# The History of Slavery and the Slave Trade/Chapter 30

Contents
CHAPTER XXX.
Political History of Slavery. — Compromises of 1850.
The slave population of the United States amounted, in 1850, to 3,204,313; exhibiting an increase, for the last decade, of 716,858. Of the slaves in 1850, 2,957,657 were black, or of unmixed African descent, and 246,656 were mulatto. The free colored population in 1850 amounted to 434,495; of whom 275,400 were black, and 159,095 mulattoes. The total number of families, holding slaves, was, by the same census, 347,525.
CENSUS OF 1850. — SLAVE POPULATION. :
| Alabama | 342,844 | Mississippi | 309,878 |
| Arkansas | 47,100 | Missouri | 87,422 |
| District of Columbia | 3,687 | New Jersey | 236 |
| Delaware | 2,290 | North Carolina | 268,548 |
| Florida | 39,310 | South Carolina | 384,984 |
| Georgia | 381,682 | Tennessee | 239,459 |
| Kentucky | 210,981 | Texas | 58,161 |
| Louisiana | 244,809 | Virginia | 472,528 |
| Maryland | 90,368 | Utah Territory | 26 |
The first session of the thirty-first congress commenced on the third day of December, 1849. Much time was spent in unsuccessful efforts to organize, until the 23d, when Mr. Howell Cobb, of Georgia, was elected speaker, by a plurality vote.
On the 24th, President Zachary Taylor transmitted to both houses his first annual message. In reference to the new territories, he says:
"No civil government having been provided by congress for California, the people of that territory, impelled by the necessities of their political condition, recently met in convention, for the purpose of forming a constitution and state government; which, the latest advices give me reason to suppose, has been accomplished; and it is believed they will shortly apply for the admission of California into the Union, as a sovereign state. Should such be the case, and should their constitution be conformable to the requisitions of the constitution of the United States, I recommend their application to the favorable consideration of congress. ​"The people of New Mexico will also, it is believed, at no very distant period, present themselves for admission into the Union. Preparatory to the admission of California and New Moxico, the people of each will have instituted for themselves a republican form of government, laying its foundation in such principles, and organizing its power in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.
"By awaiting their action, all causes of uneasiness may be avoided, and confidence and kind feeling preserved. With a view of maintaining the harmony and tranquility so dear to all, we should abstain from the introduction of those exciting topics of a sectional character which have hitherto produced painful apprehensions in' the public mind; and I repeat the solemn warning of the first and most illustrious of my predecessors, against furnishing any ground for characterizing parties by geographical discriminations."
On the 4th of January, 1850, General Sam Houston, of Texas, submitted the following proposition to the senate:
In answer to a resolution of inquiry, General Taylor sent a message to the house stating that he had urged the formation of state governments in California and New Mexico, and adds:
"In advising an early application by the people of these territories for admission as states, I was actuated principally by an earnest desire to afford to the wisdom and patriotism of congress the opportunity of avoiding occasions of bitter and angry discussions among the people of the United States.
"Under the constitution, every state has the right to establish, and, from time to time, alter its municipal laws and domestic institutions, independently of every other state and of the general government, subject only to the prohibitions and guarantees expressly set forth in the constitution of the United States. The subjects thus left exclusively to the respective states, were not designed or expected to become topics of national agitation. Still as, under the constitution, congress has power to make all needful rules and regulations respecting the territories of the United States, every new acquisition of territory has led to discussions on the question whether the system of involuntary ​servitude, which prevails in many of the states, should or should not be prohibited in that territory The periods of excitement from this cause, which have heretofore occurred, have been safely passed; but, during the interval, of whatever length, which may elapse before the admission of the territories ceded by Mexico, as states, it appears probable that similar excitement will prevail to an undue extent.
"Under these circumstances, I thought, and still think, that it was my duty to endeavor to put in the power of congress, by the admission of California and New Mexico as states, to remove all occasion for the unnecessary agitation of the public mind.
"It is understood that the people of the western part of California have formed the plan of a state constitution, and will soon submit the same to the judgment of congress, and apply for admission as a state. This course on their part, though in accordance with, was not adopted exclusively in consequence of, any expression of my wishes, inasmuch as measures tending to this end had been promoted by officers sent there by my predecessor, and were already in active progress of execution, before any communication from me reached California. If the proposed constitution shall, when submitted to congress, be found to be in compliance with the requisitions of the constitution of the United States, I earnestly recommend that it may receive the sanction of congress.
"Should congress, when California shall present herself for incorporation into the Union, annex a condition to her admission as a state affecting her domestic institutions contrary to the wishes of the people, and even compel her temporarily to comply with it, yet the state could change her constitution at any time after admission, when to her it should seem expedient. Any attempt to deny to the people of the state the right of self-government, in a matter which peculiarly affects themselves, will infallibly be regarded by them as an invasion of their rights; and, upon the principles laid down in our own Declaration of Independence, they will certainly be sustained by the great mass of the American people. To assert that they are a conquered people, and must, as a state, submit to the will of their conquerors, in this regard, will meet with no cordial response among American freemen. Great numbers of them are native citizens of the United States, and not inferior to the rest of our countrymen in intelligence and patriotism; and no language of menace to restrain them in the exercise of an undoubted right, substantially guarantied to them by the treaty of cession itself, shall ever be uttered by me, or encouraged and sustained by persons acting under my authority. It is to be expected that, in the residue of the territory ceded to us by Mexico, the people residing there will, at the time of their incorporation into the Union as a state, settle all questions of domestic policy to suit themselves."
On the 29th of January, Mr. Clay submitted to the senate of the United States the following propositions for an amicable arrangement of the whole slavery controversy: ​"1. Resolved, That California, with suitable boundaries, ought, upon her application, to be admitted as one of the states of this Union, without the imposition by congress of any restriction in respect to the exclusion or introduction of slavery within those boundaries.
"2. Resolved, That as slavery does not exist by law, and is not likely to be introduced into any of the territory acquired by the United States from the republic of Mexico, it is inexpedient for congress to provide by law either for its introduction into, or exclusion from, any part of the said territory: and that appropriate territorial governments ought to be established by congress in all the said territory, not assigned as within the boundaries of the proposed state of California, without the adoption of any restriction or condition on the subject of slavery.
"3. Resolved, That the western boundary of the state of Texas ought to be fixed on the Rio del Norte, commencing one marine league from its mouth, and running up that river to the southern line of New Mexico; thence with that line eastwardly, and so continuing in the same direction to the line as established between the United States and Spain, excluding any portion of New Mexico, whether lying on the east or west of that river.
"4. Resolved, That it be proposed to the state of Texas, that the United States will provide for the payment of all that portion of the legitimate and bona fide public debt of that state contracted prior to its annexation to the United States, and for which the duties on foreign imports were pledged by the said state to its creditors, not exceeding the sum of ——— dollars, in consideration of the said duties so pledged having been
no longer applicable to that object after the said annexation, but having thenceforward become payable to the United States; and upon the condition, also, that the said state of Texas shall, by some solemn and authentic act of her legislature, or of a convention, relinquish to the United States any claim which she has to any part of New Mexico.
"5. Resolved, That it is inexpedient to abolish slavery in the District of Columbia whilst that institution continues to exist in the state of Maryland, without the consent of that state, without the consent of the people of the district, and without just compensation to the owners of slaves within the district.
"6. But Resolved, That it is expedient to prohibit, within the district, the slave-trade in slaves brought into it from states or places beyond the limits of the district, either to be sold therein as merchandise, or to be transported to other markets without the District of Columbia.
"7. Resolved, That more effectual provision ought to be made by law, according to the requirement of the constitution, for the restitution and delivery of persons bound to service or labor in any state, who may escape into any other state or territory in the Union. And
"8. Resolved, That congress has no power to prohibit or obstruct the trade in slaves between the slaveholding states, but that the admission or exclusion of slaves brought from one into another of them, depends exclusively upon their own particular laws."
Among the propositions to dispose of the territorial and slavery questions in both houses was a series of resolutions offered by Mr. Bell, of Tenn., in the senate, on the 28th of February, providing for the future division of Texas, and the admission of the different portions as states; also, by consent of Texas, that portion of lands claimed by Texas, lying west of the Colorado, and north of latitude 42, was to be ceded to the United States for a sum not exceeding millions of dollars. California to be admitted as a state; but in future the formation of state constitutions by the inhabitants of the territories was to be regulated by law, and the inhabitants were to have power "to regulate and adjust all questions of internal state policy of whatever nature they may be." The following are Mr. Bell's resolutions: ​"Whereas, Considerations of the highest interest to the whole country demand that the existing and increasing dissensions between the north and the south, on the subject of slavery, should be speedily arrested, and that the questions in controversy be adjusted upon some basis which shall tend to give present quiet, repress sectional animosities remove, as far as possible, the causes of future discord, and serine the uninterrupted enjoyment of those benefits and advantages which the Union was intended to confer in equal measure upon all its members;
"And whereas, It is manifest, under present circumstances, that no adjustment can be effected of the points of difference unhappily existing between the northern and southern sections of the Union, connected with the subject of slavery, which shall secure to either section all that is contended for; and that mutual concessions upon questions of mere policy, not involving the violation of any constitutional right or principle must be the basis of every project affording any assurance of a favorable acceptance;
"And whereas, The joint resolution for annexing Texas to the United States, approved March 1, 1845, contains the following condition and guarantee — that is to say: 'New states of convenient size, not exceeding four in number, in addition to said state of Texas and having sufficient population, may hereafter, by the 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 thirty-six degrees thirty minutes 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 crime) shall be prohibited;' therefore,
"1. Resolved, That the obligation to comply with the condition and guarantee above recited in good faith be distinctly recognized; and that, in part compliance with the same as soon as the people of Texas shall, by an act of their legislature, signify their assent by restricting the limits thereof, within the territory east of the Trinity and south of the Red river, and when the people of the residue of the territory claimed by Texas adopt a constitution, republican in form, they be admitted into the Union upon an equal footing in all respects with the original states.
"2. Resolved, That if Texas shall agree to cede, the United States will accept, a cession of all the unappropriated domain in all the territory claimed by Texas, lying west of the Colorado and extending north to the forty-second parallel of north latitude, together with the jurisdiction and sovereignty of all the territory claimed by Texas north of the thirty-fourth parallel of north latitude, and to pay therefor a sum not exceeding ——— millions of dollars, to be applied in the first place to the extinguishment of any portion of the existing public debt of Texas, for the discharge of which the United States are under any obligation, implied or otherwise, and the remainder as Texas shall require.
"3. Resolved, That when the population of that portion of the territory claimed by Texas lying south of the thirty-fourth parallel of north latitude and west of the Colorado, shall be equal to the ratio of representation in congress, under the last preceding apportionment, according to the provisions of the constitution, and the people of such territory shall, with the assent of the new state contemplated in the preceding resolution, have adopted a state constitution, republican in form, they be admitted into the Union as a state, upon an equal footing with the original states.
"4. Resolved, That all the territory now claimed by Texas lying north of the thirty-fourth parallel of north latitude, and which maybe ceded to the United States by Texas, be incorporated with the territory of New Mexico, except such part thereof as lies east of the Rio Grande and south of the thirty-fourth degree of north latitude, and that the territory so composed form a state, to be admitted into the Union when the inhabitants thereof shall adopt a state constitution, republican in form, with the consent of congress; ​but, in the mean time, and until congress shall give such consent, provision he made for the government of the inhabitants of said territory suitable to their condition, but without any restriction as to slavery.
"5. Resolved, That all the territory ceded to the United States, by the treaty of Guadaloupe Hidalgo, lying west of said territory of New Mexico, and east of the contemplated new state of California, for the present, constitute one territory, and for which some form of government suitable to the condition of the inhabitants be provided, without any restriction as to slavery.
"6. Resolved, That the constitution recently formed by the people of the western portion of California, and presented to congress by the president on the 13th of February, 1850, be accepted, and that they be admitted into the Union as a state, upon an equal footing in all respects with the original states.
"7. Resolved, That, in future, the formation of state constitutions, by the inhabitants of the territories of the United States, be regulated by law; and that no such constitution be hereafter formed or adopted by the inhabitants of any territory belonging to the United States, without the consent and authority of congress.
"8. Resolved, That the inhabitants of any territory of the United States, when they shall be authorized by congress to form a state constitution, shall have the sole and exclusive power to regulate and adjust all questions of internal state policy, of whatever nature they may be, controlled only by the restrictions expressly imposed by the constitution of the United States.
"9. Resolved, That the committee on territories be instructed to report a bill in conformity with the spirit and principles of the foregoing resolutions."
A debate of unusual duration, earnestness, and ability ensued, mainly on Mr. Clay's resolutions. Mr. Clay having read and briefly commented on his propositions, seriatim, he desired that they should be held over without debate, to give time for consideration, and made a special order for Monday or Tuesday following. Mr. Rusk rose at once to protest against that portion of them which called in question the right of Texas to so much of New Mexico as lies east of the Rio del Norte. Mr. Foote, of Miss., spoke against them generally, saying:
"If I understand the resolutions properly, they are objectionable, as it seems to me,
"1. Because they only assert that it is not expedient that congress should abolish slavery in the District of Columbia; thus allowing the implication to arise that congress has power to legislate on the subject of slavery in the district, which may hereafter be exercised, if it should become expedient to do so; whereas, I hold that congress has, under the constitution, no such power at all, and that any attempt thus to legislate would be a gross fraud upon all the states of the Union.
