Georgia produces.. 65,488,267

Ohio ahead, (annually)........ $80,349,965 Again, the gentleman kept out the value of livestock, which must be considered as products of the farmer and planter. Our fat hogs and cattle, that formerly were slaughtered and sent from Ohio in barrels, are now sent by our railroads alive, by thousands and tens of thousands, to Baltimore; Philadelphia, New York, and Boston markets, and driven on foot to Georgia and the South.

Which, added to the other excess, puts Ohio, young as she is, ahead of Georgia, her elder sister, annually, near one hundred million of dollars!

Kansas and Nebraska, &c.-Mr. Campbell.

sand more churches, with accommodations in them for nearly a million more people, and which are worth four millions and a half more dollars than those of Georgia-that we have five times the number of regular periodicals, &c., and circulate twentysix millions more newspapers! With such an exhibit, I present my native State to the eye of the world. If she suffers by the comparison which the gentleman has instituted, I only ask it to be borne in mind that Georgia is an old State, always having en

man has so eloquently described as the true system of "physical development," whilst Ohio is a young State, peopled with those who do their own work, and from which that institution has always been excluded.

I said that in the year in which the census was taken, there was a failure in Ohio crops. I find Ijoyed the institution of slavery, which the gentlewas correct; for the report of our State auditor shows that fact. The next year our wheat crop was doubled to 23,769,139 bushels, instead of-as returned by the census-14,487,351 bushels. But I need not pursue agricultural products further, since I show, by fair figures, that Ohio labor, with half a crop, so far exceeds Georgia.

We have another class of industry in this country besides agriculture, which statesmen should foster and look to-manufactures and the mechanic arts. The gentleman seems to have forgotten them in his speech. As he has set up the labor of his slaves in Georgia against that of the free working men of Ohio, he cannot complain it I "carry the war into Africa!" A short table from the census will show up our two States in these branches of industry.

MANUFACTURES, ETC.

Raw

Capital Annual Per cent. invested. material. product. profit Ohio. ..$29.019,538 $31 677,937 $62,647,259 49.97 Georgia..... 5,460,483 3,404,917 7,086,525 36.06 Ohio ahead..$23,559.055 $31,273,020 $55 560.734 1 91

The gentleman will observe that in manufacture we have five times as much capital as Georgia, use ten times as much raw material, and make a much greater per cent. profit.

But he has omitted another evidence of "physical development"-internal improvement. I submit a table from the census:

Ohio has, therefore, about three times the amount of running railroads as Georgia, and only about thirty-three times the miles of canal!

There is another sort of development to be considered-that of mind. Having taken the gen leman over our two thousand miles of railroads, along our canals, through our fertile fields and busy workshops, I now invite him to the schools and colleges, churches, libraries, and printing offices, where we develop faculties which look less to the consequences of Time than to the realities of Eternity. They furnish the best and truest exponents of public intelligence and virtue.

Before I leave the gentleman's statistics, I must redeem a promise. I said I would show the comparative number of adult free persons who cannot read or write. I find Ohio has only one to twentynine, while Georgia has one to twelve! Here, for the first time, the census puts "Georgia ahead!" There I leave her, with sentiments of affectionate regard, and go forward to other branches of the discussion.

Mr. Chairman, I enter upon the merits of the "repeal of the Missouri compromise," and the proposition of the gentleman from Indiana, [Mr. MACE, which has followed, to exclude slavery from the Territories of Kansas and Nebraska. And I would desire the attention of the gentleman from Georgia, [Mr. STEPHENS,] if he remains in the Hall, whilst I discuss it. That repeal was either right or wrong. The eighth section of the Missouri act, interdicting slavery north of 360 30', was either constitutional or unconstitutional. Mr. Monroe approved the act, and Messrs. Calhoun, Crawford, and Wirt, southern members of his Cabinet, indorsed its constitutionality. This is high authority, not adding that of Webster, the "Great Expounder," and Adams, and a host of others of like character, in the North. But great men die as well as small ones. In childhood, I was taught that

"Time cuts down all, Both great and smalļ.”

