The daily union. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1845-1857, 1850-06-21

potent means Of effectng their objectl Win they moi
point IT, and say, Behold the proof Of all we have told
you as TO the designs OF the North against us is not
here the proof that the EXTREMIST declarations in regard to
northern designs made by the EXTREMIST -soler in
Congress-, trueP With what powerful effect may some
ultra pro. slavery man OF Kentucky. perhaps some con
slitulent Of the very mover OF that proposition. Mr.
SrAnros,] use that vote upon the stump! He would
need merely to point to the proposition, and to the
upon H. as conclusive proof tor his purpose, OF the
odious designs on the part OF the North against the South
There be some one present TO give the true expa
nation OF that seemingly suspicious vote and thus adj
minister the aniidote; OF there might not Sir am OPP
for their Il they Will attempt sas to
batter down the walls OF our republic lei them furnish
their ammunition
maintain, sir that the principle asserted in the amend
ment now under consideration Is that which s recog-
Missed BY the people, and especially by the democracy Of
the North There are individuals there. and factions
tanned in this proposition. But the prevailing principle
there on the slavery question Is that of intervention
we consider, thai the people Of any State hereafter to
suit themselves as or are the people OF Illinois
or Massachusetts, OF South Carolina or Mississippi
This amendment asserts that prncple-nothing more,
nothing less and i has my approval
Mr. B; withdrawing the amendment.
Mr. buILEk, Of Pennsyvana, renewed i, and re-
marked that he bad voted the other day for this amend
gentlemen from the North were disposed to change
their position upon it. holding, he did, that il was the
right Of the people Of any region to determine the charac
amendment could embarass the BILL being applicable
only 10 MIR. GREEHs amendment. He willing that
his action in this should have much effect his
successor possible He thought the proposition should
have the unanimous sanction oil the House
Here Mr.. B. argued for some minutes to show that
Ohio California (f the latter be ADMITTEDLY may c0nst
their limits at any moment after their admission with
out IT. If the assertion OF the correct principle would
have the effect Of quietng the OF South
the amendment should be at once adopted.
amendment.
Mr. ROOT renewed it, and said that il advocated
as offering to the South only No from the
cal avail in connection with the BILL He thought all this
wrong. He could understand northern men. who took
different grounds and also southern men, who, believing
the Missouri Compromise unconstitutional would vote
against its application to the territory acquired from
Mexico. He was not for offering sugar-plum to any
section. He wished this was proper time to offer
South might convert free territory into sayeholdng
country. He should like to vote against H. and TO have
Mr.. BUTLER OF Pennsylvania, vote for It, that that gen.
temans constituents might understand his Mr.. B.sl
position.
Withdrawing the amendment. :,
Mr.. MORSE renewed it, and said that he liked the
remarks of Mr. RooT, inasmuch they would expose to
his constituents the real purpose OF the North He deslr
ed the South to know just how the House had voted on
the proposition of Mr. STANTON, OF Kentucky and on the
vote about 10 be taken. de wanted 10 have no sugar
plums offered the South, but desired angble practical
votes-yoles asserting principles not to be refused 10
be applied when an opportunity, occurs The Union
made by Congress between slave and other property.
Mr.. M Withdrawing the amendment.
Mr.. SCHENCK renewed it, and remarked that he would
like to have vote proposition declaring that there
could be objection to the admission OF California on
account OF her exclusion OF slavery. Here Mr. g. went
On 70 show that her exclusion q slavery induced the
the House but 10 get an opinion on the subject oil
the admission OF future slave States while, at the same
time the South were opposing the admission o. Csos ma
almost the first Che understood 10 remark) that
had sought TO come in with exclusion Of slavery in her
constitution Thus they were opposing the principle IN
volved in their own proposition
| Mr.. s. Withdrawing the amendment,
Mr.. seldom renewed it, and said that he glad TO
perceive that few OF the northern representatives. were
willing forward and declare that the existence OF
slavery should not be bar to the admission OF State
This, he held involved an obligation permit the State,
to the formation OF her constitution to be free
to receive slavery il she will There many obec-
tons in his mind TO the admission OF California Among
these the fact that Congress had indirectly forced II
on her to exclude saverythe declaration in her consti
ton against slavery having been practically forced her,
as Mr.. s. went on to show. Ii was wrongng the South
to say that California had been left free to choose for
herself. after having forced choice upon her. The
South had not been permitted to take their institutions
into California. California should be remanded into
Territory. with solemn declaration that the South
might be free to 60 there while she remained Territory
| (Mr. g. was understood 10 say
MT. ). Withdrawing the amendment,
Mr.. TOOMBS renewed it, and said the gentleman
from Ohio had just charged that the opposition to
was founded upon the anti-slayery clause in her
constitution. and therefore in the denial OF this right
OF people, forming State constitution, 10 admit
exclude slavery Mr. T. denied the fact and demanded
proof On the contrary he asserted that the SOUTH had
uniformly held and maintained this right that in $780,
on the Missouri question: the North denied il, but the
South unanimously affirmed it, From that day to this the
South through all her authorized opponents OF her opin
ions has affirmed this doctrine Her Legislatures, her
governors OF States, her members upon this floor, and
even her primary assemblies, have ali affirmed il and the
gentleman from Ohio cannot point 10 single particle OF
evidence TO support his unfounded charge The South
proudly point 10 her whole political history for its
refuiaon. But how stands the case with the North
She denied the truth OF this great prcipe OF constitutional
right In s20 acquesced in the compromise then made as
long 10 her interest and then repudlated the
compromise and reassered her right 70 dictate constu-
lions 10 Territories seeking admission into the UniQn.
last session OF Congress- when the present Secretary OF
the Navy introduced bill to authorize California to form
State government and into the Union leaving her
free 10 act she pleased upon the question oil slavery,
the North put the anti slavery proviso upon this State
bill. know OF no northern Yhig who voted against
that proviso few gentlemenAof the democratic party
from the northwest [my friend from Illinois among them,
Mr.. RIcHARDsoSl boldly and honestly struck Tor the
right, and opposed it but they were poweress against
complete; the North repudiated this principle-and
while, for sinister and temporary purposes they may pre-
tend TO favor the Presidents plan, which affms II,
they will not sustain it, They will not find right place
to affirm II until they get California into the Union, and
then they will throw of the mask and trample Il under
foot intend TO drag Of the mask before the consum-
nation OF that act We do not oppose California on ac-
count Of the anti slavery clause in her constitution II was
her right and not even prepared TO say thai she act
ed unWiscIy exercse-fhaf IL her business. but