Fayetteville observer. [volume] (Fayetteville, Tenn.) 1850-1966, 1856-08-28

inc was not settled. There was no
provision that slavery should be adj
mitted south Of that line. In point
of fact, it existed there. In all the
territory south Of $50 30s, embraced
in Arkansas and Louisiana, slavery
was then existing. 1t was not neces-
sary, it is true, to insert clause adj
hitting slavery at that time. But, if
there is power to interdict, there is
"a power to admit; and l put it to gen.
tlemen from the South, are they pre-
pared to/be satisfied with the line of
$50 80, interdicting slavery north of
that line, and giving them no securi-
ty for the admission of slavery south
of that line? The Senator from Mis-
sissippi Mr.. Davis told me, the other
day, that he was not prepared to be
satisfied with anything short of the
positive introduction of slavery.
ga SENATOR. Recognition.
"MR. CLAY. A positive recognition
Of slavery south of $50 30'. Is
there anybody who believes that you
can get twenty votes in this body, or
a proportionate number in the other
House, to declare in favor of the rec
ognition of slavery south of $50 30s?
It is impossible. All that you can
get-all that you can expect to get
all that was proposed at the last
SESSIONS action north of that line,
and non-action as regards slavery
south of that line. 1t is Introduction
upon the one side, with no cores
ponding provision for its admission on
the other side of $50 80.
"When | came to consider the sub
lject, and to compare the provisions of
the line $50 30'-the Missouri COM
promise hne-with the plan which /
have proposed for the accommodation
of this question, said to myself, if |
offer the line of $50 30s, to interdict
the question of slavery north of it,
and to leave it unsettled and open
south of it, offer that which is iWu-
sorry to the South-I offer that which
will deceive them, if they suppose that
slavery will be received south Of that
line. 1t is better for them-I said
to myself-it is better for the South,
that there should be non-action as to
slavery both north and south of the
lline-far better that there should be
non-action both sides of the line, than
that there should be action by the
Introduction on the one side, without
action for the admission upon the 9TH
er side of the line. Is it not SO!
What is there gained by the South, i
the Missouri line is extended to the
Pacific, with the Introduction of slavery
north of it? Why, the very argu-
ment which has been most often and
most seriously urged by the South
has been this: we do not want Con.
gress to legislate upon the subject O.
slavery at all; you ought not to touch
it. You have no power over it.
do not concur, as is we'll known from
what have said upon that question
in this view of the subject; but thai
is the southern argument. We do not
want you, say they, to legislate upor
, the subject Of slavery. But if yot
adopt the Missouri line and thus In
terdict slavery north of that line, you
| do legislate upon the subject of slave
J ry. and you legislate for its restriction
; without a corresponding equivalen
, of legislation south of that line for it
t admission; for | insist that if ther'
be legislation interdicting slavery
(, north of the line, then the principle
of equality would require that Their
, should be legislation admitting SLAYER.
south of the line.
D 81 have said that / never could vot'
t for it myself, and Irepeat that1 neve
: can, and never viii vote, and no earth
D ly power will ever make me vote, t
spread slavery over territory where j
: does not exist.