"2. The resolutions of the honorable senator assert that slavery does not now exist by law in the territories recently acquired from Mexico; whereas, I am of opinion that the treaty with the Mexican republic carried the constitution, with all its guaranties, to all the territory obtained by treaty, and secured the privilege to every southern slaveholder to enter any part of it, attended by his slave property, and to enjoy the same therein, free from all molestation or hindrance whatsoever.
"3. Whether slavery is or is not likely to be introduced into these ​territories, or into any of them, is a proposition too uncertain in my judgment, to be nt present positively affirmed; and I am unwilling to make a solemn legislative declaration on the point. Let the future provide the appropriate solution of this interesting question.
"4. Considering, as I have several times heretofore formally declared, the title of Texas to all the territory embraced in her boundaries, as laid down in her law of 1830, full, complete, and undeniable, I am unwilling to say any thing, by resolution or otherwise, which may in the least degree draw that ti tie into question, as I think is done in one of the resolutions of the honorable senator from Kentucky.
"5. I am, upon constitutional and other grounds, wholly opposed to the principle of assuming state debt, which I understand to be embodied in one of the resolutions of the honorable senator from Kentucky. If Texan soil is to be bought, (and with certain appropriate safeguards, I am decidedly in favor of it,) let us pay to the sovereign state of Texas the value thereof in money, to be used by her as she pleases. It will be, as I think, more delicate and respectful to let her provide for the management of this matter, which is strictly domestic in its character, in such manner as she may choose — presuming that she will act wisely, justly, and honorably towards all to whom she may be indebted.
"6. As to the abolition of the slave-trade in the District of Columbia, I see no particular objection to it, provided it is done in a delicate and judicious manner, and is not a concession to the menaces and demands of factionists and fanatics. If other questions can be adjusted, this one will, perhaps, occasion but little difficulty.
"7. The resolutions which provide for the restoration of fugitives from labor or service, and for the establishment of territorial governments, free from all restriction on the subject of slavery, have my hearty approval. The last resolution, which asserts that congress has no power to prohibit the trade in slaves from state to state, I equally approve.
"8. If all other questions connected with the subject of slavery can be satisfactorily adjusted, I can see no objection to admitting all California, above the line of 36° 30', into the Union; provided another new slave state can he laid off within the present limits of Texas, so as to keep the present equiponderance between the slave and free states of the Union; and provided further, all this is done by way of compromise, and in order to save the Union, as dear to me as to any man living."
Mr. Mason, of Va, after expressing his deep anxiety to "go with him who went furthest, but within the limits of strict duty, in adjusting these unhappy differences," added: "Sir, so far as I have read these resolutions, there is but one proposition to which I can give a hearty assent, and that is the resolution which proposes to organize territorial governments at once in these territories, without a declaration one way or the other as to their domestic institutions. But there is another which I deeply regret to see introduced into this senate, by a senator from a slaveholding state; it is that which assumes that slavery ​does not now exist by law in those countries. I understand one of these propositions to declare that, by law, slavery is now abolished in New Mexico and California. That was the very proposition advanced by the non-slaveholding states at the last session; combated and disproved, as I thought, by gentlemen from the slaveholding states, and which the compromise bill was framed to test. So far, I regarded the question of law as disposed of, and it was very clearly and satisfactorily shown to be against the spirit of the resolution of the senator from Kentucky. If the contrary is true, I presume the senator from Kentucky would declare that if a law is now valid in the territories abolishing slavery, that it could not be introduced there, even if a law was passed creating the institution, or repealing the statutes already existing; a doctrine never assented to, as far as I know, until now, by any senator representing one of the slaveholding states. Sir, I hold the very opposite, and with such confidence, that at the last session I was willing and did vote for a bill to test this question in the supreme court. Yet this resolution assumes the other doctrine to be true, and our assent is challenged to it as a proposition of law.'
"I do not mean to detain the senate by any discussion; but I deemed it to be my duty to enter a decided protest, on the part of Virginia, against such doctrines. They concede the whole question at once, that our people shall not go into the new territories and take their property with them; a doctrine to which I never will assent, and for which, sir, no law can be found. There are other portions of the resolution, for which, if they could be separated, I should be very willing to vote. That respecting fugitive slaves, and that respecting the organization of governments in these territories, I should be willing to vote for; and I am happy to declare the gratification I experience at finding the senator from Kentucky differing so much, on this subject, from the executive message recently laid before the senate. I beg not to be understood as having spoken in any spirit of unkindness towards the senator from Kentucky, for whom I entertain the warmest and most profound respect; but I cannot but express also my regret that he has felt it to be his duty, standing as he does before this people, and representing the people he does, to introduce into this body resolutions of this kind."
Mr. Jefferson Davis, of Miss., said: "Sir, we are called upon to receive this as a measure of compromise! As a measure in which we of the minority are to receive nothing. A measure of compromise! I look upon it as but a modest mode of taking that, the claim to which has been more boldly asserted by others; and, that I may be understood upon this question, and that my position may go forth to the country in the same columns that convey the sentiments of the senator from Kentucky, I here assert, that never will I take less than the Missouri compromise line extended to the Pacific ocean, with the specific recognition of the right to hold slaves in the territory below that line; and that, before such territories are admitted into the Union as states, slaves may be taken there from any of the United States at the option of the owners. I can never consent to give additional power to a majority to commit further aggressions upon the minority in this Union; and will never consent to any ​proposition which will have such a tendency, without a full guaranty or counteracting measure is connected with it."
Mr. Clay, in reply, said: "I am extremely sorry to hear the senator from Mississippi say that he requires, first, the extension of the Missouri compromise line to the Pacific, and also that he is not satisfied with that, but requires, if I understood him correctly, a positive provision for the admission of slavery south of that line. And now, sir, coming from a slave state, as I do, I owe it to myself, I owe it to truth, I owe it to the subject, to state that no earthly power could induce me to vote for a specific measure for the introduction of slavery where it had not before existed, either south or north of that line. Coming as I do from a slave state, it is my solemn, deliberate, and well-matured determination that no power — no earthly power — shall compel me to vote for the positive introduction of slavery either south or north of that line. Sir, while you reproach, and justly, too, our British ancestors for the introduction of this institution upon the continent of America, I am, for one, unwilling that the posterity of the present inhabitants of California and of New Mexico shall reproach us for doing just what we reproach Great Britain for doing to us. If the citizens of those territories choose to establish slavery, I am for admitting them with such provisions in their constitutions; but then, it will be their own work, and not ours, and their posterity will have to reproach them, and not us, for forming constitutions allowing the institution of slavery to exist among them. These are my views, sir, and I choose to express them; and I care not how extensively or universally they are known. The honorable senator from Virginia has expressed his opinion that slavery exists in these territories, and I have no doubt that opinion is sincerely and honorably entertained by him; and I would say with equal sincerity and honesty, that I believe that slavery nowhere exists within any portion of the territory acquired by us from Mexico. He holds a directly contrary opinion to mine, as he has a perfect right to do; and we will not quarrel about that difference of opinion."
Mr. William R. King, of Ala., on the question of slavery in the new territories, said: "With regard to the opinions of honorable senators, respecting the operation of the laws of Mexico in our newly-acquired territories, there may be, and no doubt is, an honest difference of opinion with regard to that matter. Some believe that the municipal institutions of Mexico overrule the provisions of our constitution, and prevent us from carrying our slaves there. That is a matter which I do not propose to discuss; it has been discussed at length in the debate upon the compromise bill, putting it on the ground of a judicial decision. Sir, I know not — nor is it a matter of much importance with me — whether that which the honorable senator states to be a fact, and which, as has been remarked by the senator from Mississippi, can only be conjectural, be in reality so or not — that slavery never can go there. This is what is stated, however. Well, be it so. If slave labor be not profitable there, it will not go there; or, if it go, who will be benefited? Not the south. They will never compel it to go there. We are misunderstood — grossly, I may say — by honorable senators, though not intentionally; but we are contending for a ​principle, and a great principle — a principle lying at the very foundation of our constitutional rights — involving, as has been remarked, our property; in one word, involving our safety, our honor, all that is dear to us, as American freemen. Well, sir, for that principle we will be compelled to contend to the utmost, and tc resist aggression at every hazard and at every sacrifice. That is the position in which we are placed. We ask no act of congress — as has been properly intimated by the senator from Mississippi — to carry slavery anywhere. Sir, I believe we have as much constitutional power to prohibit slavery from going into the territories of the United States, as we have to pass an act carrying slavery there. We have no right to do either the one or the other. I would as soon vote for the Wilmot proviso as I would vote for any law which required that slavery should go into any of the territories."
Mr. Downs, of Louisiana, said: "I must confess, that in the whole course of my life, my astonishment has never been greater than it was when I saw this (Mr. Clay's) proposition brought forward as a compromise; and I rise now, sir, not for the purpose of discussing it at all, but to protest most solemnly against it. I consider this compromise as no compromise at all. What, sir, does it grant to the south? I can see nothing at all. The first resolution offered by the honorable senator proposes to admit the state of California with a provision prohibiting slavery in territory which embraces all our possessions on the Pacific. It is true, there may be a new regulation of the boundary hereafter; but if there were to be such a regulation, why was it not embraced in this resolution? As no boundary is mentioned, we have a right to presume that the boundary established by the constitution of California was to be received as the established boundary. What concession, then, is it from the north, that we admit a state thus prohibiting slavery, embracing the whole of our possessions on the Pacific coast, according to these resolutions? As to the resolution relating to New Mexico and Deseret, if it had simply contained the provision that a constitutional government shall be established there, without any mention of slavery whatever, it would have been well enough. But, inasmuch as it is affirmed that slavery does not now exist in these territories, does it not absolutely preclude its admission there? and the resolutions might just as well affirm that slavery should be prohibited in these territories. The senator from Alabama, if I understood him aright, maintains that the proposition is of the same import as the Wilmot proviso; and, in view of these facts, I would ask, is there anything conceded to us of the south?"
Mr. Butler, of South Carolina, said: "Perhaps our northern brethren ought to understand that all the compromises that have been made, have been by concessions — acknowledged concessions — on the part of the south. When other compromises are proposed, that require new concessions on their part, whilst none are exacted on the other, the issue, at least, should be presented for their consideration before they come to the decision of their great question. If I understand it, the senator from Kentucky's whole proposition of compromise is nothing more than this: That California is already disposed of, having formed a state constitution, and that territorial governments shall be organized ​for Deseret and New Mexico, under which, by the operation of laws already existing, a slaveholding population could not carry with them, or own slaves there. What is there in the nature of a compromise here, coupled, as it is, with the proposition that by the existing laws in the territories, it is almost certain that slaveholders cannot, and have no right to go there with their property? What is there in the nature of a compromise here? I am willing, however, to run the risks, and am ready to give to the territories the governments they require. I shall always think, that under a constitution giving equal rights to all parties, the slaveholding people, as such, can go to these territories, and retain their property there. But, if we adopt this proposition of the senator from Kentucky, it is clearly on the basis that slavery shall not go there.
"I do not understand the senator from Mississippi (Mr. Davis) to maintain the proposition, that the south asked or desired a law declaring that slavery should go there, or that it maintained the policy even that it was the duty of congress to pass such a law. We have only asked, and it is the only compromise to which we will submit, that congress shall withhold the hand of violence from the territories. The only way in which this question can be settled is, for gentlemen from the north to withdraw all their opposition to the territorial governments, and not insist on their slavery prohibition. The Union is then safe enough. Why, then, insist on a compromise, when those already made are sufficient for the peace of the north and south, if faithfully observed? These propositions are in the name of a compromise, when none is necessary."
Mr. Benton said, "it had been affirmed and denied that slavery had be£n abolished in Mexico. He affirmed its abolition, and read copious extracts from the laws and constitution of Mexico, in proof of the affirmation. Slavery having been abolished by Mexican law before we acquired the countries, the Wilmot proviso in relation to these countries was a thing of nothing — an empty provision. Tie said, also, that African slavery never had existed in Mexico in the form in which it existed in the states of this Union; and that, if the Mexican law was now in force in New Mexico and California, no slaveholder from the Union would carry a slave thither, except to set him free. The policy of this country was to discourage emancipation; that of Mexico had been to promote it. This was shown by numerous quotations of the laws of Mexico. Slavery was defined by Spanish law to be 'the condition of a man who is the property of another against natural right.' Therefore, not being derived from nature, or divine law, but existing only by positive enactment, it had no countenance from Spanish law. He affirmed these three points: 1. Slavery was abolished in California and New Mexico before we got them. 2. Even if not abolished, no person would carry a slave to those countries to be held under such law. 3. Slavery could not exist there, except by positive law yet to be passed. According to this exposition, the proviso would have no more effect there than a piece of blank paper pasted on the statute book."
Mr. Calhoun said "the Union was in danger. The cause of this danger ​was the discontent at the south. And what was the cause of this discontent? It was found in the belief which prevailed among them that they could not, consistently with honor and safety, remain in the Union. And what had caused this belief? One of the causes was the long-continued agitation of the slave question at the north, and the many aggressions they had made on the rights of the south. But the primary cause was in the fact, that the equilibrium between the two sections at the time of the adoption of the constitution had been destroyed. The first of the series of acts by which this had been done, was the ordinance of 1787, by which the south had been excluded from all the northwestern region. The next was the Missouri compromise, excluding them from all the Louisiana territory north of 36 degrees 30 minutes, except the state of Missouri; in all 1,238,025 square miles, leaving to the south the southern portion of the original Louisiana territory, with Florida; to which had since been added the territory acquired with Texas; making in all but 609,023 miles. And now the north was endeavoring to appropriate to herself the territory recently acquired from Mexico, adding 526,078 miles to the territory from which the south was if possible to be excluded. Another cause of the destruction of this equilibrium was our system of revenue, (the tariff,) the duties falling mainly upon the southern portion of the Union, as being the greatest exporting states, while more than a due proportion of the revenue had been disbursed at the uorth.