I do not stop now to shed tears over the graves of the dead, to descant upon their wisdom, or to eulogize their virtues. I deal, this morning, with the living, with their opinions and actions, and with questions vital to our national harmony and prosperity.

The Constitution says:

"Congress shall have power to dispose of, and make all needful rules and regulations respecting, the territory or other property belonging to the United States."

This I regard as sufficient authority for the eighth section of the Missouri act. If Congress had the power in 1820, it has had it, as it was exercised ever since, and must have it now, to paas, if it pleases to do so, such a bill as that introduced by the gentleman from Indiana.

HO. OF REPS.

portion of the people of one section of the Union would be excluded from a fair and equal participation in the public domain, would be manifestly unjust, and a gross abuse of power, if not tantamount to a direct usurpation.

Mr. CAMPBELL. The gentleman seems to evade my question. Will he not answer it directly? I doubt not that he has an opinion upon the subject, and it is a question to which "yes," or "no," would be an answer. Does he, I again ask, believe that Congress has the power to exclude slavery from a Territory? Will he answer me?

Mr. STEPHENS. I told the gentleman at the last session, that, upon the question of power on this subject, I stood where Chatham stood in the British Parliament upon the subject of taxing the Colonies without representation. Chatham looked not so much to the question of power as he did to the justice and propriety of its exercise. And with these views, without discussing the power, he said if he were an American he would resist the measure. I give the gentleman the same answer now that I gave him then.

Mr. CAMPBELL. You quoted Chatham when I put this question to you in the opening of the debate on the Nebraska bill, last session. It did not then, nor does it now, answer my question

Mr. STEPHENS. That is my answer to the gentleman.

Mr. CAMPBELL. I submit that it is not a pertinent answer to a fair question. I understand the gentleman to decline to give me an unequivocal answer. I shall, therefore, upon my high estimate of his intellect, assume that he does believe that Congress has the power, and that the question resolves itself, in his judgment, into one of expediency. Why, sir, the gentleman cannot very well take any other ground that I can see. He has a most remarkable record here. Whilst he maintains this great principle of the right of the people of a Territory to establish a constitution for themselves, and either to exclude or to establish slavery, he, at the same time, refers to the action of 1850, when, he says, the South stood under a flag upon which was inscribed that great principle of popular sovereignty. Sir, it was in 1849 that I first took my seat upon this floor, and I shall never forget how the gentleman appeared in the contest of that ever-memorable session, when he acted as the standard-bearer. There stood the State of California knocking at the door for admission into the Union, with a representation here asking seats in this Hall. We had never given to her people even the benefit of a territorial government, and, in the spirit of manly dignity, they rose up and adopted a constitution for themselves, and sought admission into the Confederacy. What happened then? Why when an honorable member from Wisconsin [Mr. Doty] introduced a resolution instructing the Committee on the Judiciary to bring in a bill admitting California-when a majority of Congress were in favor of the admission, too, and there was no other way to prevent it, except by

Mr. STEPHENS, of Georgia The gentleman knows very well that I have said before, that this question I have never discussed, either here or before my constituents. I will, however, take this occasion to repeat, what I have often said before, that, in my opinion, the government of the Territories devolves primarily upon Congress. But not from that clause of the Constitution cited by the gentleman; that has nothing to do with it; that relates to the disposal of the territory as property. The right speak of is not derived from any express power of the Constitution of the United States, but the duty to govern, or provide governments for them, devolves upon the General Government, from a sort of resulting power. The Constitution itself is silent upon the subject-there is no express grant or denial of the power. But, in my opinion, all implied or resulting powers should be exercised under like limitations and restrictions as those expressly delegated. And in governing the Territories in the first instance, or in providing governments for them, any such exercise of power as that stated by the gentleman, and by which a large

by the anti-Nebraska men last session-then it was that, through sleepless nights, the honorable member from Georgia paced round these aisles, waking up his fifteen, or twenty, or thirty men, for the purpose of preventing the admission of the State of California. Here is his record. That is the character of the principle of "popular sovereignty" which was inscribed upon the banner which he bore so proudly!

