Democratic banner., 1849-06-18
COL BENToN's sPEECH-coneiudsd:

hnu no" haVe arfIveo at a point winch
claims particular attention. 1t will be re-
membered by all that after the rejection of
the Texas treaty in IA, various propositions
were submitted in Congress for her admis-
sion, and that every proposition contained
some plan for dividing her into free and
slave territory. Now | do not recollect a
single instance in which the constitutional.
ty of such propositions were disputed, or a
single instance in (which it was deemed en-
insult to the 'slaveholding States to see
slavery excluded from any part Of iii. These
propositions were particularly numerous in
the session Of '44-'45, which ended with
two propositions enacted into two a~lterna-
tive resolutions-one to run the compromise
line through the State, the other to negotiate
with her upon the subject. Mr.. Calhoun
selected the former-afull proof that neither
himself, nor the majority Of the two Houses
Of Congress, nor the President Of the United
States, who approved the resolutions, saw
anything in them either unconstitutional or
insulting the slave States, or tending to
disunion.r myself made one Of these pro-
positions. It was to divide by a parallel Of
longitude. It proposed to Texas that she
should surrender to the United States all
the the territory west of the Tooth parallel
of longitude, which was to be free soil-that
on the east side to be slave soil. Proposed
TO limit slavery by a line north and south,
and that upon negotiation with Texas; and
if any persons wishes to know my princi-
pies about the extension of slavery west in
to New Mexico, they may see it IN that
proposition. I thought it right, then; and
/ do not change my opinions Of right to suit
calculations or circumstances. What is
more, I never heard Of any body that thought
/ was wrong then /; and the only difference
between my proposition and Mr.. Calhoun's
act was, that | was in favor Of limiting slave
nv BY a line drawn north and south, and that
BY negotiation with the State to be effect
ed: Mr.. Calhoun divided the free and slave
soil of the State itself by a line drawn east
and west; and accordingly did so divide it;
and the State so stands at this day. The
difference between us was the difference be.
tween a longitudinal and latitudinal line,
and between taking the boundary ofa State,
upon negotiation with her, for the bounda-
~ between free and slave soil, and running
the line through the State.
1t is absurd to deny to Congress the pow
er to legislate as it pleases upon the subject
of slavery in territories lit has exercised
the power, and with the sanction of all au-
thorities, State and Federal, from the foun-
dation to the present time, and never had il
questioned, until Mr.. Calhoun put forth
those unfortunate resolutions, from which
he had to back out under his own mortify-
ing contradictions. 1t is absurd to claim it
for the territories. They have no form of
government but that which Congress gives
them, and no Legislative power but that
which Congress SLOWS them. Congress
governs the territory as it Pleases, and in
a way incompatible with the constitution,
and of this any State that has been a terri
tory is complete example, and Our W as
much SO as any.
Congress has the power to prohibit, or adj
NIT slavery, and no one else. 1t is not in
the territories: or their governments are
the creatures Of Congress, and its deputies
80 far as any legislative power is concern
ed. It is not in the States separately and
this leads to one Of the grossest delusions
which has grown out Of the political meta
physics of Mr.. Calhoun. He clsims a right
for the citizens Of the slave States 10 re-
move to New Mexico and California with
their slave property. This is profound er'
ror. The propertyis in the law which Gre
ates it., and that law cannot be carried an
inch beyond the limits Of the State which
enacts it. No citizen Of any State, can car
ny any property, derived from CLAW Of tina
State, an inch beyond the boundary line ol
- q