But while these measures were destroying the equilibrium between the two sections, the action of the government was leading to a radical change in its character. It was maintained that the government itself had the right to decide, in the last resort, as to the extent of its powers, and to resort to force to maintain the power it claimed. The doctrines of General Jackson's proclamation, subsequently asserted and maintained by Mr. Madison, the leading framer and expounder of the constitution, were the doctrines which, if carried out, would change the character of the government from a federal republic, as it came from the hands of its framers, into a great national consolidated democracy.
Mr. Calhoun also spoke of the anti-slavery agitation, which, if not arrested, would destroy the Union; and he passed a censure upon congress for receiving abolition petitions. Had congress in the beginning adopted the course which he had advocated, which was to refuse to take jurisdiction, by the united voice of all parties, the agitation would have been prevented. He charged the north with false professions of devotion to the Union, and with having violated the constitution. Acts had been passed in northern states to set aside and annul the clause of the constitution which provides for delivering up fugitive slaves. The agitation of the slavery question, with the avowed purpose of abolishing slavery in the states, was another violation of the constitution. And during the fifteen years of this agitation, in not a single instance had the people of the north denounced these agitators. How then could their professions of devotion to the Union be sincere?
Mr. Calhoun disapproved both the plan of Mr. Clay and that of President ​Taylor, as incapable of saving the Union. He would pasa by the former without remark, as Mr. Clay had been replied to by several senators. The executive plan could not save the Union, because it could not satisfy the smith that it could safely or honorably remain in the Union. It was a modification <>f the Wilmot proviso, proposing to effect the same object, the exclusion of the south from the. new territory. The executive proviso was more objectionable than the Wilmot. Both inflicted a dangerous wound upon the constitution, by depriving the southern states of equal rights, as joint partners, in these territories; but the formerinflicted others equally great. It claimed for the inhabitants the right to legislate for the territories, which belonged to congress. The assumption of this right was utterly unfounded, unconstitutional, and without example. Under this assumed right, the people of California had formed a constitution and a state government, and appointed senators and representatives. If the people as adventurers had conquered the territory and established their independence, the sovereignty of the country would have been vested in them. In that case, they would have had the right to form a state government; and afterward they might have applied to congress for admission into the Union. But the United States had conquered and acquired California; therefore, to them belonged the sovereignty, and the powers of government over the territory. Michigan was the first case of departure from the uniform rule of acting. Hers, however, was a slight departure from established usage. The ordinance of 1187 secured to her the right of becoming a state when she should have 60,000 inhabitants. Congress delayed taking the census. The people became impatient; and after her population had increased to twice that number, they formed a constitution without waiting for the taking of the census; and congress waived the omission, as there was no doubt of the requisite number of inhabitants. In other cases there had existed territorial governments.
Having shown how the Union could not be saved, he then proceeded to answer the question how it could be saved. There was but one way certain. Justice must be done to the south, by a full and final settlement of all the questions at issue. The north must concede to the south an equal right to the acquired territory, and fulfill the stipulations respecting fugitive slaves; must cease to agitate the slave question, and join in an amendment of the constitution, restoring to the south the power she possessed of protecting herself, before the equilibrium between the two sections had been destroyed by the action of the government."
Mr. Webster, on the 7th of March, spoke at length on the resolutions of Mr. Clay, and in reply to Mr. Calhoun. In the course of his history of the slave question in this country, he remarked, "that a change had taken place since the adoption of the constitution. Both sections then held slavery to be equally an evil, moral and political. It was inhuman and cruel; it weakened the social fabric, and rendered labor less productive. The eminent men of the south then held it to be an evil, a blight, a scourge, and a curse. The framers of the constitution, in considering how to deal with it, concluded that it could ​not be continued if the importation of slaves should cease. The prohibition of the importation after twenty years was proposed: a term which some southern gentlemen, Mr. Madison for one, thought too long. The word 'slaves' was not allowed in the constitution; Mr. Madison was opposed to it; he did not wish to see it recognized in that instrument, that there could be property m men. The ordinance of 1787 also received the unanimous support of the south; a measure which Mr. Calhoun had said was the first in a series of measures which had enfeebled that section.
Soon after this, the age of cotton came. The south wanted land for its cultivation. Mr. Calhoun had observed that there had always been a majority in favor of the north. If so, the north had acted very liberally or very weakly; for they had seldom exercised their power. The truth was, the general lead in politics for three-fourths of the time had been southern lead. In 1802, a great cotton region, now embracing all Alabama, had been obtained from Georgia by the general government. In 1803, Louisiana was purchased, out of which several large slaveholding states had been formed. In 1819, Florida was ceded, which also had come in as slave territory. And lastly, Texas — great, vast, illimitable Texas — had been admitted as a slave state. In this, the senator himself, as secretary of state, and the late secretary of the treasury, then senator, had taken the lead. They had done their work thoroughly; having procured a stipulation for four new states to be formed out of that state; and all south of the line 30° 30' might be admitted with slavery. Even New England had aided in this measure. Three-fourths of liberty-loving Connecticut in the other house, and one-half in this, had supported it. And it had one vote from each of the states of Massachusetts and Maine.
Mr. Webster said he had repeatedly expressed the dertermination to vote for no acquisition, or cession, or annexation, believing we had territory enough. But Texas was now in with all her territories, as a slave state, with a pledge that, if divided into many states, those south of 36° 30' might come in as slaves states; and he, for one, meant to fulfill the obligation. As to California and New Mexico, he held that slavery was effectually excluded from those territories by a law even superior to that which admits and sanctions it in Texas — he meant the law of nature. The physical geography of the country would forever exclude African slavery there; and it needed not the application of a proviso. If the question was now before the senate, he would not vote to add a prohibition — to reaffirm an ordinance of nature, nor reënact the will of God If they were making a government for New Mexico, and a Wilmot proviso were proposed, he would treat it as Mr. Polk had treated it in the Oregon bill. Mr Polk was opposed to it; but some government was necessary, and he signed the bill, knowing that the proviso was entirely nugatory.
Both the north and the south had grievances. The south justly complained that individuals and legislatures of the north refused to perform their constitutional duties in regard to returning fugitive slaves. Members of the northern legislatures were bound by oath to support the constitution of the United States; and the clause requiring the delivery of fugitive slaves was as binding ​as any other. Complaints had also been made against certain resolutions emanating from legislatures at the north on the subject of shivery in the district, and sometimes even in regard to its abolition in the states. Abolition societies were another subject of complaint. These societies had done nothing useful; but they had produced mischief by their interference with the smith, he referred to the debate in the Virginia legislature in 1832, when the subject of gradual abolition was freely discussed. But since the agitation of this question, the bonds of the slave had been more firmly riveted. Again, the violence of the press was complained of. But wherever the freedom of the press existed, there always would be foolish and violent paragraphs, as there were foolish and violent speeches in both houses of congress. He thought, however, the north had cause for the same complaint of the south. But of these grievances of the south, one only was within the redress of the government; that was the want of proper regard to the constitutional injunction for the delivery of fugitive slaves.
The north complained of the south, that, when the former, in adopting the constitution, recognized the right of representation of the slaves, it was under a state of sentiment different from that which now existed. It was generally hoped and believed, that the institution would be gradually extinguished; instead of which, it was now to be cherished, and preserved, and extended; and for this purpose, the south was constantly demanding new territory. A southern senator had said that the condition of the slaves was preferable to that of the laboring population of the north. Said Mr. Webster: Who are the north? Five-sixths of the whole property of the north is in the hands of laborers, who cultivate their own farms, educate their children, and provide the means of independence. Those who were not freeholders, earned wages, which, as they were accumulated, were turned into capital.
Another grievance at the north was, that their free colored citizens employed on vessels arriving at southern ports, were taken on shore by the municipal authorities, and imprisoned till the vessel was ready to sail. This was inconvenient in practice; and was deemed unjustifiable, oppressive, and unconstitutional. It was a great grievance. So far as these grievances had their foundation in matters of law, they could and ought to be redressed; and so far as they rested in matters of opinion, in mutual crimination and recrimination, we could only endeavor to allay the agitation, and cultivate a better feeling between the south and the north.
Mr. Webster expressed great pain at hearing secession spoken of as a possible event. Said he: Secession! Peaceable secession! Sir, your eyes and mine are never destined to see that miracle. Who is so foolish — I beg every body's pardon — as to expect to see any such thing? There could be no such thing as peaceable secession — a concurrent agreement of the members of this great republic to separate? Where is the line to be drawn? What states are to secede? Where is the flag of the republic to remain? What is to become of the army? — of the navy? — of the public lands? How is each of the states to defend itself? To break up this great government! to dismember ​dismember this great country! to astonish Europe with an act of folly, such as Europe for two centuries has never beheld in any government! No, sir! no, sir; There will be no secession. Gentlemen are not serious when they talk of secession."
Mr. Clay's resolutions, and also those submitted by Mr. Bell, were referred on the 19th of April to a select committee of thirteen. The members of the committee were elected by ballot: Henry Clay, chairman, Bell, Berrien, Downs, King, Mangum and Mason, from slave states; Cass, Webster, Dickinson, Phelps, Cooper and Bright, from free states. On the 8th of May, Mr. Clay, from the committee, made the following report:
"The senate's committee of thirteen, to whom were referred various resolutions relating to California, to other portions of the territory recently acquired by the United States from the republic of Mexico, and to other subjects connected with the institution of slavery, have, according to order, had these resolutions and subjects under consideration, and beg leave to submit the following report: The committee entered on the discharge of their duties with a deep sense of their great importance, and with earnest and anxious solicitude to arrive at such conclusions as might be satisfactory to the senate and to the country. Most of the matters referred have not only been subjected to extensive and serious public discussions throughout the country, but to a debate in the senate itself, singular for its elaborateness and its duration; so that a full exposition of all those motives and views which, on several subjects confided to the committee, have determined the conclusions at which they have arrived, seems quite unnecessary. They will, therefore, restrict themselves to a few general observations, and to some reflections which grow out of those subjects.
"Out of our recent territorial acquisitions, and in connection with the institution of slavery, questions most grave sprung, which, greatly dividing and agitating the people of the United States, have threatened to disturb the harmony, if not to endanger the safety of the Union. The committee believe it to be highly desirable and necessary speedily to adjust all those questions, in a spirit of concord, and in a manner to produce, if practicable, general satisfaction. They think it would be unwise to leave any of them open and unsettled, to fester in the public mind, and to prolong, if not aggravate, the existing agitation. It has been their object, therefore, in this report, to make such proposals and recommendations as would accomplish a general adjustment of all these questions.
"Among the subjects referred to the committee which command their first attention, are the resolutions offered to the senate by the senator from Tennessee, Mr. Bell. By a provision in the resolution of congress annexing Texas to the United States, it is declared that "new states of convenient size, not exceeding four in number, by the 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 Mis​Missouri compromise line, shall be admitted into the Union with or without slavery, as the people of each state asking admission may desire.'
"The committee were unanimously of opinion, that whenever one or more states, formed out of the territory of Texas, not exceeding four, having sufficient population, with the consent of Texas, may apply to be admitted into the Union, they are entitled to such admission, beyond all doubt, upon the clear, unambiguous, and absolute terms of the solemn compact contained in the resolution of annexation adopted by congress, and assented to by Texas. But, whilst the committee conceive that the right of admission into the Union of any new state, carved out of the territory of Texas, not exceeding the number specified, and under the conditions stated, cannot be justly controverted, the committee do not think that the formation of any new states should now originate with congress. The initiative, in conformity with the usage which has hitherto prevailed, should be taken by a portion of the people of Texas themselves, desirous of constituting a new state, with the consent of Texas. And in the formation of such new states, it will be for the people composing it to decide for themslves whether they will admit, or whether they will exclude slavery. And however they may decide that purely municipal question, congress is bound to acquiesce, and to fulfill in good faith the stipulations of the compact with Texas. The committee are aware that it has been contended that the resolution of congress annexing Texas was unconstitutional. At a former epoch of our country's history, there were those (and Mr. Jefferson, under whose auspices the treaty of Louisiana was concluded, was among them,) who believed that the states formed out of Louisiana could not be received into the Union without an amendment of the constitution. But the state of Louisiana, Missouri, Arkansas and Iowa have been all, nevertheless, admitteed. And who would now think of opposing Minnesota, Oregon, or new states formed out of the ancient province of Louisiana, upon the ground of an alleged original defect of constitutional power? In grave national transactions, while yet in their earlier or incipent stages, differences may well exist; but when once they have been decided by a constitutional majority, and are consummated, or in a process of consummation, there can be no other safe and prudent alternative than to respect the decision already rendered, and to acquiesce in it. Entertaining these views, a majority of the committee do not think it necessary or proper to recommend, at this time, or prospectively, any new state or states to be formed out of the territory of Texas. Should any such state be hereafter formed, and present itself for admission into the Union, whether with or without the establishment of slavery, it cannot be doubted that congress will admit it, under the influence of similar considerations, in regard to new states formed. of or out of New Mexico and Utah, with or without the institution of slavery, according to the constitutions and judgment of the people who compose them, as to what may be best to promote their happiness.