Mr. STEPHENS. Will the gentleman allow me to set him right?

Mr. CAMPBELL. Oh, certainly; I will hear what you have to say.

Mr. STEPHENS. When California came here with her constitution prohibiting slavery, I defended her right to form such a constitution preparatory to her admission into the Union as a State. But, at the same time, I was unwilling to admit California, while the North-the gentleman himself amongst others-proclaimed that the same right to determine the question of slavery for themselves, which the people of California had exercised, should not be allowed to the people of Utah and New Mexico. I opposed the admission of California by "dilatory motions" only until I could bring the gentleman and the North to acknowledge the same principle of "popular

33D CONG....2D SESS.

Sovereignty," if he chooses so to call it, in behalf of the people of Utah and New Mexico. It was not in denial of the right of the people of California to do what they had done, that I spent "sleepless nights" here, but that I might, in granting that, secure the same principle to Utah and New Mexico. Nay, more, I said to the gentleman and to the North then, that I was willing to extend the Missouri compromise line to all the newly acquired Territories, if they would agree to it, but they would not do it.

Mr. CAMPBELL. No. We refused to divide and cut in two California, because the people there had settled the question for themselves, before Congress exercised its powers over the Territory. We believed then, as we believe now, that neither the true policy of the Government, nor the spirit in which the Federal Union was formed, required us to provide for the extension of slavery. As to the power, we thought if-as the gentleman voted in 1845-it justified its exclusion north of 36° 30′, it did so south of that line. Mr. STEPHENS. Not necessarily. But it was not a question, sir, of the division of California-it was a question of settling a territorial principle. We of the South, or at least I and those who acted with me, said then, that, whenever the Representatives from the North would secure to the citizens of New Mexico and Utah the same right which the people of California had exercised, we would not further resist the admission of California; and until the North would agree to that, or some other equitable settlement, we did resist the admission of California. Everywhere throughout my State I have defended the right of California to frame her constitution as she pleased; and when the North agreed that Utah and New Mexico should have the same right, from that day to this I advocated the whole arrangement and settlement.

Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. Chairman, the whole amount of the gentleman's explanations is this: He admits that the people of California had adopted for themselves a constitution excluding slavery; and he admits further, that a condition, precedent to her admission, was set up by himself and his friends, to wit: that they should be allowed to cut a sovereign State in two, and do what? Why, sir, exercise this very power of Congress to legislate slavery out of one part of it and into the other? 66 Popular sovereignty" was then reduced to dependency on a condition imposed by a minority in Congress.

Mr. STEPHENS. No, sir.

Mr. CAMPBELL. So much for California. But that is not all.

Mr. STEPHENS. But I say no, sir. The gentleman has entirely misunderstood me.

Mr. CAMPBELL. I understood the, gentleman to say, that he proposed to run the Missouri compromise line through California; and, as a matter of course, the principle of that compromise would have excluded slavery from all that part of the State lying north of 360 30'.

HO. OF REPS.

Mr. CAMPBELL. Not exclusively that, but to show

the compromise of 1850" passed, a protest was entered on the Journal against the passage of the bill admitting California into the Union:-the protestants gave as a reason why they opposed its admission, that the friends of the measure would not permit them to run that Missouri line through California to the Pacific, whereby slavery would be excluded on the one side, with a chance to get it into the other. That protest was signed by Messrs. HUNTER, of Virginia, BUTLER and BARNWELL, of South Carolina, TURNEY, of Tennessee, SOULE, of Louisiana, Davis, of Mississippi, ATCHISON, of Missouri, and MORTON and YULEE, of Florida.

