Nashville daily patriot. [volume] (Nashville, Tenn.) 1855-1857, 1856-01-31

States which are yet to be formed out OF the Terri
tories of the United States in the character OF heI
domestic institutions forever feel that attheors
is more dangerous to the South than the open warfare
of the Abotiorists.
Mr.. Stephens. Then / wish the gentleman from
Tennessee TO state what theory he means? Does he
know any southern man, in the beinging, in thS
middle, or down to TIE present, or at any time il
the progress Of this controversy, who ever enter
tanned such theory as he speaks OF? And does be
know Of any southern man who ever voted for
division OF the public domain, except as aterna
tive? Did the offer to divide even originate witt
uthern men? Has il ever been defended by
southern men, except as an alternative?
Mr. Zollicoffer. If the gentleman from Georgis
will allow me- will read an extract from his speech
in 1850, on the subject?
Mr. Stephens. Now, SIR, you NAV read it.
Mr.. Zollicoffer On the 18th of June, 1880, the
honorable gentleman from Georgia is reported, in
the Globe, as saying:
al have from tie begiRi,ag been, as the gentleman
from Mississippi SAYS he is, in favor of the ezten
sion of the Missouri compromise line, some other
fair and just division Of The Territory. But want
division which will not give as ample protection
and security TO the South in the enjoyment of her
portion, as il does 20 the North. heextension OF
the Missouri compro % Use, without the recognition
of slavery south Of that lie and al necessary
protection, would in my opinion, be perfect mock
cry Of right, just much 50 as the doctrine Of non
interUention This was my position Two years ago
upon this looor aud upon which then declared
should stand or fall | hold that, upon the acqui-
sition OF these Territories their government de-
0olgedupon Congress, and that it wa the duty Of
Congress to pass all necessary laws for the fair and
equal enjoyment Of them by all people OF the Uni
ted States, or such of them might 90 there with
their property OF every description.
"As difference of opinion exists between the
North and South upon the subject OF slavery,
thought, and still think, for the purpose OF such
just and equal enjoyment dioision OF the Terrific
ry would be best That Congress had yoaCer 10 pass
all such Ia,oS ,,eUer dou6ted-indeed | was amazed
at the position OF those who claimed the constitu-
tlona tight to carry and hold slaves there, and yet
denied to Congress the polCer TO pass laws for the
protection of these rights Tile doctrine Of non
Intervention denied that pocer."
Mr.. Stephens. Yes, sir; and l endorse every
word Of that now.
Here the hammer fell
Mr. Stephens. ask the indulgence of the House
to permit me to conclude my remarks.
The Clerk. There being no objection the gen.
tleman is at liberty to proceed
Mr Reade VIII the gentleman from Georgia
allow me to ask him single question, so that
may be sure that / understand him correctly?
Ar. Stephens. Certainly
Mr.. Reade l want to ascertain whether | I'M
derstOod the gentleman from Georgia, in the ex
trdc, just read by the gentleman from Tennessee,
to have spoken Of the principle Of non interven-
ton as a mockery? | want to understand that
extract correc ly. Did the gentleman from Geor.
ga speak of the principle of non~interventiOn as
mockery?
Mr. ZocOffer. That is what understand bis
language to amount to.
A., lon at O
time, Mr. Clerk. What wish the House right here
to understand clearly is this: "Non-iutervention,
as the word was used at that time by me,
term altogether different in its meaning, and i'm
port ard practical effect from the same word as it
has more recently been used on this floor and
elsewhere. At the time Of the acquisition OF Mexi-
can territory, there were local laws-a as | under
stood them-prOhibting slavery. held it to be
the duty of Congress then to annul those laws,
and to open up all the Territory the free and
restricted colonization of the people Of all the
States Of the Union There was then already
intervention" against US Non intervention over
that Territory at that time would have been ex
cusion particularly in connection with the idea that
the people there should never be permitted TO
change the existing status as | showed in that
speech from which the gentleman has read an ex-
tract, or some other or at least thought showed.
This was my opinion upon a question, however,
on which southern men differed. But it is proper
for the gentleman from North Carolina Mr.. Reade |
and the House to understand the import with which
the term mon Intervention" used by in
that speech. IL that mon Intervention" which
in my Judgment, would have absolutely excluded
a portion of the people OF the Union from a just
and fair participation in the use OF common terri
tory, aud | wished all to be equal participators
therein.
Now sir in that speech from which the gentle
man has read, | vas speaking of settlement of
this cOutroverted question the principle OF di
vision as the people Of the North could not in jus.
tice be permitted TO take the whole territory-ev
ery foot OF it North, South, East and West, which
they were claiming, aud seemed determined 10
have. My theory was, and the southern theory
was, as l understood il, original question, to
leave the whole territory free to colonization by all
alike, aud without restriction anywhere. But, sir,
when we were forced TO the wall whenwe were out.
voted by a large majority from the North, when
We had 10 hopes OF getting that theory of ours re
allied, then we were willing, | sad lii coDSe-
qte,,ce Of THIS sectional Disagreement diterna-
tire to have the territory divided with the same
guarantee against the previous Intervention against
one side OF the line to the people of the
South as there was on the other side to the peo-
pie OF the North
The House will indulge me also in another idea
In the speech to which the gentlemen from Ten.
nessee has alluded he quotes "a having expressed
astonishment as TO the power OF Congress TO do
what thought ought TO be- done; hat is, 20 insti-
tute Governments Tor the Territories and 10 effect
what | desired. Now Oh this subject, in both as
poets of il, there WAS a division Of sentiment as
well North as South ! held that Congress had
power to govern 20 provide governments, and TO
pass such laws were necessary to give security
TO aaUe property, which some holding the doctrine
Of "uon1nterventon, a. then used aud uuder-
Stood denied | was amazed at some gentlemen
who held that by virtue of the Constitution alone
we could hold slaves IL the Territories and yet de-
MED the power TO protect them. held that il is
the duty Of Congress to protect slave property as
well as other property in the common territory Of
the United States, just il might protect any 9th
CT kind of property. That is what / held 10 be
the power and duty Of Congress. l did not hold
that it had the unqualified power to prohibit Now
/ ask the gentleman again, does he know any man
in the southern country who advocates, or even
defends the unlimited constitutional power of Con-
gross 10 prohibit slavery in the rerritoresy
Mr.. Zollcoffer. ! woul ask the gentleman from
Georgia whether in 1913 he dii not, on this door,
take the position, Nith reference 20 the territory
acquired from Mexico that there were but two
alternatives with him. | ask him IT he did not
state, that unless the Federal Government extended
the Missouri compromise line, TO the Pacific ocean
that slavery shoud exist forever on one aide Of
the iine and should not exist on the other his on
" alternative 10 return the territory 60 Mexi-
COY ask him II he did not demand that Congress
should not mei,ly protect slavery IN the territory
on one side Of II geographical ne but should pro
hlbit il on the otheig ] ask him Il he did not de
udpd that, and dsmaud IL as the only alternative