The national era. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1847-1860, 1856-01-17

oS1uSe 1 tnought them Just TO all,
ents upon that ground. / intended then. and I
intend now, that the people who 90 there, or
VINO have gone there, shall decide the question
OF slavery tor themselves and, so far as / could,
70 ADMIT them as States, with or without Sla-
very, as the people should decide. In common
with Northern and Southern gentlemen, have
SAID that, IN my opinion, Slavery would never
go there but have never. here or elsewhere,
urged that as a reason why voted for that bill.
voted Tor the bill because it was Just, right,
| ana proper, and wanted nothing more to defend
myseH. repeat here an argument / have
made over and over again before my constitu-
ents, and 1t Is this: if a majority of the people
of Kansas or Nebraska are in favor of Slavery,
they will have it; if a majority are opposed to
IT, then they will not have it. This is the prac-
ncai result OF every theory advocated by the
| irienos OF the Nebraska and Kansas bill. /
gave my sanction to this principle in supporting
the Territorial bills of 1850, and have uniformly
supported the same principles since, whenever
presented for my action, and shall continue to
DO so In all future cases that may arise. 1t is
principle lying at the foundation of all popu-
Lar Governments, that the people of each sepa-
rate or distinct community shall decide for
themselves the nature and character of the in.
situations under which they shall live; and by
this principle am prepared to live and die.
therefore voted for the Nebraska and Kansas
bill neither as Pro-Slavery nor Anti-Slavery
measure, but as measure of equal right and
justice to the people of all sections of our COM
mon country. Will the Clerk now read the
next question?
| "Am l right in supposing that he advocates
the constitutionality of the Wilmot Proviso
that In 1850 he opposed its application to the
territory acquired from Mexico, only upon the
ground that it was unnecessary, inasmuch as
the Mexican local laws in those Territories
already abolished Slavery, which ought to be
sufficient for all Free-Soil men? and that he
committed himself to the position, that if Terri
torial bills silent upon the subject Of Slavery
land leaving the Mexican laws to operate)
were defeated, he would vote for bills with the
Wimot Proviso in them?"-
Mr.. Richardson. This question requires a
more extended reply. In 1903, we acquired
Louisiana; it was slave territory. In 1920,
we divided, by line of $50 3O>, that territory
north of the line it was to be free. In 1916,
we annexed Texas; that was slave territory {;
we divided that by extending the line of $50 3O>
| through that; north to be free. In l848, we
acquired territory from Mexico; that was free.
l voted repeatedly to extend the same line west
to the Pacific ocean. l voted for that line with
few Representatives from the North, and the
whole body of Southern Representatives. When
L gave those votes did not believe then, nor
do l believe now, that violated the Constitu-
ton of the United States. If you have power
under the Constitution to exclude Slavery from
half of Territory, think you have power to
exclude from all, though such an exercise would
be unjust and wrong. l have never, therefore,
voted to exercise that power, except upon the
principle of compromise. In this connection,
desire to read from a speech of mine delivered
in this hall April 3, 1850, and make word or
| two OF comment upon it:
There is, regret to say, "a willingness upon
the part of the Democrats of the North to see
| this Proviso passed, that General Taylor may
| be compelled to show to the world and the
rest of mankind who was cheated in the last
Presidential election-whetheri it was his friends
North or South. They know that a fraud was
practiced upon the one or the other. They
know that in the South General Taylor was
represented as all that any one in favor of Sla-
very extension could desire; that he was bound
to Southern institutions by two hundred bonds.
AT the North, it was said that he was for con-
fning Slavery to its present limits. One or
the other was cheated. But submit to my
Northern friends, if the peace and harmony of
twenty millions of people, and the perpetuity
OF our free institutions, are not of more import
ance than the exposure of this bad faith upon
the part of an Administration that, if let alone,
will fall by its own weight? The public voice
everywhere indicates its certain and inevitable
overthrow.
In times past, our policy, sooner or later,
has prevailed; and we should stand firm, how
ever dark the hour, encouraged by former sue
cess We should not be driven from our posi-
tons because our opponents have to come to
them for safety. l might ask them if they are
to be driven from their firm and stern opposi-
ton to United States Bank, because those
who once thought that certain ruin would lay
waste the land unless such an institution was
incorporated, have changed their opinions, and
stand with us in opposition2 Are they willing
to be driven in opposition to the independent
treasury, because those who once opposed, now
support it Are you to be driven from all the
past, now triumphantly indicated, because op-
position has ceased? We should stand firm in
the support of right, truth, the Constitution of
our country, no matter who shall come to their
support or DESERT stand by them to the last,
and if they fall, let us perish with them. We
should never survive the existence of this Gov
| eminent.
"There is one thing that wish, in this con-
nection, Mr.. Chairman to say to the gentlemen
from the South and the Northern Wings: If
the bill for Territorial Governments, silent upon
the subject of Slavery, shall be defeated, then
l am for bills with the Wilmot Proviso, in or
der to give Governments to the people in the
Territories and l speak for four of my col
leagues, assured that they will feel constrained
to pursue a like course. And if General Tay-
lor shall approve the Proviso, then it will have
passed. and it is for them to determine what
shall or shall not be done, and let the respon-
sibility rest with them"
/ take this occasion to say that the sentiment
last quoted, uttered in moment of excite
ment, !, upon reflection, repudiate, as uni ust
and improper. / thank the gentleman that he
has afforded me the opportunity to give this
public expression of nay disapproval of that
statement. l uniformly voted against placing
the Wilmot Proviso in any Territorial bill.
voted against it, because l believed it to be un-
lust to the People of a portion of this Union.
The Clerk then read the second and third in
terrogatories, as follows:
Sam ! right in supposing that his theory
is, that the Constitution of the United States
does not carry Slavery to and protect it in the
Territories of the United States that in the
territory acquired from Mexico and France
Including Kansas and Nebraska) the Missouri
restriction was necessary to make the territory
free, because Slavery existed there under
France at the time of the acquisition, but that
the Kansas and Nebraska bill, which repeats
that restriction, but neither legislates Slavery
into those Territories nor excludes it therefrom,
in his opinion, leaves those Territories without
either local or constitutional law protecting
Slavery; and that, therefore, the Kansas-Ne-
braska bill promotes the formation of free
States in Kansas and Nebraska"
Mr.. Richardson. The Constitution does not,
in my opinion, carry the institutions of any of
the States into the Territories; but it affords
the same protection there to the institutions of