But, in relation to this question of popular soVereignty, there is another chapter in the record of the gentleman from Georgia, [Mr. STEPHENS,] and others, to which I invite their especial attention, and the attention of the country.

Mr. STEPHENS. What is that?

Mr. CAMPBELL. Texas! Mr. Chairman, this proposition of the gentleman from Indiana is no new proposition. This power of Congress to exclude slavery, and the expediency of excluding it from the Territories, originated with Jefferson, in 1784, and was first carried into effect by the ordinance of 1787; and it has been exercised by the various administrations of this Government from that day to the present. But I take up the particular case of Texas annexation.

I read, Mr. Chairman, one of the Texas annexation resolutions:

"New States, of convenient size, not exceeding four in number, in addition to said State of Texas, and having sufficient population, may hereafter, by consent of said State, be formed out of the Territory thereof, which shall be entitled to admission under the provisions of the Federal Constitution. And such States as may be formed out of that portion of said Territory lying south of 36° 30' north latitude, commonly known as the Missouri compromise line, shall be admitted into the Union, with or without slavery, as the people of each State asking admission may desire. And in such STATE or STATES as shall be formed out of said territory north of said Missouri compromise line, slavery or involuntary servitude (except for crimes) SHALL BE PROHIBITED."

This resolution embraces the identical language of the bill of the gentleman from Indiana, which has caused this commotion! The gentleman from Missouri [Mr. OLIVER] calls it "your pitiful prohibition." "Slavery shall be prohibited!”—not in a Territory-no, sir; not whilst in the territorial form of government merely; but it provides that even when the people came to frame a State constitution, they should not have a right to "decide upon their domestic institutions" for themselves. By this provision the right of the people of the Territory was not merely taken from them, but even the right of the people to exercise their sov

Mr. CAMPBELL. I am not mistaken. Your course did subject the right of the people of California to be admitted as a State, under which "popular sovereignty" had settled the question in its own way, dependent upon a plan of adjustment, by which you would exclude, by act of Congress, slavery from a portion of the territories

Mr. Chairman, do we find voting for that principle? The honorable gentleman from Georgia himself stood out prominently in the support of it. Here is the record! He talks now most eloquently about giving to the people of a Territory and of a State the right to control their own institutions! "Go back, sir, before you repeal the Missouri compromise-go back and undo your own work in this matter, if you act consistently upon high principles."

Mr. STEPHENS. I suppose that the gentleman from Ohio, in this reference to me, as well as to others, has one object in view.

Mr. CAMPBELL. Of course I have! Mr. STEPHENS. And his only object, I suppose, is to show inconsistencies on my part.

first established on the application of Missouri for admission, and only as an alternative did we advocate it in 1845 and in 1850. And the gentleman [Mr. CAMPBELL] knows that the anti-slavery sentiment, which he represents on this floor, did not agree to it then, never have agreed to it since, and did not give it their sanction on the annexation of Texas.

Mr. CAMPBELL. I do not represent the anti-slavery sentiment alone. I represent the people of my district. I am a national American, and I come here to legislate for, and protect the constitutional rights of all sections of the country. I cannot appreciate the force of an "alternative" which would require me, as a legislator, to support a measure that is either "unjust" to any portion of the American people, or "tantamount to usurpation.

Mr. STEPHENS. You represent that particular sentiment at the North which utterly excludes, or would have excluded, slavery from every State and Territory south, as well as north, of 360 30'. I do not mistake the gentleman. He knows I do not mistake him. He would never, since he has been on this floor, vote for the admission of a single State with a constitution tolerating slavery south of 360 30', or north of it. He has never, on this floor, recognized the obligation of the Missouri line of 360 30'-never.

Mr.CAMPBELL, (interrupting.) I would have no objection to the gentleman from Georgia taking up so much of my little hour as he wishes, if I can thereby get a sort of lien, of a few minutes longer, upon the next hour, and with the notice that I will amplify my points in my printed speech. I do recognize the validity of the eighth section of the Missouri act, and shall so argue when I reach that point.