"In considering the question of the admission of California as a state into the Union, a majority of the committee conceive that any irregularity, by which that state was organized without the previous authority of any act of congress, ​ought to be overlooked, in consideration of the omission by congress to establish any territorial government for the people of California, and the consequent necessity which they were under to create a government for themselves, best adapted to their own wants. There are various instances, prior to the case of California, of the admission of new states into the Union without any previous authorization by congress. The sole condition required by the constitution of the United States, in respect to the admission of a new state, is, that its constitution shall be republican in form. California presents such a constitution; and there is no doubt of her having a greater population than that which, according to the practice of the government, has been heretofore deemed sufficient to receive a new state into the Union.
"In regard to the proposed boundaries of California, the committee would have been glad if there existed more full and accurate geographical knowledge of the territory which these boundaries include. There is reason to believe that, large as they are, they embrace no very disproportionate quantity of land adapted to cultivation. And it is known that they contain extensive ranges of mountains, deserts of sand, and much unproductive soil. It might ha.ve been, perhaps, better to have assigned to California a more limited front on the Pacific; but even if there had been reserved, on the shore of that ocean, a portion of the boundary which it preseuts, for any other state or states, it is not very certain that an accessible interior of sufficient extent could have been given to them to render an approach to the ocean, through their own limits, of very great importance.
"A majority of the committee think that there are many and urgent concurring considerations in favor of admitting California, with the proposed boundaries, and of securing to her at this time the benefits of a state government. If, hereafter, upon an increase of her population, a more thorough exploration of her territory, and an ascertainment of the relations which may arise between the people occupying its various parts, it should be found conducive to their convenience and happiness to form a new state out of California, we have every reason to believe, from past experience, that the question of its admission will be fairly considered and justly decided.
"A majority of the committee, therefore, recommend to the senate the passage of the bill reported by the committee on territories, for the admission of California as a state into the Union. To prevent misconception, the committee also recommend that the amendment reported by the same committee to the bill be adopted, so as to leave incontestable the right of the United States to the public domain and other public property of California.
"Whilst a majority of the committee believe it to be necessary and proper, under actual circumstances, to admit California, they think it quite as necessary and proper to establish governments for the residue of the territory derived from Mexico, and to bring it within the pale of the federal authority. The remoteness of that territory from the seat of the general government; the dispersed state of its population; the variety of races — pure and mixed — of which it consists; the ignorauce of some of the races of our laws, language, and ​habits; their exposure to inroads and wars of savage tribes; and the solemn stipulations of the treaty by which we acquired dominion over them — impose upon the United States the imperative obligation of extending to them protection, and of providing for them government and laws suited to their condition. Congress will fail in the performance of a high duty, if it do not give, or attempt to give to them, the benefit of such protection, government, and laws. They are not now, and for a long time to come may not be, prepared for state government. The territorial form, for the present, is best suited to their condition. A bill has been reported by the committee on territories, dividing all the territory acquired from Mexico, not comprehended within the limits of California, into two territories, under the names of Now Mexico and Utah, and proposing for each a territorial government.
"The committee recommend to the senate the establishment of those territorial governments; and, in order more certainly to secure that desirable object, they also recommend that the bill for their establishment be incorporated in the bill for the admission of California, and that, united together, they both be passed.
"The combination of the two measures in the same bill is objected to on various grounds. It is said that they are incongruous, and have no necessary connection with each other. A majority of the committee think otherwise. The object of both measures is the establishment of a government suited to the conditions, respectively, of the proposed new state and of the new territories. Prior to their transfer to the United States, they both formed a part of Mexico, where they stood in equal relations to the government of that republic. They were both ceded to the United States by the same treaty. And, in the same article of that treaty, the United States engaged to protect and govern both. Common in their origin, common in their alienation from one foreign government to another, common in their wants of good government, and conterminous in some of their boundaries, and alike in many particulars of physical condition, they have nearly every thing in common in the relation in which they stand to the rest of the Union. There is, then, a general fitness and propriety in extending the parental care of government to both in common. If California, by a sudden and extraordinary augmentation of population, has advanced so rapidly as to mature for herself a state government, that furnishes no reason why the less fortunate territories of New Mexico and Utah should be abandoned and left ungoverned by the United States, or should be disconnected with California, which, although she has organized for herself a state government, must, legally and constitutionally, be regarded as a territory until she is actually admitted as a state into the Union.
"It is further objected that, by combining the two measures in the same bill, members who may be willing to vote for one, and unwilling to vote for the other, would be placed in an embarrassing condition. They would be constrained, it is urged, to take or reject both. On the other hand, there are other members who would be willing to vote for both united, but would feel themselves constrained to vote against the California bill if it stood alone. Each ​party finds in the bill which it favors something which commends it to acceptance, and in the other something which it disapproves. The true ground, therefore, of the objection to the union of the measures is not any want of affinity between them, but because of the favor or disfavor with which they are respectively regarded. In this conflict of opinion, it seems to a majority of the committee that a spirit of mutual concession enjoins that the two measures should be connected together— the effect of which will be, that neither opinion will exclusively triumph, and that both may find, in such an amicable arrangement, enough of good to reconcile them to the acceptance of the combined measure. And such a course of legislation is not at all unusual. Few laws have ever passed in which there were not parts to which exception was taken. It is inexpedient, if not impracticable, to separate these parts, and embody them in distinct bills, so as to accommodate the diversity of opinion which may exist. The constitution of the United States contained in it a great variety of provisions, to some of which serious objection was made in the convention which formed it, by different members of that body; and, when it was submitted to the ratification of the states, some of them objected to some parts, and others to other parts, of the same instrument. Had these various parts and provisions been separately acted on in the convention, or separately submitted to the people of the United States, it is by no means certain that the constitution itself would ever have been adopted or ratified. Those who did not like particular provisions found compensation in other parts of it. And in all cases of constitution and laws, when either is presented as a whole, the question to be decided is, whether the good which it contains is not of greater amount, and capable of neutralizing anything objectionable in it. And, as nothing human is perfect, for the sake of that harmony so desirable in such a confederacy as this, we must be reconciled to secure as much as we can of what we wish, and be consoled by the reflection that what we do not exactly like is a friendly concession, and agreeable to those who, being united with us in a common destiny, it is desirable should always live with us in peace and concord.
"A majority of the committee have, therefore, been led to the recommendation to the senate that the two measures be united. The bill for establishing the two territories, it will be observed, omits the Wilmot proviso on the one hand, and, on the other, makes no provision for the introduction of slavery into any part of the new territories.
"That proviso has been the fruitful source of distraction and agitation. If it were adopted and applied to any territory, it would cease to have any obligatory force as soon as such territory were admitted as a state into the Union. There was never any occasion for it to accomplish the professed object with which it was originally offered. This has been clearly demonstrated by the current of events. California, of all the recent territorial acquisitions from Mexico, was that in which, if anywhere within them, the introduction of slavery was most likely to take place; and the constitution of California, by the unanimous vote of her convention, has expressly interdicted it. There is the ​highest degree of probability that Utah and New Mexico will, when they come to be admitted as states, follow the example. The proviso is, as to all those regions in common, a mere abstraction. Why should it be any longer insisted on? Totally destitute as it is of any practical import, it has, nevertheless had the pernicious effect to excite serious, if not alarming consequences. It is high time that the wounds which it has Inflicted should be healed up and closed. And, to avoid, in all future time, the agitations which must be produced by the conflict of opinion on the slavery question, existing as this institution does in some of the states, and prohibited as it is in others, the true principle which ought to regulate the action of congress in forming territorial governments for each newly-acquired domain, is to refrain from all legislation on the subject in the territory acquired, so long as it retains the territorial form of government leaving it to the people of such territory, when they have attained to the condition which entitles them to admission as a state, to decide for themselves the question of the allowance or prohibition of domestic slavery. The committee believe that they express the anxious desire of an immense majority of the people of the United States, when they declare that it is high time that good feeling, harmony, and fraternal sentiment should be again revived, and that the government should be able once more to proceed in its great operations to promote the happiness and prosperity of the country, undisturbed by this distracting cause.
"As for California — far from seeing her sensibility affected by her being associated with other kindred measures — she ought to rejoice and be highly gratified that, in entering into the Union, she may have contributed to the tranquility and happiness of the great family of states, of which, it is to be hoped, may one day be a distinguished member.
"The committee beg leave next to report on the subject of the northern and western boundary of Texas. On that question a great diversity of opinion has prevailed. According to one view of it, the western limit of Texas was the Nueces ; according to another, it extended to the Rio Grande, and stretched from its mouth to its source. A majority of the committee having come to the conclusion of recommending an amicable adjustment of the boundary with Texas, abstain from expressing any opinion as to the true and legitimate western and northern boundary of that state. The terms proposed for such an adjustment are contained in the bill herewith reported, and they are, with inconsiderable variation, the same as that reported by the committee on territories.
"According to these terms, it is proposed to Texas that her boundary be recognized to the Rio Grande, and up that river to the point commonly called El Paso, and thence running up that river twenty miles, measured thereon by a straight line, and thence eastwardly to a point where the hundredth degree of west longitude crosses Red River; being the southwest angle in the line designated between the United States and Mexico, and the same angle in the line of the territory set apart for the Indians by the United States.
"If this boundary be assented to by Texas, she will be quieted to that extent in her title. And some may suppose that, in consideration of this ​concession by the United States, she might, without any other equivalent, relinquish any claim she has beyond the proposed boundary; that is, any claim to any part of New Mexico. But, under the influence of sentiments of justice and great liberality, the bill proposes to Texas, for her relinquishment of any such claim, a large pecuniary equivalent. As a consideration for it, and considering that a portion of the debt of Texas was created on a pledge to her creditors of the duties on foreign imports, transferred by the resolution of annexation to the United States, and now received and receivable in her treasury, a majority of the committee recommend the payment of the sum of ——— millons of dollars to Texas, to be applied in the first instance to the extinction of that portion of her debt for the reimbursement of which the duties on foreign imports were pledged as aforesaid, and the residue in such manner as she may direct. The sum is to be paid by the United States, in a stock, to be created, bearing live per cent, interest annually, payable half-yearly, at the treasury of the United States, and the principal reimbursable at the end of fourteen years.
"According to an estimate which has been made, there are included in the territory to which it is proposed that Texas shall relinquish her claim, embracing that part of New Mexico lying east of the Rio Grande, a little less than 124,933 square miles, and about 79,957,120 acres of land. From the proceeds of the sale of this land, the United States may ultimately be reimbursed a portion, if not the whole, of the amount of what is thus proposed to be advanced to Texas.
"It cannot be anticipated that Texas will decline to accede to these liberal propositions; but if she should, it is to be distinctly understood that the title of the United States to any territory acquired from Mexico, east of the Rio Grande, will remain unimpared, and in the same condition as.if the proposals of adjustment now offered had never been made.
"A majority of the committee recommend to the senate that the section containing these proposals to Texas shall be incorporated into the bill embracing the admission of California as a state, and the establishment of territorial governments for Utah and New Mexico. The definition and establishment of the boundary between New Mexico and Texas have an intimate and necessary connection with the establishment of a territorial government for New Mexico. To form a territorial government for New Mexico, without prescribing the limits of the territory, would leave the work imperfect and incomplete, and might expose New Mexico to serious controversy, if not dangerous collisions, with the state of Texas. And most, if not all, of the considerations which unite in favor of combining the bill for the admission of California as a state and the territorial bills, apply to the boundary question of Texas. By the union of the three measures, every question of difficulty and division which has arisen out of the territorial acquisition from Mexico, will, it is hoped, be adjusted, or placed in a train of satisfactory adjustment. The committee, availing themselves of the arduous and valuable labors of the committee on territories, report a bill, herewith annexed, (marked A,) embracing those three measures, the passage of which, uniting them together, they recommend to the senate. ​"The committee will now proceed to the consideration of, and to report upon the subject of persons owing service or labor in one stale escaping into another. The text of the constitution is quite clear: "No person held to labor or service in one state, "under the laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in consequence of any law or regulation threin, be discharged from such service or labor, but "shall be delivered up on the claim of the party to whom such service or labor is due." Nothing can be more explicit than this language; nothing more manifest than the right to demand, and the obligation to deliver up to the claimant, any such fugitive. And the constitution addresses itself alike to the states composing the Union and to the general government. If, indeed, there were any difference in the duty to enforce this portion of the constitution between the states and the federal government, it is more clear that it is that of the former than of the latter. But it is the duty of both. It is well known and incontestable that citizens of shareholding states encounter the greatest difficulty in obtaining the benefit of this provision of the constitution.
"The attempt to recapture a fugitive is almost always the subject of great irritation and excitement, and often leads to most unpleasant, if not perilous collisions. An owner of a slave, it is quite notorious, cannot pursue his property, for the purpose of its recovery, in some of the states, without iminent personal hazard. This is a deplorable state of things, which ought to be remedied. The law of 1793 has been found wholly ineffectual, and requires more stringent enactments. There is especially a deficiency in the number of public functionaries authorized to afford aid in the seizure and arrest of fugitives. Various states have declined to afford aid and cooperation in the surrender of fugitives from labor, as the committee believe, from a misconception of their duty, arising under the constitution of the United States. It is true that a decision of the supreme court of the United States has given countenance to them in witholding their assistance. But the committee cannot but believe that the intention of the supreme court has been misunderstood. k They cannot but think that that court merely meant that laws of the several states, which created obstacles in the way of the recovery of fugitives, were not authorized by the constitution, and not that the state laws affording facilities in the recovery of fugitives were forbidden by that instrument. The non-slaveholding states, whatever sympathies any of their citizens may feel for persons who escape from other states, cannot discharge themselves from an obligation to enforce the constitution of the United States. All parts of the instrument being dependent upon, and connected with each other, ought to be fairly and justly enforced. If some states may seek to exonerate themselves from one portion of the constitution, other states may endeavor to evade the performance of the other portions of it; and thus the instrument, in some of the most important provisions, might become inoperative and invalid.
