The national era. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1847-1860, 1850-02-14
TUESDAY, FKBRuARY 4, 1850.


TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 4, 1850.
The first resolution, Mr.. President 0s you are
aware, relates to California, and it declares that
California, with suitable limits ought to be ad.
mitted as member of this Union, without the
imposition Of any restriction either to interdict
or TO introduce slavery within her limits. Well,
now, is there any concession in this resolution by
either party to the other? | know that gentle
men who come from slaveholding States say the
North gets all that it desires but by whom does
il get it? Does it get il by any action of Con-
gress If slavery be interdicted within the linn
its of California, has il been done by Congress
by this Government No, sir. That interdic-
ton is imposed by California herself And has
il not been the doctrine of all parties that when
State is about to be admitted into the Union,
the State aas right to decide FOR itseifwhether
it will or-wll not have slavery within its limits {?
The great 7riaciple, Sir, which pyss in contest
upon the memorable occasion OF the introduction
of Missouri into the Union was, whether it was
competent or not competent for Congress to i'm
pose any restriction which should exist after she
became member of the Union We who were
in favor of the admission Of Missouri contended
that no such restriction should be imposed. We
contended that, whenever she was once admitted
into the Union, she had all the rights and privi-
leges of any presxisting State in the Union (;
and that among these rights and privileges one
was to decide for herself whether slavery should
or should not exist within her limits that she
had as much right to decide upon the introduce
ton of slavery or its abolition, as New York had
right 70 decide on the introduction or abolition
of slavery and that, although subsequently ad-
mitted, she stood amongst her peers equally in
vested with all the privileges that any one Of the
original thirteen States had right to enjoy.
And so, sir, think that those who have been
contending with so much earnestness and perse-
verance for the Wilmot Provso, ought to reflect
that even ifthey could carry their object and adopt
the Provso, it ceases the moment any State or
Territory to which it was applicable came to be
admitted as member of the Union Why, sir,
no one contends now, no one believes that with
regard to those Northwestern States to which the
Ordinance of 1887 applied-Oh Indiana ILL.,
nois and Michigan--no one can now believe but
hat any one Of those States, IL they thought
proper to do it, have just as much right to intro
duce slavery within their borders as Virginia has
to maintain the existence of slavery within hers
Then, sir, IL in the struggle for power aud en-
pire between the two classes of States decision
in California has taken place adverse to the wishes
of the Southern States, it is decision not made
by the General Government.
MIR President, the next resolution in the series
which have offered beg gentlemen candidly
now to look at. was aware, perfectly aware, of
the perseverance with which the Wilmot Proviso
was insisted upon. know that every one of the
free States in this Union, without exception, had
by its legislative body passed resolutions instruct
ing their Senator's and requesting their Repre-
sentatives TO get that restriction incorporated in
any Territorial Government which might he es-
tablished under the auspices of Congress. knew
how much, and | regretted how much, the free
States had put their hearts upon the adoption of
this measure. In the second resolution ! call
upon them to waive perssting in it. | ask them
for the sake Of peace and in the spirit of mutual
forbearance to other members Of the Union, TO
give it up-to no longer insist upon ito see, as
they must see, if their eyes are open, the dangers
which lie ahead, If they persevere in insisting
upon it. When called upon them in this reso-
luton to do this was | not bound TO offer, for
surrender of that favorite principle or measure
of theirs some compensation, not as an equivalent
by any means, but some compensation in the spirit
of mutual forbearance, which, animatng one side,
ought at the same time to actuate the other side
w ell sir, what is it that is offered them7 II is
a declaration Of what characterized, and must
still characterize with great Difference to all
those who entertain opposite opinions, as two
truths, | viii not say incontestable, but to me
clear, and think they ought to be regarded as
indisputable truths What are they? The first
is, that by law slavery no longer exists in any
part of the acquisitions made by us from the Re-
public of Mexico; and the other is, THAI in our
opinion according to the probabilities of the case,
slavery never will be introduced into any portion
Of the Territories so acquired from Mexico. Now,
have heard it said that this declaration of what
call these two truths is equivalent to the enact
ment of the Wilmot Proviso. | have heard this
asserted but is that the case II the Wilmot
Proviso be adopted in Territorial Governments
established over these countries acquired from
Mexico, it would be a positive enactment, pro-
hibition an Introduction as to the introduction Of
slavery within them but, with regard to these
opinions, had hoped, and shall still indulge
the hope that those who represent the free States
will be inclined not to insist-ndeed il would be
extremely difficult TO give to these declarations
the form Of positive enactment. had hoped that
they would he satisfied with the simple express
sion of the opinion Of Congress, leaving it upon
the basis Of that opinion, without asking for what
seems to me almost impracticsble, IL not imposs-
ble-for any subsequent enactment 10 he intro
duced into the bill by which Territorial Govern
ments should he established. And | can only
say that the second resolution, even without the
declaration of these two truths expressed, would
be much more acceptable to me than with them
but could not forget that was proposing
scheme Of arrangement and compromise, and
could not therefore, depart from the duty which
the preparation Of such a scheme seems TO me
to impose, of offering, whilst we ask the sur
render on one side Of favorite measure, OF offer
ing TO the other side some compensation for that
surrender or sacrifice. What are the truths, Mr..
PRESIDENT The first is that by law slavery does
not exist within the Territories ceded to us by
the Republic Of Mexico IL is a misfortune, sir,
in the various weighty and important topics which
are connected with the subject that am now ad-
dressing you upon, that any one Of the five or six
furnishes theme for a heightened speech, and
am therefore reduced to the necessity, think at
least in this stage Of the discussion, of limiting
myself rather to the expression Of opinions than
going at any great length into the discussion Of
all these various topics.
Now. with respect to the opinion here express
ed. that slavery does not exist in the Territories
ceded to the United States by Mexico, can only
refer to the fact Of the passage of the law by the
Supreme Government Of Mexico abolshing 1t,
think in 1924, and TO the subsequent passage OF
law by the legislative body Of Mexico forget
in what year, by which they proposed--what It
is true they never carried into full ehect-com-
pensaiion to the owners Of slaves for the property
Of which they were stripped by the act OF aboli-
ton can only refer 10 the acquiescence OF
Mexico in the abolition Of slavery from the time
of its extinction down TO the time OF the treaty
by which we acquired these countries. But all
Mexico. 80 far as know, acquiesced in the non
existence Of slavery. Gentlemen, ! know, talk
about the irregulsrity Of the law by which that
act was accomplished but does 1t become us, 8
foreign Power, to look into the mode by which an
object has been accomplished by another foreign
pnws. shan sha harueif Ia satisfied with what