Mr. STEPHENS. Well, sir, only a word or two more. I, and the whole South, on the annexation of Texas, were just as much in favor of giving to the people of the Territories, north and south of 36 30', the right to regulate their own domestic affairs, and form their State constitutions as they pleased, as we are now. It was the North that insisted upon an exclusion of slavery over part of the Territory; and, therefore, although it was contrary to my own sentiment on public policy, still, as the measure was founded on the principle of an equitable division of the territory between the two sections of the country, I gave it my support for peace, for harmony, for love of Union. That was the ground, I believe, on which the South generally stood. It was not that we approved of it as an original proposition, but as a compromise. That is the way the record was made up.

Mr. CAMPBELL. Why did you not let the Missouri compromise stand?

Mr. STEPHENS. Why did we not? Because you of the North utterly abrogated it, and said you would have all south as well as all north. And when this line was swept away in 1850, and refused to be extended through our late acquisitions, then it was that the South was thrown back upon her original ground-ground occupied by her at the beginning of the Missouri agitation-and said that the people should have the right to control their institutions throughout the whole of the country, up to 420. This is what we succeeded in establishing in 1850. And this is the reason why we voted to take the restriction off of Kansas and Nebraska, which had been put on in 1820.

Mr. CAMPBELL. The Missouri line proper, was not "swept away" in 1850. The Missouri act was untouched until 1854. It was regarded as a “ finality,” after the struggle of 1820, and so

་་

33D CONG....2D SESS.

considered by the authors of the measures of 1850. It settled the question for that Territory alone, and imposed on us no obligations as to subsequent acquisitions. Besides, you had pledged yourself to the "finality" platforms and resolves that the whole question had been settled in 1850.

Mr. STEPHENS. Yes, sir. I considered all these questions as settled-finally settled, "in principle and substance," by the action of Congress in 1850. By that action, the people in the Territories were to be left without congressional restriction in the formation of their constitutionsthis is what was carried out in the Nebraska bill.

Mr. CAMPBELL. The originators of the measures of 1850 did not think that they were disturbing the old settlement of 1820. Besides, there is a wide difference, in my opinion, between the principles of the act of 1850 and the Nebraska act. By the Utah and New Mexico acts the old Mexican law excluding slavery is not expressly repealed, and slavery cannot, therefore, lawfully exist there. You claim it to be otherwise now, in Kansas, under the act organizing that Territory.

Mr. STEPHENS. I considered, in 1850, that the measures then passed did do away with the settlement of 1820. And the principle established. in 1850 was, that the people were to settle the question of slavery for themselves, and be admitted into the Union either with it, or without it, as they please.

Mr. CAMPBELL. I have the authority of southern Senators and Representatives, most prominent in what is called the "adjustment" of 1850, for saying that they did not, by those acts, contemplate any disturbance of the Missouri settlement. The radical difference between us is this: the gentleman thinks the Constitution authorizes, allows, or permits the extension of slavery; I think it was made to leave slavery to be managed exclusively by the States in which it existed, as a local institution, and to pledge the Federal Government, as the preamble asserts, to form "a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquillity, provide for the common defense and general welfare, and secure the blessings of LIBERTY to ourselves and posterity!”

I brought this matter of Texas up, Mr. Chairman, not merely for the purpose of showing that the gentleman and his friends had exercised the power here over the Territories, but that they had done so under the solemnities of their oaths to support the Constitution, over the people of a sovereign State. The Constitution has not been changed since 1845-not at all. By his vote a part of the people of the State of Texas are prevented from enjoying an institution which, he says, is best calculated to develop the rich agricultural resources of a country. Why did the gentleman from Georgia not move to amend that joint resolution of annexation by striking out that provision? No" squatter sovereignty" member of the House, or of the Senate, opened his mouth at the time they were passed, in favor of taking from the annexation resolutions that provision. It was introduced by Senator DOUGLAS, the ostensible author of the Nebraska bill, and voted for by Senator ATCHISON, (who, in his reported speech in Kansas,) claims to have filed a caveat" upon the glory of the measure, and tendered, as the fee, the Presidency of the Senate.

that field of trouble-it will be full enough without

me.