"But, whatever may be the conduct of individual states, the duty of the general government is perfectly clear. That duty is, to amend the existing law, and provide an effectual remedy for the recovery of fugitives from service or labor. In devising such a remedy, congress ought, whilst, on the one hand, ​securing to the owner the fair restoration of his property, effectually to guard, on the other, against any abuses in the application of that remedy.
"In all cases of arrest, within a state, of persons charged with offenses; in all cases of the pursuit of fugitives from justice from one state to another state; in all cases of extradition, provided for by treaties between foreign powers, the proceeding uniformly is summary. It has never been thought necessary to apply, in cases of that kind, the form and ceremonies of a final trial. And, when that trial does take place, it is in the state or country from which the party has fled, and not in that in which he has found refuge. By the express language of the constitution, whether the fugitive is held to service or labor, or not, is to be determined by the laws of the state from which he fled; and, consequently, it is most proper that the tribunals of that state should expound and administer its own laws. If there have been any instances of abuse in the erroneous arrest of fugitives from service or labor, the committee have not obtained knowledge of them. They believe that none have occurred, and that such are not likely to occur. But, in order to guard against the possibility of their occurrence, the committee have prepared, and herewith report a section, (marked B,) to be offered to the fugitive bill now before the senate. According to this section, the owner of a fugitive from service or labor is, when practicable, to carry with him to the state in which the person is found a record from a competent tribunal, adjudicating the fact of elopement and slavery, with a general description of the fugitive. This record, properly attested and certified under the official seal of the court, being taken to the state where the person owing service or labor is found, is to be held competent and sufficient evidence of the facts which had been adjudicated, and will leave nothing more to be done than to identify the fugitive.
"Numerous petitions have been presented praying for a trial by jury, in the case of arrest of fugitives from service or labor in the non-slaveholding states. It has been already shown that this would be entirely contrary to practice and uniform usage in all similar cases. Under the name of a popular and cherished institution — an institution, however, never applied in cases of preliminary proceeding, and only in cases of final trial — there would be a complete mockery of justice, so far as the owner of the fugitive is concerned. If the trial by jury be admitted, it would draw after it its usual consequences; of continuance from time to time, to bring evidence from distant places; of second or new trials, in cases where the jury is hung, or the verdict set aside; and of revisals of the verdict and conduct of the juries by competent tribunals. During the progress of all these dilatory and expensive proceedings, what security is there as to the custody and forthcoming of the fugitive upon their termination? And if, finally, the claimant should be successful, contrary to what happens in ordinary litigation between free persons, he would have to bear all the burdens and expenses of the litigation, without indemnity, and would learn, by sad ex perience, that he had by far better abandoned his right in the first instance, than to establish it at such unremunerated cost and heavy sacrifice.
"But, whilst the committee conceive that a trial by jury in a state where a ​fugitive from service or labor is recaptured, would be a virtual denial of justice to the claimant of such fugitive, and would he tantamount to a positive refusal to execute the provision of the constitution, the same objections do not apply to such a trial in the state from which he fled. In the slaveholding states, full justice is administered, with entire fairness and impartiality, in cases of all actions for freedom. The person claiming his freedom is allowed to sue in forma pauperis; counsel is assigned him; time is allowed him to collect his witnesses and to attend the sessions of the court; and his claimant is placed under bond and security, or is divested of the possession during the progress of the trial, to insure the enjoyment of these privileges; and, if there be any leaning on the part of courts and juries, it is always to the side of the claimant for freedom.
"In deference to the feelings and prejudices which prevail in non-slaveholding states, the committee propose such a trial in the state from which the fugitive fled, in all cases where he declares to the officer giving the certificate for his return that he has a right to his freedom. Accordingly, the committee have prepared, and report herewith, (marked C,) two sections which they recommend should be incorporated in the fugitive bill, pending in the senate. According to these sections, the claimant is placed under bond, and required to return the fugitive to that county in the state from which he fled, and there to take him before a competent tribunal, and allow him to assert and establish his freedom, if he can, affording to him for that purpose all needful facilities.
"The committee indulge the hope that if the fugitive bill, with the proposed amendments, shall be passed by congress, it will be effectual to secure the recovery of all fugitives from service or labor, and it will remove all causes of complaint which have hitherto been experienced on that irritating subject. But if, in its practical operation, it shall be found insufficient, and if no adequate remedy can be devised for the restoration to their owners of fugitive slaves, those owners shall have a just title to indemnity out of the treasury of the United States.
"It remains to report upon the resolutions in relation to slavery and the slave-trade in the District of Columbia. Without discussing the power of congress to abolish slavery within the district, in regard to which a diversity of opinion exists, the committee are of opinion that it ought not to be abolished. It could not be done without indispensable conditions which are not likely to be agreed to. It could not be done without exciting great apprehension and alarm in the slave states. If the power were exercised within this district, they would apprehend that, under some pretext or another, it might hereafter be attempted to be exercised within the slaveholding states. It is true that, at present, all such power within those states is almost unanimously disavowed and disclaimed in the free states. But experience in public affairs has too often shown that where there is a desire to do a particular thing, the power to accomplish it, sooner or later, will be found or assumed.
"Nor does the number of slaves within the district make the abolition of slavery an object of any such consequence as appears to be attached to it in ​some parts of the Union. Since the retrocession of Alexandria county to Virginia, on the south side of the Potomac, the district now consists only of "Washington county, on the north side of that river; and the returns of the decenary enumeration of the people of the United States show a rapidly pro-gressing decrease in the number of slaves in Washington county. According to the census of 1830, the number was 4,505; and in 1840 it was reduced to 3,320; showing a reduction in ten years of nearly one-third. If it should continue in the same ratio, the number, according to the census now about to be taken, will be only a little upward of two thousand.
"But a majority of the committee think differently in regard to the slave trade within the district. By that trade is meant the introduction of slaves from adjacent states into the district, for sale, or to be placed in depot for the purpose of subsequent sale or transportation to other and distant markets. That trade, a majority of the committee are of opinion, ought to be abolished. Complaints have always existed against it, no less on the part of members of congress from the south than on the part of members from the north. It is a trade sometimes exhibiting revolting spectacles, and one in which the people of the district have no interest, but, on the contrary, are believed to be desi-rous that it should be discontinued. Most, if not all, of the slaveholding states have, either in their constitutions or by penal enactments, prohibited a trade in slaves as merchandise within their respective jurisdictions. Congress, standing in regard to this district, on this subject, in a relation similar to that of the state legislatures to the people of the states, may safely follow the ex-ample of the states. The committee have prepared, and herewith report, a bill for the abolition of that trade (marked D), the passage of which they recommend to the senate. This bill has been framed after the model of what the law of Maryland was when the general government was removed to Wash-ington.
"The views and recommendations contained in this report may be recapitu-lated in a few words:
"1. The admission of any new state or states formed out of Texas to be postponed until they shall hereafter present themselves to be received into the Union, when it will be the duty of congress fairly and faithfully to execute the compact with Texas, by admitting such new state or states.
"2. The admission forthwith of California into the Union, with the bound-aries which she has proposed.
"3. The establishment of territorial governments, without the Wilmot proviso, for New Mexico and Utah, embracing all the territory recently acquired by the United States from Mexico, not contained in the boundaries of California.
"4. The combination of these two last mentioned measures in the same bill.
"5. The establishment of the western and northern boundaries of Texas, and the exclusion from her jurisdiction of all New Mexico, with the grant to Texas of a pecuniary equivalent; and the section for that purpose to be incorporated ​in the bill admitting-California and establishing territorial governments for Utah and New Mexico.
"6. More effectual enactments of law to secure the prompt delivery of persons bound to service or labor in one state, under the laws thereof, who escape into another state; and,
"7. Abstaining from abolishing slavery; but, under a heavy penalty, prohibiting the slave-trade in the District of Columbia.
"If such of these several measures as require legislation should be carried out by suitable acts of congress, all controversies to which our late territorial acquisitions have given rise, and all existing questions connected with the institution of slavery, whether resulting from those acquisitions, or from its existence in the states and the District of Columbia, will be amicably settled and adjusted, in a manner, it is confidently believed, to give general satisfaction to an overwhelming majority of the people of the United States. Congress will have fulfilled its whole duty in regard to the vast country which, having been ceded by Mexico to the United States, has fallen under their dominion. It will have extended to it protection, provided for its several parts the inestimable blessing cf free and regular government, adapted to their various wants, and placed the whole under the banner and the flag of the United States. Meeting courageously its clear and entire duty, congress will escape the unmerited reproach of having, from considerations of doubtful policy, abandoned to an undeserved fate territories of boundless extent, with a sparse, incongruous, and alien, if not unfriendly population, speaking different languages, and accustomed to different laws, whilst that population is making irresistible appeals to the new sovereignty to which they have been transferred for protection, for government, for law, and for order.
"The committee have endeavored to present to the senate a comprehensive plan of addjustment, which, removing all causes of existing excitement and agitation, leaves none open to divide the country and disturb the general harmony. The nation has been greatly convulsed, not by measures of general policy, but by questions of a sectional character, and, therefore, more dangerous, and more to be deprecated. It wants repose. It loves and cherishes the Union. And it is most cheering and gratifying to witness the outbursts of deep and abiding attachment to it, which have been exhibited in all parts of it, amidst all the trials through which we have passed, and are passing. A people so patriotic as those of the United States, will rejoice in an accommodation of all troubles and difficulties by which the safety of the Union might have been brought into the least danger. And, under the blessing of that Providence who, amidst all vicissitudes, has never ceased to extend to them His protecting care, His smiles, His blessings, they will continue to advance in population, power, and prosperity, and work out triumphantly the glorious problem of man's capacity for self-government."
The debate on the principal bill reported, continued in the senate until July. The grouping of so many subjects in one bill gave it the name of "the omnibus." In its passage through the senate it had been trimmed down by ​amendments, so that but a small portion of the original remained, and it passed only as "a bill to provide for the territorial government of Utah." It was sent to the house, where it was received with merriment. Its dismemberment was called "upsetting the omnibus." Subsequently, all the bills originally included in Mr. Clay's omnibus were passed. California was admitted as a free state; the territory of New Mexico organized; the boundary of Texas established; the territory of Utah organized. The bill also to abolish the slave-trade in the District of Columbia, and the fugitive slave law were passed. These acts are substantially as follows:
ADMISSION OF CALIFORNIA.
Whereas, the people of California have presented a constitution and asked admission into the Union, which constitution was submitted to congress by the President of the United States, by message, dated February 13th, 1850, which, on due examination, is found to be republican in its form of government —
Be it enacted by the senate and house of representatives of the United States of America in congress assembled. That the state of California shall be one, and is hereby declared to be one, of the United States of America, and admitted into the Union on an equal footing with the original states, in all respects whatever.
Sec. 2. And be it further enacted, That until the representatives in congress shall be apportioned according to an actual enumeration of the inhabitants of the United States, the state of California shall be entitled to two representatives in congress.
Sec. 3. And be it further enacted, That the said state of California is admitted into the Union upon the express condition that the people of said state, through their legislature or otherwise, shall never interfere with the primary disposal of the public lands within its limits, and shall pass no law, and do no act, whereby the title of the United States to, and right to dispose of, the same, shall be impaired or questioned; and they shall never lay any tax or assessment of any description whatsoever on the public domain of the United States; and in no case shall non-resident proprietors, who are citizens of the United States, be taxed higher than residents; and that all the navigable waters within the said state shall be common highways, and for ever free, as well to the inhabitants of said state as to the citizens of the United States, without any tax, duty, or impost therefor; provided, that nothing herein contained shall be construed as recognizing or rejecting the propositions tendered by the people of California as articles of compact in the ordinance adopted by the convention which formed the constitution of that state.
THE TEXAS BOUNDARY.
Be it enacted by the senate and house of representatives of the United States of America in congress assembled. That the following propositions shall be, and the same hereby are, offered to the state of Texas; which, when agreed to by the said state, in an act passed by the general assembly, shall be ​binding and obligatory upon the United States, and upon the Baid state of Texas; provided, that said agreement by the said general assembly shall be given on or before the first day of December, eighteen hundred and fifty.
First. — The state of Texas will agree that her boundary on the north shall commence at the point at which the meridian of one hundred degrees west from Greenwich is intersected by the parallel of thirty-six degrees and thirty minutes north latitude, and shall run from said point due west to the meridian of one hundred and three degrees west from Greenwich; hence her boundary shall run due south to the thirty-second degree of north latitude; thence on the said parallel of thirty-two degrees of north latitude to the Rio Bravo del Norte; and thence with the channel of said river to the gulf of Mexico.
Second. — The state of Texas cedes to the United States all her claims to territories exterior to the limits and boundaries which she agrees to establish by the first article of this agreement.
Third. — The state of Texas relinquishes all claim upon the United States for liability for the debts of Texas, and for compensation or indemnity for the surrender to the United States of her ships, forts, arsenals, custom-houses, custom-house revenue, arms and munitions of war, and public buildings, with their sites, which became the property of the United States at the time of the annexation.
Fourth. — The United States, in consideration of said establishment of boundaries, cession of claims to territory, and relinquishment of claims, will pay to the state of Texas the sum of ten millions of dollars, in a stock bearing five per cent, interest, and redeemable at the end of fourteen years, the interest payable half-yearly at the treasury of the United States.
