Southern standard. [volume] (Columbus, Miss.) 1851-1856, 1851-10-04

very senators also opposed this compromise
scheme, concealing the fact that other anti slavery
senators supported IT. 1t the Judgment of those
who make such misrepresentation had not been
blinded by malice, they must have perceived that
tins was to arraign the people and legislature of
MIsSlsslpp whose expressed will and instructions
obeyed. 1t is an instructive fact in the case,
that when these combined propositions failed, and
they again came up for consideration as separate
measures, the opposition which had originally ar
rayed itself against them could never again be
united The Southern strength was lost by dvis-
lon until, in the last struggle, the South offered
but feeble resistance to measures which it had at
first, with great unanimity, most firmly and stern
! ly opposed. My own course not confined to
mere opposition. | strove to amend the so-caed
compromise bill, by giving that security to the
property of the Shareholder, who might migrate
to the territories to which felt his property like
all other, was entitled. | asked that the legisla-
ture of the territory should have power to pass
laws for the protection of every kind of property
which might have been, or should be- conform
ably to the Constitution and laws of the United
States held in, introduced into said territory
Upon this general and equitable proposition South
ern Senators were divided, and on July, 23d,
1885, my colleague offered an amendment, 'That
the said State of California shall never hereafter
claim within her boundaries, nor attempt to eX-
ercise jurisdiction over, any portion of the terri
tory at present claimed by her, except that which
is embraced within the following boundaries -
the southern boundary proposed was the parallel
of 35 degrees 80 minutes; "and that a new terri
tory should be established to consist of the coun-
try thus cut off, TO which | offered the follow
ing amendment: land that all laws and usages ex-
iStng in said territory at the date of its acqusi-
ton by the United States, which deny or obstruct
the right of any citizen of the United States to
remove to, and reside in said territory, with any
species of property legally held in any of the
States of this Union, be- and are hereby declared
to be, null and void Mr.. Clay opposed this a
mendment, on the ground of non-interyention, y
and asked for the difference the direct action OF
Congressional legislation upon the subject of sla-
very, to introduce it, to prohibit, and the exer
else of this power by Congress to repeal existing
laws within the territory, which existing laws have
declared the abolition of slavery ?'' 1t was "a
ganst the doctrine that the Mexican law excluded
slave property from the territory, which held,
believe, unanimously by the Northern Senators,
and entertained by some from the South, that my
amendment was introduced. / did not doubt our
constitutional right take slaves into the territory
but [ claimed for my constituents that that right
should be recognized and protected; that this for
egn obstruction to the enjoyment OF their constl-
tutional rights by citizens of the United States,
should be removed; that it was the duty of Con
gress to relieve the citizen Of the necessity of es
tablishing his constitutional right, by an appeal to
the courts | denied that it followed, because we
called upon the Congress of the United States to
protect our property, that we therefore acknowl-
edged the right to deprive US of that property;
the first being duty, the second expressly forbid
den by the Constitution. Ny colleague opposed
this amendment, useless, and because he appre-
hended ''that the adoption of the amendment
would put the bill itself in danger of defeat" ar
guing that the Constitution fully secured our
rights; though, on July 25th, 1848, when the
circumstances were far more favorable than now
he held different opinion-(see CONFESSIONS
Globe, 1st Session, 30th Congress, page 998 y
He contende-l that slavery could not exist with
out legislative protection. If should take
a hundred slaves into one of these foreign terrific
ries, and they should be disposed to rebel against
him, what law is there to which he can appeal
And suppose man comes to steal his slaves tC
carry them to the Pacific, and the owner threat
ems to appeal 20 the law he will be answered
you can do nOthing-there is no law in the case
There are many in his section Of the country dis
posed to emigrate to California; but there was no
one who would be such a dolt as to carry Slave
there because he could not hold him, in conse
quence of the hands of the ocal authorities being
tied up, SO that they could not interfere on thu
subject of slavery" The amendment was defeat
ed-yeas 20, nays 33-not one Northern Senate
voting fort. My colleague voting against it.
| stroFe in every form to reduce the limits o
California; but the eagerness Of the ant-slavery
majortyto bring in another non slaveholding State
and at once to exclude the South from that ricl
territory, rendered all such efforts navang-
Arguments based upon the faith implied in tn
Missouri Compromise, reasons founded on physi
cal geography, UNDECIDED by the majority, il
their lust for sectional dominion.
Though the Southern Convention, which as
sembled at Nashville in June, 1850, of which on
feilow-citizen, w L. Sharkey, was President
had declared, an extreme concession, that the
were willing to divide The territory by the line G
$3.50, extending to the Pacific ocean, treating
| as question of property, to be divided betweei
both be adequately secured in their respectiv
: shares-yet those Senators who have been called
in reproach Southern Ultras of whom [ am one
voted for every proposition by any line of diyis
ion, to curtail the boundaries of California, an
sustain it in many forms, as to render it evi
dent that no division could be effected. This wa
: acknowledged by my colleague, who, speaking
: August 9Th Il $50, of the direct exercise of tn
power of this Government in restricting the bour
diaries of California, said he considered it 81
very vain and useless thing to offer any such prop
> osition. 1t has been voted down repeatedly
= Such direct proposition being hopeless of sue
cess, should we not try and attain the object
:. view by the only means in our power?' Th
mode he proposed was to submit to California, a
ter she had been admitted as State, whether sh
would consent to divide her territory which, SUI
: pose, few Of my constituents will consider woul