Mr. STEPHENS. The gentleman will find his labor will never pay him when he undertakes to expose my inconsistencies. [Laughter.) Now, he says that this resolution, which originally prohibited slavery in Texas north of 360 30', has not been amended or repealed. And he asks why we did not undo this work before we repealed the Missouri restriction or compromise, as he called it. Why, sir, in 1850, when the gentleman was a member of this House, the new Mexican bill was passed, though not with the aid of his vote or influence; and in that bill there is an express provision that the people north of the line of 360 30' in Texas should come into this Union with or without slavery, according as the people may determine when they come to frame their State constitution. The restriction on that part of Texas which was put on in 1845, on the basis of a division of the Territory, was taken off in 1850, when the principle of division was abandoned.

Mr. CAMPBELL. I regret that the gentleman does not give a better explanation. He does not relieve himself from my point. If this Texas resolution was not unconstitutional, it would follow, from his own admissions, that it was an act "tantamount to usurpation" upon the people of part of Texas, although he may have voted a remedy in 1850. The act of 1850 did not remove the proviso from all of Texas.

Mr. STEPHENS. Mr. Chairman, have I ever said that such a measure was unconstitutional?

Mr. CAMPBELL. The gentleman did not say anything on the point of constitutionality. That is the trouble-his non-commitalism. I have for two or three years tried to get the gentleman to put himself on the record, and to give his opinions on this great subject, whether Congress has the power to exclude slavery from the Territories; but I have never been able to get them, and he admits his constituents are equally unfortunate. Last session I put the question, and gave him my time to answer. He gave me Chatham's reply. I have put it again to-day, and he tells us again what Lord Chatham said."

Mr. STEPHENS. Very well, then, Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman has never got me to say that it is unconstitutional, where is my inconsistency?

Mr. CAMPBELL. I will tell the gentleman. His inconsistency is marked by his declaration here to-day, that he has always been for this great principle of leaving the people to settle this question for themselves; and I have shown, by his Texas annexation vote, that such were not his sentiments in 1845. I submit to him whether that does not look very like inconsistency?

Now, Mr. Chairman, this is not the result of unkindness on my part toward the gentleman. If there is a man on this floor for whom I have desired, in our six years' service together, to cherish feelings of personal kindness, on terms of honorable reciprocity, it is the distinguished gentleman from Georgia.

Mr. STEPHENS. Will the gentleman from Ohio yield me the floor for a moment?

Mr. CAMPBELL. Of course I will; as many as you wish.

Mr. CAMPBELL, (interrupting.) The gentleman from Georgia is mistaken, and, by such taunts, might trespass upon my courtesy. I am a candidate for no office-seek none in man's gift! I have been sent here against my personal desires, for the purpose of helping to expose these fallacies and inconsistencies of the gentleman and others, and to serve, as well as I can, our common country. So help me God I will discharge the duty without regard to consequences.

Mr. STEPHENS. The gentleman will pardon my allusion to his candidacy for the Presidency. I have seen his name mentioned in the papersMr. CAMPBELL, (in his seat.) I thank the papers for the compliment. I am no aspirant in

kindness, and have fully reciprocated them. But he says that my inconsistency is marked by my declarations here to-day, that I have always been in favor of leaving the people of the Territories everywhere, to settle the question of slavery for themselves, without congressional restriction, and yet I voted for the Texas annexation resolutions, whereby slavery was to be excluded over part of that country. And he submits to me whether I do not think this looks very like inconsistency? I tell him, frankly and respectfully, no. I have, upon all occasions, said that I was in favor of the principles this day advocated on this subject, as an original question. In 1845 I could not get the North to agree to adopt them over the whole of Texas, but enough of them did as to a part, to secure the passage of the measure upon the basis of a division of the Territory on the line of 36° 30'. I voted for that measure, not because I did not believe it right that the people everywhere, north of 36° 30', as well as south of it, should be at lib