Fifth. — Immediately after the president of the United States shall have been furnished with an authentic copy of the act of the general assembly of Texas, accepting these propositions, he shall cause the stock to be issued in favor of the state of Texas, as provided for in the fourth article of this agreement.
Provided also, That no more than five millions of said stock shall be issued until the creditors of the state, holding bonds and other certificates of stock of Texas, for which duties on imports were specially pledged, shall first file, at the treasury of the United States, releases of all claims against the United States for or on account of said bonds or certificates, in such form as shall be prescribed by the secretary of the treasury, and approved by the president of the United States.
ORGANIZATION OF NEW MEXICO.
The second section of the "act for the organization of New Mexico," enacts that all that portion of the territory of the United States bounded as follows, to wit: beginning at a point on the Colorado river where the boundary line of the republic of Mexico crosses the same; thence eastwardly with the said boundary line to the Rio Grande; thence following the main channel of said river to the parallel of the thirty-second degree of north latitude; thence eastwardly with said degree to its intersection with the one hundred and third degree of longitude west from Greenwich; thence north with said degree of ​longitude to the parallel of the thirty-eight degree of north latitude; thence west with said parallel to the summit of the Sierra Madre; thence south with the crest of said mountains to the thirty-seventh parallel of north latitude; thence west with the said parallel to its intersection with the boundary line of the state of California; thence with the said boundary line to the place of beginning, be, and the same is hereby, erected into a temporary government by the name of the territory of New' Mexico; provided, that nothing in this act contained shall be construed to inhibit the government of the United States from dividing said territory into two or more territories, in such manner and at such times as congress shall deem convenient and proper, or from attaching any portion thereof to any other territory or state; provided further, that when admitted as a state, the said territory, or any portion of the same, shall be received into the Union, with or without slavery, as their constitution may prescribe at the time of their admission.
The eighteenth section enacts, that the provisions of this act be suspended until the boundary between the United States and the state of Texas shall be adjusted; and when such adjustment shall have been effected, the president of the United States shall issue his proclamation, declaring this act to be in full force and operation, and shall proceed to appoint the officers herein provided to be appointed for the said territory.
UTAH TERRITORIAL GOVERNMENT.
The act to establish a territorial government for Utah provides: That all that part of the territory of the United States included within the following limits, to wit: bounded on the west by the state of California, on the north by the territory of Oregon, on the east by the summit of the Rocky mountains, and on the south by the thirty-seventh parallel of north latitude, be, and the same is hereby, created into a temporary government, by the name of the territory of Utah; and, when admitted as a state, the said territory, or any portion of the same, shall be received into the Union, with or without slavery, as their constitution may prescribe at the time of their admission; provided, that nothing in this act contained shall be construed to prohibit the government of the United States from dividing said territory into two or more territories, in such manner and at such time as congress shall deem convenient and proper, or from attaching any portion of said territory to any other state or territory of the United States.
The act proceeds to provide for the appointment of a territorial governor, secretary, marshal, judges, &c., and for the election of a council of thirteen, and a house of representatives of twenty-six members; also for a delegate in congress. All recognized citizens to be voters.
The governor shall receive an annual salary of fifteen hundred dollars as governor, and one thousand dollars as superintendent of Indian affairs. The chief justice and associate justices shall each receive an annual salary of eighteen hundred dollars. The secretary shall receive an annual salary of eighteen hundred dollars. The said salaries shall be paid quarter-yearly, at the treasury of the United States. The members of the legislative assembly ​shall be entitled to receive each three dollars per day during their attendance at the sessions thereof, and three dollars each for every twenty miles' travel in going to and returning from said sessions, estimated according to the nearest usually traveled route.
That the legislative power of said territory shall extend to all rightful subjects of legislation, consistent with the constitution of the United States and the provisions of this act; but no law shall Ik; passed interfering with the primary disposal of the soil; no tax shall be imposed upon the property of the United States; nor shall the lands or other property of non-residents be taxed Higher than the lands or other property of residents. All the laws passed by the legislative assembly and governor shall be submitted to the congress of the United States, and, if disapproved, shall be null and of no effect.
That the constitution and laws of the United States are hereby extended over, and declared to be in force in, said territory of Utah, so far as the same, or any provision thereof, may be applicable.
The debates upon the bills in both houses were animated and interesting. Mr. Seward, of New York, touched upon the principal topics embraced in the general questions of slavery, as presented at this session, as follows:
"But it is insisted that the admission of California shall be attended by a compromise of questions which have arisen out of slavery!
I am opposed to any such compromise, in any and all the forms in which it has been proposed; because, while admitting the purity and the patriotism of all from whom it is my misfortune to differ, I think all legislative compromises, which are not absolutely necessary, radically wrong and essentially vicious. They involve the surrender of the exercise of judgment and conscience on distinct and separate questions, at distinct and separate times, with the indispensable advantages it affords for ascertaining truth. They involve a relinquishment of the right to reconsider in future the decisions of the present, on questions prematurely anticipated. And they are acts of usurpation as to future questions of the province of future legislators.
Sir, it seems to me as if slavery had laid its paralyzing hand upon myself, and the blood were coursing less freely than its wont through my veins, when I endeavor to suppose that such a compromise has been effected, and that my utterance for ever is arrested upon all the great questions — social, moral, and political — arising out of a subject so important, and yet so incomprehensible.
What am I to receive in this compromise? Freedom in California. It is well; it is a noble acquisition; it is worth a sacrifice. But what am I to give as an equivalent? A recognition of the claim to perpetuate slavery in the District of Columbia; forbearance toward more stringent laws concerning the arrest of persons suspected of being slaves found in the free states; forbearance from the proviso of freedom in the charters of new territories. None of the plans of compromise offered demand less than two, and most of them insist on all of these conditions. The equivalent, then, is some portion of liberty, some portion of human rights in one region for liberty in another region. But California brings gold and commerce as well as freedom. I am, then, to ​surrender some portion of human freedom in the District of Columbia, and in East California and New Mexico, for the mixed consideration of liberty, gold, and power on the Pacific coast. But, sir, if I could overcome my repugnance to compromises in general, I should object to this one, on the ground of the inequality and incongruity of the interests to be compromised. Why, sir, according to the views I have submitted, California ought to come in, and and must come.in, whether slavery stand or fall in the District of Columbia; whether slavery stand or fall in New Mexico and Eastern California; and even whether slavery stand or fall in the slave states. California ought to come in, being a free state; and, under the circumstances of her conquest, her compact, her abandonment, her justifiable and necessary establishment of a constitution, and the inevitable dismemberment of the empire consequent upon her rejection, I should have voted for her admission even if she had come as a slave state. California ought to come in, and must come in at all events. It is, then, an independent, a paramount question. What, then, are these questions arising out of slavery, thus interposed, but collateral questions? They are unnecessary and incongruous, and therefore false issues, not introduced designedly, indeed, to defeat that great policy, yet unavoidably tending to that end.
Mr. Foote. Will the honorable senator allow me to ask him if the senate is to understand him as saying that he would vote for the admission of California if she came here seeking admission as a slave state.
Mr. Seward. I reply, as I said before, that even if California had come as a slave state, yet coming under the extraordinary circumstances I have described and in view of the consequences of a dismemberment of the empire, consequent upon her rejection, I should have voted for her admission, even though she had come as a slave state. But I should not have voted for her admission otherwise.
I remark, in the next place, that consent on my part would be disingenuous and fraudulent, because the compromise would be unavailing. It is now avowed by the honorable senator from South Carolina, (Mr. Calhoun,) that nothing will satisfy the slave states but a compromise that will convince them that they can remain in the Union consistently with their honor and their safety. And what are the concessions which will have that effect? Here they are, in the words of that senator:
'The north must do justice by conceding to the south an equal right in the acquired territory, and do her duty by causing the stipulations relative to fugitive slaves to be faithfully fulfilled — cease the agitation of the slave question— and provide for the insertion of a provision in the constitution by an amendment, which will restore to the south in substance the power she possessed of protecting herself, before the equilibrium between the sections was destroyed by the action of this government.'
These terms amount to this: that the free states having already, or although they may hereafter have, majorities of population, and majorities in both houses of congress, shall concede to the slave states, being in a minority in both, the unequal advantage of an equality. That is, that we shall alter the constitution ​so as to convert the government from a national democracy, operating by a constitutional majority of voices, into a federal alliance, in which the minority shall have a veto against the majority. And this would lie nothing less than to return to the original articles of confederation.
Nor would success attend any of the details of this compromise. And, first, I advert to the proposed alteration of the law concerning fugitives from service or labor. I shall speak on this, as on all subjects, with due respect, but yet frankly, and without reservation. The constitution contains only a compact, which rests for its execution on the states. Not content with this, the slave states induced legislation by congress; and the supreme court of the United States have virtually decided that the whole subject is within the province of congress, and exclusive of state authority. Nay, they have decided that slaves are to be regarded, not merely as persons to be claimed, but as property and chattels, to be seized without any legal authority or claim whatever. The compact is thus subverted by the procurement of the slave states. With what reason, then, can they expect the states ex gratia to reässume the obligations from which they caused those states to be discharged? I say, then, to the slave states, you are entitled to no more stringent laws; and that such laws would be useless. The cause of the inefficiency of the present statute is not at all the leniency of its provisions. It is a law that deprives the alleged refugee from a legal obligation not assumed by him, but imposed upon him by laws enacted before he was born, of the writ of habeas corpus, and of any certain judicial process of examination of the claim set up by his pursuer, and finally degrades him into a chattel which may be seized and carried away peaceably wherever found, even although exercising the rights and responsibilities of a free citizen of the commonwealth in which he resides, and of the United States — a law which denies to the citizen all the safeguards of personal liberty, to render less frequent the escape of the bondman. And since complaints are so freely made against the one side, I shall not hesitate to declare that there have been even greater faults on the other side. Relying on the perversion of the constitution which makes slaves mere chattels, the slave states have applied to them the principles of the criminal law, and have held that he who aided the escape of his fellow-man from bondage was guilty of a larceny in stealing him. I speak of what I know. Two instances came within my own knowledge, in which governors of slave states, under the provision of the constitution relating to fugitives from justice, demanded from the governor of a free state the surrender of persons as thieves whose alleged offenses consisted in constructive larceny of the rags that covered the persons of female slaves, whose attempt at escape they permitted or assisted. We deem the principle of the law for the recapture of fugitives, as thus expounded, therefore, unjust, unconstitutional, and immoral; and thus, while patriotism withholds its approbation, the consciences of our people condemn it.
Another feature in most of these plans of compromise is a bill of peace for slavery in the District of Columbia; and this bill of peace we cannot grant We of the free states are, equally with you of the slave states, responsible for ​the existence of slavery in this district, the field exclusively of our common legislation. I regret that, as yet, I see little reason to hope that a majority in favor of emancipation exists here. The legislature of New York — from whom, with great deference, I dissent — seems willing to accept now the extinction of the slave-trade, and waive emancipation But we shall assume the whole responsibility, if we stipulate not to exercise the power hereafter when a majority shall be obtained. Nor will the plea with which you would furnish us be of any avail. If I could understand so mysterious a paradox myself, I never should be able to explain, to the apprehension of the people whom I represent, how it was that an absolute and express power to legislate in all cases over the District of Columbia, was embarrassed and defeated by an implied condition not to legislate for the abolition of slavery in this district. Sir, I shall vote for that measure, and am willing to appropriate any means necessary to carry it into execution. And, if I shall be asked what I did to embellish the capital of my country, I will point to her freedmen, and say, these are the monuments of my munificence!
I come now to notice the suggested compromise of the boundary between Texas and New Mexico. This is a judicial question in its nature, or at least a question of legal right and title. If it is to be compromised at all, it is due to the two parties, and to national dignity as well as to justice, that it be kept separate from compromises proceeding on the ground of expediency, and be settled by itself alone.
I take this occasion to say, that while I do not intend to discuss the questions alluded to in this connection by the honorable and distinguished senator from Massachusetts, I am not able to agree with him in regard to the alleged obligation of congress to admit four new slave states, to be formed in the state of Texas. There are several questions arising out of that subject, upon which I am not prepared to decide now, and which I desire to reserve for future consideration. One of these is, whether the article of annexation does really deprive congress of the right to exercise its choice in regard to the sub-division of Texas into four additional states. It seems to me by no means so plain a question as the senator from Massachusetts assumed, and that it must be left to remain an open question, as it is a great question, whether congress is not a party whose future consent is necessary to the formation of new states out of Texas.
Mr. Webster. Supposing congress to have the authority to fix the number and time of election, and apportionment of representatives, &c., the question is, whether, if new states are formed out of Texas, to come into this union, there is not a solemn pledge by law that they have a right to come in as slave states?
Mr. Seward. When the states are once formed, they have the right to come in as free or slave states, according to their own choice; but what I insist is, that they cannot be formed at all without the consent of congress, to be hereafter given, which consent congress is not obliged to give. But I pass that question for the present, and proceed to say that I am not prepared to admit ​that the article of the annexation of Texas is itself constitutional. I find no authority in the constitution of the United States for the annexation of foreign countries by a resolution of congress, and no power adequate to that purpose but the treaty-making power of the president and the senate. Entertaining this view, I must insist that the constitutionality of the annexation of Texas itself shall be cleared up before I can agree to the admission of any aew states to be formed within Texas.
Mr. Foote. Did I not hear the senator observe that he would admit California, whether slavery was or was not precluded from these territories?
Mr. Seward. I said I would have voted for the admission of California even as a slave state, under the extraordinary circumstances which I have before distinctly described. I say that now; but I say also, that before I would agree to admit any more states from Texas, the circumstances which render such an act necessary must be shown, and must be such as to determine my obligation to do so; and that is precisely what I insist cannot be settled now. It must be left for those to whom the responsibility will belong.
