The daily union. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1845-1857, 1851-12-19

with exceptions say that the honorable senator from
South Carolina INT BUTLsnl proposed this question
ifoa by the line OF SO deg 30 min he would vote Tor
il, and he said that he would
Mr. FOoTE, of Mississippi | am reported in the Re
public 10 have used precisely the language which the
gentleman has attributed 10 me but very particu-
lar in expressing myself TO somewhat different effect 70
that just now stated said most expressly, that would
vote upon such proposition, coming from the State oil
California, precisely as would upon similar PROPOSE
ton coming from any other OF the sovereign States oil
the confederaey said that did not conceive The Com
promise TO be above the constitution; and that as Tue
constitution allowed new States TO be formed out oil OLD
States, with the consent of those States, such pfopo
sition were submitted. with the consent OF California
and should deem polite and right TO allow such d.
vision take place why, would deem 1t night, under
present circumslances-especally knowing as DO the
ensto vote for the proposition. not with the intention
OF mpairing the Compromise, or calling INTO question
the principle upon which the Compromise is based or IN
the least degree interfering with the Compromise as
Compromise. Every principle OF il would still stand
firm. All that we would do would be TO establish
State, IN the manner and form allowed by the con
stituon If the honorable senator, or anybody else
considers the Compromise above the constitution, and
therefore lberang honorable senators from the obl-
CATION which is imposed upon them py their oaln 70
men did not say here or elsewhere, mat snail at
tempt TO obtain modification OF the Compromise, SO as
to allow new States to be formed within the limits OF
California but said distinctly that would treat this
proposition, coming from the State OF California, pre-
csely as would treat proposition OF similar KIND
from any other State and that doing SO should not
consider myself interfering in the least degree with the
them, in the language of the President of the United
States, in principle and substance, hna and definite
settlement Of the question.
Mr. HALE Well | am unfortunate in not seeing
that the honorable senator has made any difference in his
last statement from what stated ii be. He says that
he would have the thing remain as compromise, and
| he would not vote against the Compromise. But he
would vote understand him now, for the separate
measure if California should apply for the division OF her
ohs as %s we St SSe ca vote LOT
Mr.. FOOTE, OF Mississippi. II must be obvious TO
the gentleman that should have considered the admis
sion Of California part OF the plan OF comprehensive
as valid if the line Of SO deg 80 min sc deg 80 min
had been made the southern boundary instead OF the
present line. Will any man OF sense-wil the senator
himself-undcake TO point out 10 this Senate how the
Compromise better or worse as Compromise IN con-
sequence of particular line being the southern bounda
ry of California Would it not be precisely compro-
mise and settlement OF the question OF slavery, whether
the southern boundary of California were one line or
anothers If the people Of California, as sovereign
State of the Union should think proper apply for
subdivision of their territory in such manner to estab
lsh States therein hereafter and they should come
into the Union upon the terms upon which Califor-
came in will any undertake 10 point out in what
respect the Compromise, Compromise in principle or
in substance, would be in the least degree impaired
am not now engaged in chop-logic contest. nor 40
wish TO amuse the audience by lightly discussing these
great points; but what | have said will serve. in other
minds if moi in the mind OF the senator from New Hamp-
SHIRE think pretty solid distinction, and one based
upon principles exceedingly valuable to thost u.s. al
least. who seek the futHre repose OF the country
Mr.; HALE My object is simply 10 get light And
wish to put in query 10 the senator from Misss-
sippi, Mr. FoorE,l before he begins his argumen,to
show the reason why | want light, and TO draw his at
tention 10 the point upon which want 10 have light
understand him nowafter stripping his remarks OF all
the eloquent adectives with which he has dressed out
his propositions. and which the gentleman knows how
TO use as well as any man in this Senaieaiier these re-
peated declarations and explanations, understand him
to back TO precisely the that he gave
to the honorable senator from South Carolina [Mr But
j and that s, that il the sovereign State Of California,
her sovereign character here TO this representa-
tive conclave of soveeignes, and asks for division OF
her territory, she shall not lack his vote for it, am not
| sovereignty man. | do not know that | always
these adjecves in the right way, but do not represent
sovereign State here. The State OF New Hampshire has
right to make war or peace she has no right to coin
money and there many other attributes OF sove
reignty that she does not possess
Mr. BADGER, lin his seat) Nor send receive
ambassadors.
Mr. HALE Yes sir as my friend from North Caro-
lima MIR. BADGERl says-nor send nor receive ambas
sadors and suppose from that remark that North Caro-
lima is IN the same position.
Mr. BADGER | did moi say that was merely help
ing you out with your list.
Mr. HALE Well sir, the honorable senator from
Mississippi Mr. FooTE says that when California shall
come here sovereign State, and asks for division
of her territory, she shall not lack his vote Tor that prop
osition. Now, am not discussing whether that would
be proper improper, or how far would be consistent
with the views oil gentlemen who have or who have
not supported this Compromise.
simply wish to ask northern gentlemen and senators
what they got by this Compromise Now, a Compro-
mise understand TO be something in which there IS CIV
ing and taking each way. The honorable senator from
Mississippi Mr. FooTEl says, and ! think with great
truth, that the South ought TO be satisfied with this Com
promise for by they bad got everything that they had
demanded. Well. sir, believe that. But have been
asked sometimes by OF my unsophstcaed consit.
uenls a, home what did the North get by this Compro
mise And have been compelled TO tell them that II
they did ge, anything bad really escaped my memory
But OF them said that possibly had got some
thing by the admission OF California; for had got that
great State admitted with constitution excluding slavery
But some of my friends said then, did they not do IT
themselves and form their constitution And IS not
that southern doctrine Ii seems 10 me that tina, is
southern doctrine, rather than anything peculiar 10 the
thought began, continued and ended with the admission
OF California with this excluding clause in her consu
lion.
Mr.. FooTE, of Mississippi win the senator allow
me again
Mr.. HALE. am asking questions OF the senator now
and he Will have Tune presently 10 answer them all
However will give way 10 him now.
Mr.. FOOTE, OF Mississippi. | wish 10 correct the
gentleman with regard 10 myself. What ] meant
simply this that in opinion, although OF The South
opposed 10 the admission of California al the lime
when she admitted, preferred that she should
main in territorial condition for reasons satisfactory TO
but not at all based the supposton of many OF u.s.
that her admission would be unconstitutional Although
not particularly that the District OF Co
lumbia bill should be passed through Congress in the
form in which it did pass yet have said tha, pre-
pared 10 maintain IT, The South--the unaggr essive
South the South, That has claimed anything
cept the enjoyment OF her domestic rights the South
that has stood firmly for the great principles oil non.Der
venton and non-aggre the South, that has only
claimed the establishment Of internal government, with
out any instructions on the subject OF slavery-thai