The national era. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1847-1860, 1850-02-14

opinion, that IT is NOT LIKELY that slavery will
be introduced into any part of the conquered ter
ritory. What is only improbable is at least pos
sibis and hence this legislative opinion would, in
fact, be solemn and official declaration, that
there is no legal prohibition to the introduction
of slavery. II not pretended that this opinion
which Congress is to volunteer, is to have any
legal force whatsoever. But what, il time shall
prove the opinion to have been erroneous, will it
be any consolation to the North for having by
their act blighted immense regions with human
bondage, that they had been fooled by an opinion ?
Mr.. Downs, of Louisiana, in reply to Mr. Clay,
asserted that there were already in the territories
some four or five hundred slaves !" and another
member declared that there would now have been
plenty of slaves there had not their masters been
apprehensive of the Proviso. II Mr. Clayis cor
rect in his opinion, the shareholders have been
strangely mistaken. 1t was openly avowed dur
ing the war, that the territory to be conquered
south OF $3.50 would be slave region. Before
our army entered the city Of Mexico, we were
offered all Texas proper, and the whole of New
Mexico and California north OF thirty-seven de-
grees; an extent of territory equal to nine States
OF the size of New-York The offer was rejected,
and thousands were slaughtered to obtain terri
tory south Of $3.50, to be peopled with slaves.
From the first mention of the Proviso, our North
ern editors and politicians in the slave interest
opposed it as unnecessary. because, as they as
sured us, the soil and climate of these territories
were unsuitable to slave labor. The Shareholders
knew better, and never Endorsed the falsehood of
their allies. Mr. Waddy Thompson, of South
Carolina, Minister to Mexico, announced to his
brethren, writing of California, "Sugar, rice and
cotton find there their own congenial cline. y
Rscolleetions Of Merieo, p. 234.
Did the South make war upon Mexico only to
acquire free territory Is she now threatening
disunion and civil war for privilege she ais not
likely" TO exercise?
Upon what does Mr.. Clay rest his strange, un-
natulai opinion Almost exclusively on the ex-
clusion of slavery from the California constitu-
ton. He does not pretend that this exclusion
was owing 10 the unftness of the soil and climate
for slave labor. We all know that the unex-
pected discovery of gold suddenly collected in
California large Northern population, naturally
averse to slavery, and jealous of the competition
of slave labor in digging gold. But does gold
exist in Deseret or New-Mexico or is there a
large Northern population in California, south Of
$500? Is it logical to infer that slavery is moi
likely to be introduced into these territories, ever
with the sanction of Congress, because undel
totally different circumstances it has been exclu
ded from California? New-Mexico is separated
by an imaginary line from Texas and about hal
of it is claimed by that slave State. Is it likely
that Texan shareholders will not cross the lin,
with their property, or occupy territory they
claim as their own?
The settlers in Deseret have formed Consti
tuition virtually allowing slavery, by not prohib
ting it, The gold dggers in California are con-
centrated far north of $3.50; the city of Sar
Francisco is also north of that line, while soutt
of it is large area, where there is little to OBJ
struct the introduction of slavery. Under these
circumstances, there are probably very few mel
in Congress who would dare, on their oaths Il
affirm the opinion expressed by Mr.. Clay. Tha
opinion is at best calculation OF chances cal
culation on which no man would hazard q
| thousand dollars yet this miserable calculation
is offered 10 the North as compensation for the
surrender of all the political aud moral blessings
which the Proviso would SECURE.
Mr.. Clay utterly demolishes Gen. Cass's argu'
ment against the constitutionality of the Proviso,
and afirms most positively the right of Congress
to prohibit slavery in the territories. But how
stands the question of duty and moral consistency
between these two gentlemen Undeniably in
favor of the General. He has not, indeed, under
taken to solve the nice and difficult question
whether human bondage is curse or blessing.
He is sensibly alive to the atrocity OF foggng
two or three Hungarian women, but makes no
comment on laws which subject thousands and
tens of thousands of American women TO the lash.
He calls upon the nation TO express It's indigna-
ton at the execution of few Hungarian insur-
gents taken with arms in their hands, but gives
no opinion how far it would be right or wrong to
shoot certain of his own countrymen, if taken in
revolt against worse than Austrian oppression.
But he contends that whatever may be the moral
character of slavery, Congress has no constitu-
tional right to prohibit it and therefore ought not
to prohibit it, On the other hand, Mr.. Clay
frankly declares that slavery is wrong, ga griev
GUS wrong" that to propagate slavery is to pro-
pagate WRONG He afirms the constitutional
power of Congress to prohibit this propagation of
wrong, and then calls upon Congress TO permit
shareholders TO propagate this wrong when and
where they please over the whole wide extent Of
our conquered territory, with the single exception
of what may be included within the State of Cali
fornia. Before God and man, Gen. Casss con-
clusion from his premises is justified, while the
conclusion drawn by Mr.. Clay from his premises
is condemned as hostile to morality and humanity.
8. This resolution merely gives to Texas more
territory than she is entitled to, and less than
she demands, and is so far compromise Of ter
rtorial claims but in no degree compromise
between the friends and enemies Of human rights,