Mr. President, I understand, and I am happy in understanding, that I agree with the honorable senator from Massachusetts, that there is no obligation upon congress to admit four new slave states out of Texas, but that congress has reserved her right to say whether those states shall be formed and admitted or not, I shall rely on that reservation. I shall vote to admit no more slave states, unless under circumstances absolutely compulsory — and no such case is now foreseen.
Mr. Webster. What I said was, that if the states hereafter to be made out of Texas choose to come in as slave states, they have a right so to do.
Mr. Seward. My position is, that they have not a right to come in at all, if congress rejects their institutions. The sub-division of Texas is a matter optional with both parties, Texas and the United States.
Mr. Webster. Does the honorable senator mean to say that congress can hereafter decide whether they shall be slave or free states?
Mr. Seward. I mean to say that congress can hereafter decide whether any states, slave or free, can be framed out of Texas. If they should never be framed out of Texas, they never could be admitted.
Another objection arises out of the principle on which the demand for compromise rests. That principle assumes a classification of the states as northern aud southern states, as it is expressed by the honorable senator from South Carolina, (Mr. Calhoun,) but into slave states and free states, as more directly expressed by the honorable senator from Georgia, (Mr. Berrien.) The argument is, that the states are severally equal, and that these two classes were equal at the first, and that the constitution was founded on that equilibrium; that the states being equal, and the classes of the states being equal in rights, they are to be regarded as constituting an association in which each state, and each of these classes of states, respectively, contribute in due proportions; that the new territories are a common acquisition, and the people of these several states and classes of states have an equal right to participate in them, respectively; that ​the right of the people of the slave states to emigrate to the territories with their slaves as property is necessary to afford such a participation on their part, inasmuch as the people of the free states emigrate into the sam« territories with their property. And the argument deduces from this right the principle that, if congress exclude slavery from any part of this new domain, it would be only just to set off a portion of the domain — some say south of 36° 30', others south of 34°— which should be regarded at least as free to shivery, and to be organized into slave states.
Argument ingenious and subtle, declamation earnest and bold, and persuasion gentle and winning as the voice of the turtle dove when it is heard in the land, all alike and altogether have failed to convince me of the soundness of this principle of the proposed compromise, or of any one of the propositions on which it is attempted to be established.
The constitution does not expressly affirm anything on the subject; all that it contains is two incidental allusions to slaves. These are, first, in the provision establishing a ratio of representation and taxation; and, secondly, in the provision relating to fugitives from labor. In both cases, the constitution designedly mentions slaves, not as slaves, much less as chattels, but as persons. That this recognition of them as persons was designed is historically known, and I think was never denied.
I deem it established that the constitution does not recognize property in man, but leaves that question, as between the states, to the law of nature and of nations. That law, as expounded by Vattel, is founded on the reason of things. When God had created the earth, with its wonderful adaptations, He gave dominion over it to man, absolute human dominion. The title of that dominion, thus bestowed, would have been incomplete, if the Lord of all terrestrial things could himself have been the property of his fellow-man.
But there is yet another aspect in which this principle must be examined. It regards the domain only as a possession, to be enjoyed either in common or by partition by the citizens of the old states. It is true, indeed, that the national domain is ours. It is true it was acquired by the valor and with the wealth of the whole nation. But we hold no arbitrary authority over it. We hi)ld no arbitrary authority over anything, whether acquired lawfully or seized by usurpation. The constitution regulates our stewardship; the constitution devotes the domain to union, to justice, to defense, to welfare, and to liberty
But there is a higher law than the constitution, which regulates our authority over the domain, and devotes it to the same noble purposes. The territory is a part, no inconsiderable part, of the common heritage of mankind, bestowed upon them by the Creator of the Universe. We are his stewards, and must so discharge our trust as to secure in the highest degree their happiness
It remains only to remark that our own experience has proved the danger ous influence and tendency of slavery. All our apprehensions of dangers, present and future, begin and end with slavery. If slavery, limited as it yet is, now threatens to subvert the constitution, how can we, as wise and prudent statesmen, enlarge its boundaries and increase its influence, and thus increase ​already impending dangers? Whether, then, I regard merely the welfare of the future inhabitants of the new territories, or the security and welfare of the whole people of the United States, or the welfare of the whole family of mankind, I cannot consent to introduce slavery into any part of this continent which is now exempt from what seems to me so great an evil. These are my reasons for declining to compromise the question relating to slavery as a condition of the admission of California.
In acting upon an occasion so grave as this, a respectful consideration is due to the arguments, founded on extraneous considerations, of senators who commend a course different from that which I have preferred. The first of these arguments is, that congress has no power to legislate on the subject of slavery within the territories.
Sir, congress may admit new states; and since congress may admit, it follows that congress may reject new states. The discretion of congress in admitting is absolute, except that, when admitted, the state must be a repubilcan state, and must be a state ; that is, it shall have the constitutional form and powers of a state. But the greater includes the less, and therefore congress may impose conditions of admission not inconsistent with those fundamental powders and forms. Boundaries are such. The reservation of the public domain is such. The right to divide is such. The ordinance excluding slavery is such a condition. The organization of a territory is ancillary or preliminary; it is the inchoate, the initiative act of admission, and is performed under the clause granting the powers necessary to execute the express powers of the constitution.
The next of this class of arguments is, that the inhibition of slavery in the new territories is unnecessary; and when I come to this question, I encounter the loss of many who lead in favor of the admission of California. The argument is, that the proviso is unnecessary . I answer, then, there can be no error in insisting upon it. But why is it unnecessary? It is said, first, by reason of climate. I answer, if this be so, why do not the representatives of the slave states concede the proviso? They deny that the climate prevents the introduction of slavery. Then I will leave nothing to a contingency. But, in truth, I think the weight of the argument is against the proposition. Is there any climate where slavery has not existed? It has prevailed all over Europe, from sunny Italy to bleak England, and is existing now, stronger than in any other land, in ice-bound Russia. But it will be replied that this is not African slavery. I rejoin, that only makes the case the stronger. If this vigorous Saxon race of ours was reduced to slavery while it retained the courage of semi-barbarism in its own high northern latitude, what security does climate afford against the transplantation of the more gentle, more docile, and already enslaved and debased African to the genial climate of New Mexico and eastern California?
Sir, there is no climate uncongenial to slavery. It is true it is less productive than free labor in many northern countries. But so it is less productive than free white labor in even tropical climates. Labor is in quick demand in ​all new countries. Slave labor is cheaper than free labor, and it would go first into new regions; and wherever it goes it brings labor into dishonor, and therefore free white labor avoids competition with it. Sir, I might rely on climate if I had not been born in a laud where slavery existed — and this land was all of it north of the fortieth parallel of latitude; and if I did not know the struggle it has cost, and which is yet going on, to get complete relief from the institution and its baleful consequences. I desire to propound this question to those who are now in favor of dispensing with the Wilmot proviso: Was the ordinance of 1787 necessary or not? Necessary, we all agree. It has received too many elaborate eulogiums to be now decried as an idle and superfluous thing. And yet that ordinance extended the inhibition of slavery from the thirty-seventh to the fortieth parallel of north latitude. And now we are told that the inhibition named is unnecessary anywhere north of 36° 30' 1 We are told that we may rely upon the laws of God, which prohibit slave labor north of that line, and that it is absurd to reënact the laws of God. Sir, there is no human enactment which is just that is not a reënactment of the law of God. The constitution of the United States and the constitutions of all the states are full of such reënactments. Wherever I find a law of God or a law of nature disregarded, or in danger of being disregarded, there I shall vote to reaffirm it, with all the sanction of the civil authority. But I find no authority for the position that climate prevents slavery anywhere. It is the indolence of mankind in any climate, and not any natural necessity, that introduces slavery in any climate.
It is insisted that the diffusion of slavery will not increase its evils. The argument seems to me merely specious, and quite unsound. I desire to propose one or two questions in reply to it. Is slavery stronger or weaker in these United States, from its diffusion into Missouri? Is slavery weaker or stronger in these United States, from the exclusion of it from the northwest territory? The answers to these questions will settle the whole controversy.
And this brings me to the great and all-absorbing argument that the Union is in danger of being dissolved, and that it can only be saved by compromise. I do not know what I would not do to save the Union; and therefore I shall bestow upon this subject a very deliberate consideration. I do not overlook the fact that the entire delegation from the slave states, although they differ in regard to the details of the compromise proposed, and perhaps in regard to the exact circumstances of the crisis, seem to concur in this momentous warning. Nor do I doubt at all the patriotic devotion to the Union which is expressed by those from whom this warning proceeds. And yet, sir, although such warnings have been uttered with impassioned solemnity in my hearing everyday for near three months, my confidence in the Union remains unshaken. I think they are to be received with no inconsiderable distrust, because they are uttered under the influence of a controlling interest to be secured, a paramount object to be gained; and that is an equilibrium of power iu the republic.
Sir, in any condition of society there can be no revolution without a cause, an adequate cause. What cause exists here? We are admitting a new state; ​but there is nothing new in that: we have already admitted seventeen before. But it is said that the slave states are in danger of losing political power by the admission of the new state. Well, sir, is there anything new in that? The slave states have always been losing political power, and they always will be while they have any to lose. At first, twelve of the thirteen states were slave states; now only fifteen out of the thirty are slave states. Moreover, the change is constitutionally made, and the government was constructed so as to permit changes of the balance of power, in obedience to changes of the forcea of the body politic. Danton used to say, "It's all well while the people cry Dauton and Robespierre; but wo for me if ever the people learn to say, Robespierre and Danton!" That is all of it, sir. The people have been accustomed to say, "the south and the north;" they are only beginning now to say, "the north and the south."
Sir, when the founders of the republic of the south come to draw those fearful lines, they will indicate what portions of the continent are to be broken off from their connection with the Atlantic, through the St. Lawrence, the Hudson, the Delaware, the Potomac, and the Mississippi; what portion of this people are to be denied the use of the lakes, the railroads, and the canals, now constituting common and customary avenues of travel, trade, and social intercourse; what families and kindred are to be separated, and converted into enemies; and what states are to be the scenes of perpetual border warfare, aggravated by interminable horrors of servile insurrection. When those portentous lines shall be drawn, they will disclose what portion of this people is to retain the army and the navy, and the flag of so many victories; and on the other hand, what portion of the people is to be subjected to new and onerous imposts, direct taxes, and forced loans, and conscriptions, to maintain an opposing army, an opposing navy, and the new and hateful banner of sedition. Then the projectors of the new republic of the south will meet the question — and they may well prepare now to answer it — What is all this for? What intolerable wrong, what unfraternal injustice, have rendered these calamities unavoidable? What gain will this unnatural revolution bring to us? The answer will be: All this is done to secure the institution of African slavery.
But you insist on a guaranty against the abolition of slavery in the District of Columbia, or war. Well, when you shall have declared war against us, what shall hinder us from immediately decreeing that slavery shall cease within the national capital?
You say that you will not submit to the exclusion of slaves from the new territories. What will you gain by resistance? Liberty follows the sword, although her sway is one of peace and beneficence. Can you propagate slavery then by the sword?
You insist that you cannot submit to the freedom with which slavery is discussed in the free states. Will war — a war for slavery — arrest or even moderate that discussion? No, sir; that discussion will not cease; war will only inflame it to a greater height. It is a part of the eternal conflict between truth and error — between mind and physical force — the conflict of man against ​the obstacles which oppose his way to an ultimate and glorious' destiny. It will go on until you shall terminate it in the only way in which any state or nation has ever terminated it — by yielding to it — yielding in your own time, and in your own manner indeed, but nevertheless yielding to the progress of emancipation. Tou will do this, sooner or later, whatever may be your opinion now; because nations which were prudent aud humane, and wise as you are, have done so already.
Sir, the slave states have no reason to fear that this inevitable change will go too far or too fast for their safety or welfare. It cannot well go too fast or too far, if the only alternative is a war of races.
But it cannot go too fast. Slavery has a reliable and accommodating ally in a party in the free states, which, though it claims to be, and doubtless is in many respects, a party of progress, finds its sole security for its political powei in the support and aid of slavery in the slave states. Of course, I do not include in that party those who are now coöperating in maintaining the cause of freedom against slavery. I am not of that party of progress which in the north thus lends its support to slavery. But it is only just aud candid that I should bear witness to its fidelity to the interests of slavery.
Slavery has, moreover, a more natural alliance with the aristocracy of the north and with the aristocracy of Europe. So long as slavery shall possess the cotton-fields, the sugar-fields, aud the rice-fields of the world, so long will commerce and capital yield it toleration and sympathy. Emancipation is a democratic revolution. It is capital that arrests all democratic revolutions. It was capital that, so recently, in a single year, rolled back the tide of revolution from the base of the Carpathian mountains, across the Danube and the Rhine, into the streets of Paris. It is capital that is rapidly rolling back the throue of Napoleon into the chambers of the Tuilleries.
Slavery has a guaranty still stronger than these in the prejudices of caste and color, which induce even large majorities in all the free states to regard sympathy with the slave as an act of unmanly humiliation and self-abasement, although philosophy meekly expresses her distrust of the asserted natural superiority of the white race, and confidently denies that such a superiority, if justly claimed, could give a title to oppression.
There remains one more guaranty — one that has seldom failed you, and will seldom fail you hereafter. New states cling in closer alliance than older ones to the federal power. The concentration of the slave power enables you for long periods to control the federal government with the aid of the new states. I do not know the sentiments of the representatives of California; but, my word for it, if they should be admitted on this floor to-day, against your most obstinate opposition, they would, on all questions really affecting your interests, be found at your side.