HO. OF REPS.

erty to frame their constitutions on this subject as they pleased, but because I desired the acquisition, and considered the security of this right guaranteed south of the line, in the nature of an equivalent for its exclusion north of it. This was a concession to the North. A compromise for the sake of harmony and union. And if the North had adhered to this principle, or basis of settling this territorial controversy between the sections, I should never have disturbed it. But when they refused to recognize it, we of the South were thrown back upon our original principles. This, at least, is my position; and if there be inconsist ency in it the gentleman may make the most of it he can.

I

Mr. CAMPBELL. I have no ambition to establish the gentleman's inconsistency, per se. I started out to discuss a principle of constitutional power, and sought to fortify myself by the opinion of the gentleman. He declined to give it, and I have been searching his record for it-that's all. regret that the honorable gentleman does not give a better reason for the position he has taken. I can admire his devotion to the Union. I love it, too. But if I believed that, under the Constitution of my country, which I am sworn to support, the people in our Territories had this right, or that Congress would be guilty of a gross act of usurpation upon popular rights to take it from them, no compromise to save ten thousand such Unions as ours, could induce me to violate the solemnities of that oath. No, never!

Mr. STEPHENS, of Georgia. The gentleman does not mean to say, or intimate, that I ever held, under the solemnities of an oath, or otherwise, that Congress had not the power rightfully to pass any measure I ever voted for? or that any measure I ever voted for was a gross act of usurpation upon popular rights?

Mr. CAMPBELL. I do not say or intimate more than I prove by your record here; but I have sought, as I said before, for two or three years, to get the opinion of the distinguished gentleman upon this constitutional point placed plainly upon record; and the House will bear me witness to-day, that I have sought, and sought it in vain,

Mr. STEPHENS. The result, then, of the gentleman's efforts to unravel and expose my inconsistencies, has ended in his entanglement in his own web. He set out with asking me a question. He was not satisfied with my answer, but assumed that my opinions were such as suited him; then works himself up to a high strain of fervid declamation because he can find nothing in the record inconsistent with what I have ever said or done; and now ends where he began, with wanting a more explicit answer to his first question.

Mr. CAMPBELL. There is no "entanglement," no "web," that troubles me; nothing but the mist occasioned by the gentleman's declining a direct answer to the fair question with which I "set out." His confessed evasion drove me to an exploration of the record of his votes. I think I have found him just where a German farmer boy, in my district, found the stray colt that his father sent him out to catch. He pursued him down the meanders of a crooked stream-first here, and then there. He finally brought him back to the barnyard, announcing to the old gentleman the particular place where he had caught him, thus: "Vell, I finds him on poth sides of the creek!"

I will now read the names of those "squatter sovereignty "gentlemen-members of this House from the South-who voted for that which would be now stigmatized as the "Wilmot proviso in its most odious form," in the Texas annexation resolutions:

Georgia-Edward J. Black, Alexander H. Stephens, Hugh A. Haralson, John H. Lumpkin, Howell Cobb, and William H. Stiles.

South Carolina-James A. Black, Richard F. Simpson, Armistead Burt, Isaac E. Holmes, and R. Barnwell Rhett.

North Carolina-Thomas L. Clingman, Daniel M. Barringer, David S. Reid, Edmund Deberry, Romulus M. Saunders, James J. McKay, John R. Daniel, and Archibald H. Arrington. Mississippi-Jacob Thompson.

Louisiana-John Slidell, Alcee Labranche, and J. B. Dawson.

Missouri-Gustavus M. Bower, James B. Bowlin, James H. Relfe, and James M. Hughes.