Indiana State sentinel. [volume] (Indianapolis) 1841-1853, 1849-06-21
COL. BENToN,s SPEECH.


various propositions submitted in Congress for
her admission, and that every proposition contained
some plan for dividing her into free and slave terri
tory. Every body will remember this. Now, do
recollect single instance in which the constitu
tionaliiy of snch propositions were disputed, or a
single instance in hich il was deemed an insult to
the sayeholdng States to see slavery excluded from
any part Of It. These propositions particularly
numerous in the session of lS445 which ended with
two propositions enacted into two alternative resolu-
uOns-one 10 run the compromise line through the
State, the other to negotiate with her upon the sub
jeci. Mr.. Calhoun selected the f0rmer-a full proof
that neither himself, nor the majority Of the two
houses of Congress- nor the President of the United
Stsiss who approved their resolutions saw anything
them either unconstitutional insulting to the
slaFc States, tending to disnnIon. myself made
ore IF thase propositions. 1t to divide by par
alhl of longitude. 1t proposed TO Texas that she
should surrender to the United States al the territory
west of the Tooth parallel of longitude, which to
be free soil-that the east side to be slave soil.
proposed to limit slavery by line north and south,
and that upon negotiation with Texas and if any
person wishes to know my principles about the ex-
tension of slavery west into New Mexico, they may
see it in that proposition. thought it right then
and do not change my opinions of right to suit cacu
lations circumstances. What is more, | never
heard of any body that thought | was wrong then :;
and the only difference between my proposition and
Mr.. CahoGns act was. that | was in faver of limit
q
by negotiation with the State to be affected. Dir.
Calhoun divided the free and slave soil of the State
itself by line drawn east and west, and accordingly
did divide it and the State stands at this day.
The difference between the difference between
longitudinal and latitudnal line, and between taking
the boundary of State, upon negotiation with her,
for the boundary between free and slave soil, and
running the line through the State itself.
1t is absurd to deny Congress the power to legs
late it pleoses upon the subject of slavery in ter
ritories it has exercised the power. and with the
sanction of all authorities state and federal, from the
foundation to the present time and had il ques
toned until Mr.. Calhoun put forth those unfortunate
resolutions. from which be had to back under his
Notifying contradictions. It is absurd to claim
it for the territories. They have form of govern
ment but that which Congress gives them, and no e
gsative power but that which Congress allows them.
Congress governs the territory ii pleases and in
way incompatible with the constitution, and of this
any State that has been territory is complete ex-
ample, and our own much any.
Congress has the power to prohibit or admit slave
ry and no one else. II is not in the territories for
their governments the Of Congress- and
Its deputies, far any legislative power is
cerned. 1t is not in the States separately; and this
leads to of the grosses decisions which has grown
out of the political metaphysics of Mr.. Calhoun. He
claims right for the citizens Of The slave States to
remove to New Mexico uudscalifornia with their
slave property. This is profound The prop
IL,
not be carried inch beyond the limits of the State
which enacts IT, No citizen Of any State can carry
any property, derived from law of that State, an
inch beyond the boundary line of the State which
creates it. The instant be passes that boundary to
settle with his property ii becomes subject 10 another
law, if there is one, and is without law if there is
This is the case with afl--with the northern
man, with his corporations and franchises-wiih the
southern and his slaves. This is the law OF the
land. and let try 1t that disputes it. We, Mis-
souri,, are well situated to make the experiment con-
veniently, and in al it's forms. Let any one of Mr.
Calhoun's followers try it, and he will what
becomes Of his property bis slave property. Let him
remove to Iowa he will meet there the 9Th section
Of the act Of Congress of March 9th, 1820-the CAL
hour proyiso and will IN vain invoke State rights
ard Missouri statutes. Let him remove to Illinois
he will find there the Jefferson proviso in the form Of
the ordinance of 1857. Let him remove to Kentucky
the law of Kentucky takes hold of his slaves. and
converts the chattel interest of the Missouri slave in
to real estate; for in Kentucky, slaves made
real estate and placed the footing Of land they
in Louisiana. Let him move into Arkansas his
cbatte slave will remain chattel but by virtue of
Arkansas law, and subject to its regulation Finally
let him remove west and settle in the territory Of
Nebraska. when it shall be created and the Calhoun
proviso will be on him again, and his property will
evapornte. Thus, citizen of Missouri cannot get
out of his own State, any of its four sides,
with his slave property, without having Its character
altered, holding it by another law and twice he
will lose lt-on two sides of his State, contiguous
territory-he will lose it under an act of Congress,
which became law under the advice and opinion of
Mr. Calhoun, in his high character of cabinet minis
ter, and assisting at council armed with the veto
power This is the case of the Missouri Citizen and
has been since Missouri State; and no one
ever thought the State sovereignty iusued, or felt
himself bound to dissolve the Union on account of it.
No! the citizens Of the States cannot carry the
laws of their States with them to Oregon and Cali
fornia; and if they could what Babel of slave law
would be there! Fourteen States, each carrying a
code different, In many respects, from each other
and all to be exercised by the Judges terri
tories where there is no slave law. What absurdty
No such thing be done. The only effect of car
rying slaves there would be to set them free. II
would be in vain TO invoke the constitution, and say
1t acknowledges property in slaves. 1t does but
that is confined to States
And now we arrive at substance-nt practical
point Congress has the constitutional power to abol-
ish slavery in territories but she has slave terri
tory in which to exercise the power. We have nc
territory but the remainder of Louisiana north and
west of Missouri in California New Mexico
and Oregon,-and that north of Wisconsin, now Min.
nesota. In Louisiana. north and west of us, il was
abolished by Congress in 1890 In the territory north
of Wisconsin. Minnesota, it was abolished By the
Jefferson proviso of 1877. In Oregon it was abolish
ed by Congress in lS45, by what you may call the
Benton proviso if you please. In New Mexico an,
California it was abolished by the Mexican govern
ment in l629-confrmed in 1887, and again in 1874
Here are the DEGREES. the originals of which hay,
read in the authentic bound volumes of the Mexican
laws, and which produced in The Senate of th.
United States by Mr.. Dix, of New York
Translation
Decree of 1870.
ABOLITION OF SLAVERY.
The President Of The United Mexican States to the in
habitants Of the Republics
Desiring to sigDaize, 10 the year 1922 the anniversa
Of independence BY az act Of national justice and bene