There are many well-disposed persons who are alarmed at the occurrence of any such disturbance. The failure of a legislative body to organize is to their apprehension a fearful omen, and an extra-constitutional assemblage to consult upon public affairs is with them cause for desperation. Even senators speak ​of the Union as if it existed only by consent, and, as it seems to lie implied, by the assent of the legislatures of the states. On the contrary, the Union was not founded in voluntary choice, nor does it exist by voluntary consent.
A union was proposed to the colonies by Franklin and others, in 1754; bnt such was their aversion to an abridgment of their own importance, respectively, that it was rejected even under the pressure of a disastrous invasion by France.
A union of choice was proposed to the colonies in 1775; but so strong was their opposition, that they went through the war of independence without having established more than a mere council of consultation.
But with independence came enlarged interests of agriculture — absolutely new interests of manufactures — interests of commerce, of fisheries, of navigation, of common domain, of common debts, of common revenues and taxation, of the administration of justice, of public defense, of public honor; in short, interests of common nationality and sovereignty — interests which at last compelled the adoption of a more perfect union — a national government.
The genius, talents, and learning of Hamilton, Jay, and of Madison, surpassing, perhaps, the intellectual power ever exerted before for the establishment of a government, combined with the serene but mighty influence of Washington, we're only sufficient to secure the reluctant adoption of the constitution that is now the object of all our affections and of the hopes of mankind. No wonder that the conflicts in which that constitution was born, and the almost desponding solemnity of Washington, in his farewell address, impressed his countrymen and mankind with a profound distrust of its perpetuity 1 No wonder that while the murmurs of that day are yet ringing in our ears, we cherish that distrust, with pious reverence, as a national and patriotic sentiment.
I have heard somewhat here, and almost for the first time in my life, of divided allegiance — of allegiance to the south and to the Union. Sir, if sympathies with state emulation and pride of achievement could be allowed to raise up another sovereign to divide the allegiance of a citizen of the United States, I might recognize the claims of the state to which, by birth and gratitude, I belong — to the state of Hamilton and Jay, of Schuyler, of the Clintons, and of Fulton — the state which, with less than two hundred miles of natural navigation connected with the ocean, has, by her own enterprise, secured to herself thfe commerce of the continent, and is steadily advancing to the command of the commerce of the world. But for all this I know only one country and one sovereign — the United States of America and the American people. And such as my allegiance is, is the loyality of every other citizen of the United States. As I speak, he will speak when his time arrives. He knows no other country and no other sovereign. He has life, liberty, property, and precious affections, and hopes for himself and for his posterity, treasured up in the ark of the Union. He knows as well and feels as strongly as I do, that this government is his own government; that he is a part of it; that it was established for him, and that it is maintained by him; that it is the only truly wise, just, free, and equal government that has ever existed; that no other government could be so wise, just, free and equal; and that it is safer and more beneficent than nnv which time or chancre could brimr into its place. ​You may tell me, sir, that although all this may be true, yet the trial of faction has not yet been made. Sir, if the trial of faction has not been made, it has not been because faction has uot always existed, and has not always menaced a trial, but because faction could find no fulcrum on which to place the lever to subvert the Union, as it can find no fulcrum now; and in this is my confidence. I would not rashly provoke the trial; but I will not suffer a fear, which I nave not, to make me compromise one sentiment, one principle of truth or justice, to avert a danger that all experience teaches me is purely chimerical. Let, then, those who distrust the Union make compromises to save it. I shall not impeach their wisdom, as I certainly cannot their patriotism; but, indulging no such apprehensions myself, I shall vote for the admission of California into the Union directly, without conditions, without qualifications, and without compromise."
Mr. Cass, on the 13th of March, expressed his views at some length. A part of his speech was in reply to certain remarks of Mr. Calhoun and Mr. Seward. He agreed with what had been said by Mr. Clay; and he would vote for the proposed reference of the resolutions, indeed for almost any proposition likely to bring this country into harmony upon this perplexing question. He thought the country was under lasting obligations to Mr. Foote for his efforts to terminate the existing difficulties. For Mr. Calhoun, he expressed deep sympathy, but dissented from parts of his speech, which, he thought, contained a strange collection and collocation of facts, followed by strange conclusions. The sombre hue which pervaded his speech, he imagined, was owing to its having been prepared in the recesses of a sick chamber. [Mr. Calhoun, too feeble to address the senate, had written his speech, which had been read by Mr. Mason, of Virginia].
Mr. Cass took exception to an expression of Mr. Calhoun, calling Washington "the illustrious southerner." "Our "Washington — the Washington of our whole country — receives in this senate, the epithet of 'southerner." as if that great man, whose distinguished characteristic was his attachment to his country, and his whole country, who was so well known, and who, more than any one, deprecated all sectional feeling and all sectional action — loved Georgia better than he loved New Hampshire, because he happened to be born on the southern bank of the Potomac. I repeat, sir, that I heard with great pain, that expression from the distinguished senator form South Carolina.
We have been three months here, and what have we done? Nothing. We have not passed.a single law of the least national importance. We have occupied the whole time by the discussion of this question, and no practical result has been attained; and present appearances do not indicate that such a result is near. But, though we have done nothing, we have ascertained that some tilings can not be done. We have ascertained (I think I may say with certainty) that no Wilmot proviso can be passed through this congress. That measure is dead. It is the latest, and I hope it is the last attempt that will be made to interfere with the right of self-government within the limits of this republic. I think we may also say, that no Missouri compromise line can pass ​and that no one expects or desires that it should pass. Mr. President, what was the compromise line? Allow me to read the law which established it:
Now, sir, what is that provision? It is intervention north of the line of 36° 30', and non-intervention south of that line. Why, sir, there is not one southern senator on this floor, and not one southern member of the other house, nor indeed a southern man who understands the subject, who would accept that line as a proper settlement of this question. Why, sir, the whole doctrine of equal rights and of non-intervention is taken away by it at once. Why, sir, putting out of view the constitutional objections to such an arrangement, it gives the south nothing, while it prohibits the people north of 36° 30' from exercising their own will upon the subject. The true doctrine of non-intervention leaves the whole question to the people, and does not divide their right of decision by a parallel of latitude. If they choose to have slavery north of that line, they can have it. Is there a senator on this floor who would accept of a proposition to apply the principle of non-intervention to a part of the territory, leaving to the people of the other portion to do as they please? No, sir; there is not a southern senator here who would vote for it. I will tell you what would be voted for, has already been announced — a law declaratory, mandatory, or permissory, for the establishment of slavery south of the line of 36° 30'. The distinguished senator from South Carolina might be willing to accept a' declaration that slavery does now exist, or that it shall exist, or may exist, south of a certain line; but I take it for granted that no senator from the south would be willing to abandon the ground of non-intervention, without some provision like that. Well, then, Mr. President, if these things are impossible — if they cannot be done — it remains to inquire what it is in our power to do. My own opinion is, sir, that we should take up the bill for the recapture of fugitive slaves, reported by the judiciary committee. I am disposed to suspend all our discussions, and to lay aside all other business, with a view to act upon that bill, without unnecessary delay, and to pass it in such a form as would be acceptable to a majority of this body. That is a point upon which the south feels most acutely, and in regard to which it has the most serious cause of complaint. I have heard but one man in this body deny the existence of this evil, or the justice and necessity of providing an adequate remedy. If I understand the senator from New York, (Mr. Seward,) he intimated his belief that it was immoral to carry into effect the provision of the constitution for the recapture of fugitive slaves. That, sir, is a very strange view of the duties of a senator in this body. No man should come here who believes that ours is an immoral constitution; no man should come here, and, by the solemn sanction of an oath, promise to support an immoral constitution. No man is compelled to take an oath to support it. He may live in this country, and ​believe what lie chooses with regard to the constitution; but he has no right, as an honest man, to seek office, and obtain it, and then talk about its being so immoral that he can not fulfill its obligations. It is the duty of every man, who has sworn to support the constitution, fairly to carry its provisions into effect; and no man can stand up before his fellow-citizens and maiutain any other doctrine, whatever reasons he may urge in his vindication. In one of the most disingenuous portions of the speech of the honorable senator from New York (Mr. Seward) — which itself was one of the most disingenuous I have ever heard — he speaks of "slavery having a reliable and accommodating ally in a party in the free states," and he says he "bears witness to its fidelity to the interests of slavery."
Now, I ask the senator from New York, if he believes there is a man in this senate from the north, whose course is influenced by his fidelity to slavery; and if he does, what right he has to cast odium upon gentlemen who are associated with him in the high duties which belong to his position?
Mr. Seward. The senator addresses a question to me, and I rise for no other purpose than to answer it. I think it was Mr. Jefferson who said that the natural ally of slavery in the south was the democracy of the north.
A senator. It was Mr. Buchanan.
Mr. Seward. I have heard it attributed to Mr. Jefferson. However this may be, I believe it. I assail the motives of no senator. I am not to be drawn into personal altercations by any interrogatories addressed to me. I acknowledge the patriotism, the wisdom, the purity of every member of this body. I never have assailed the motives of honorable senators in any instance, I never shall. When my own are assailed, I stand upon my own position. My life and acts must speak for me. I shall not be my own defender or advocate.
Mr. Cass concluded his speech the next day. He said: I was remarking yesterday, when I resigned the floor, that there were certain things we could not accomplish, and others that, with equal certainty, we might take for granted we could do. Among the latter, was the bill providing for the recapture of fugitive slaves; and another object, which I trust will be accomplished, is the providing of a government for the new territories. I think it essential to calm this agitation, and so long as these territories are left without a government, so long will the present state of things continue, and this agitation be kept up, which is so harassing to the tranquility, and dangerous to the peace of the Union. That a law may be passed authorizing the people of the territories to govern themselves, without any Wilmot proviso being attached to it, is my wish and my hope. Sir, we cannot stand before the country, and before the world, and object to the admission of California on the ground that has been urged. The objection is not to her boundaries, though that topic has been much debated. I myself was at first startled at the boundary claimed, stretching as it does along the coast of the Pacific one thousand miles — a much greater extent than any one state in the Union ought to possess. But the country between the ocean and the sea is a narrow one, and east of the mountains is a ​desert, and in proportion to its extent, the quantity of arable land is small. Be the boundaries as they may, it is not probable that its population will ever be as great as that of some of the other states of this Union. And if its southern boundary were to stop at the mountains, there would be left between them and the Mexican possessions a small district of country, which would have to remain for an indefinite period, perhaps forever, in a colonial condition. The senator from South Carolinia, (Mr. Calhoun,) who I regret to see is not in his seat to-day, does not assume this ground as an objection to the admission of California. That objection rests upon her present position and mode of application; because she has established a government of her own without passing through territorial process, and comes here of her own accord, and asks admission into this Union. This ground of objection cannot be maintained in this age of the world, before the people of this country, and, I may add, the people of Christendom. There are two positions I have always maintained with reference to this subject — first, that congress, under the constitution, has no right to establish governments for the territories; secondly, that under no circumstances have they the right to pass any law to regulate the internal affairs of the people inhabiting them. The first may be a matter of necessity; and when the necessity exists, if a senator votes for it, he votes upon his own responsibility to his constituents. If they believe the necessity and support him, he is safe, but if not, he must fall. If I had voted under such circumstances, I must have looked to my constituents for my justification; but under no circumstances could I have voted for any law interfering with the internal concerns of the people of a territory. No necessity requires it; there is no necessity which would justify it
Mr. Chase. Did I understand the senator as saying, that in voting for a bill to establish a government in the territories he would assume the exercise of any authority not given in the constitution?
Mr. Cass. The honorable senator will undoubtedly recollect, that in a historical document called the Nicholson letter, which subsequent circumstances have made somewhat important, I distinctly stated my views upon this subject, and those views have remained unchanged to the present hour. I maintained that no power is given by the constitution to establish territorial governments, but that where an imperious necessity exists for such a measure, the legislator who yields to it must look to his constituents for his justification.
Mr. Chase. I understood the senator to say that there was no such authority given by the constitution?
Mr. Cass. I said, that if we do an act not authorized by the constitution, under a pressure of necessity, that act must be done upon our own responsibility; and I refer the gentleman to the authority of Mr. Madison, who justified the action of the congress of the confederation, on the subject of territories, upon this ground — and upon this alone. If the gentleman will take the trouble to look at my speech on the Wilmot proviso, he will find my views on this point distinctly laid down. What is the objection in principle to the admission of California? Allow me to say, that great political rights and movements, ​in this age of the world, are not to be determined by mere abstract or speculative opinions. There is no want of heavy books in the world, which treat of political science; but you need not go to them to ascertain the rights of men — # either individuals or in communities; if you do, you will lose yourself groping in a labyrinth, and where no man can follow you. If there are rights of sovereignty, there may be wrongs of sovereignty; and this truth should be held in everlasting remembrance. And this is the case with regard to California. We have rights, and we have duties; and if the former are sacred, the latter should be sacred also. One of these duties we have neglected to perform; and we are told by gentlemen who have spoken here, that when a state wishes admission into the Union, she should come to the door of congress and knock for admission. California has thus come and knocked; but no door is open to her, and she is to be told, "go back and wait till we are ready." There is but one door through which you can enter, and that door we keep shut. You must pass through a territorial government; but that government we have neglected to give you, and we are probably as far from establishing it as ever. And such is the paternal regard we manifest toward one hundred thousand American citizens, who are upholding the flag of our country on the distant shores of the Pacific.