Weekly standard. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 1858-1865, 1860-02-01
al -l.s4 - e = s+-2t = -
SPEECH OF MIR. CLINGMAN, ~
OF EoRTHcARoLlNA, \
Delivered in tie Senate Of the United States,
January 18Th, 1860.
TERRITORIAL POLICY.

TERRITORIAL POLICY.
The Senate proceeded to the consideration OF the
following resolution, which was submitted by Mr.
Pugh on the 18th ultimo:
Resolrea, That the Committee on Territories DO
instructed to inquire into the expediency CT repeal
ing so much of the act approved September Z, 1901
for the organization of territorial governments IN
New Mexico and Utah, as requires that all the laws
passed by the Legislatures o! those Territories shall
be submitted to Congress for approval or rejection
The pending question being on the amendment OF
Mr. Harlan to insert at the end of the resolution the
following:
And said committee is also instructed to inquire
into the propriety of authorizing the people OF each
of said Territories to elect all their territorial OIL
GERS, executive, Legislative, and Judicial.
Mr.. CLINGMAN Mr. President, itismy purpose
to sneak TODAY of the condition of the country, IS
connected with agitation of the slavery question. l
shall do this with perfect fankness and with no re-
serves Except what parliamentary rules and Sena-
toral courtesies impose. BY such course only can
the real nature of the impending evil be ascertain
ed and remedy suggested. Having carefully
studied the subject during the greater part of my
political life and from different points Of view. in
tend to express my opinions seriously, and as fully
AZ the occasion seems to require.
Before speaking directly to the merits of the sub
ject, shall devote few minutes to a preliminary
question 1t has been contended that the Demo-
cratic party is responsible for the anslavery agita
ton of the North. retrospect into the past will
vindicate it most triumphantiy from the charga-
The course Of the old Federal party, in the war of
1872 had brought it into discredt and disgrace with
the American people. Its leaders, with view OF re-
covering the popular favor and through it the con-
troll of the Government seized upon the occasion OF
the application of Missouri for admission into the
Union. and by appealing to the antisavcry feeling
If the northern StatCS crpatpu sectional Dlrtv
powerful enough to prevent. for time, the acmls-
sion Of the State. During the struggle, provision
was adopted that slavery should never exist in the
territory west of Missouri and north of the line of
latitude of 81 deg 80 min. though this arrange
ment dis.astefill to the South and by many re-
garded diShonorablc and unconstitutional, 1t was
acquiesced in for the sake Of peace. AndSwhen, in
1915, Texas was annexed to the Union, by the
Democratic party mainly this Missouri line was ex
tended through it, and slavery, which legally exist
ed in every part of that State, was abolished and
prohibited north of the line.
When, subsequently, territory was acquired IRON
Mexico the Democratic party, with but few excep-
tons, attempted to apply the same principles to it.
and extend the line of SO deg. 80 min. through it.
The proposition again and again brought forward
ed by the distinguished Senator from Illinois Mr..
Douglas and Others and often rejected by the COM
bincd vote If the entire Wing party OF the North, anda
pOIiOtl vi DciHOCIdtS vi lildt SSStoii. -A'eSA
years of fruitless struggle it was abandoned and
the principle of congressional non-nterrention adj
opted by the compromise measures of 1870.
In other words, it then established, in sub
stance and effect that the people Of the Territories
free from all congressional legislation on the subject
OF slavery, should regulate it for themselves subject
only to the limitations of the Constitution Of the
United States, as interpreted by the courts of the
country. This settlement like the proposition for
the extension of the Missouri line, was resisted by
the great body of the northern Wings, who were
for the Wmot proviso and against the extension of
slavery in any mode 1t was also opposed by the
southern friends Of the Missouri line, who prefer
red that system to congressional non-intcrvention,
and who still cherished the hope that it might be
adopted. In the final struggle, they were reduced
to dozen southern Senators and thirty Representa-
tivcS Of whom | was one.
cali the attention of Senators to another strik-
ing fact in this connection. 1t is charged not only
by the northern Opposition but also by the south
crn opponents of the Democratic party, that it is
responsible for the alleged evils of congressional
non-ntervention and the disturbances Of so-callcd
's9uatter sorcreignty' in the Territories. | affirm
that, in 1850, when this system Was adopted it was
sustained by the representatives Of the southern
Wings with the greatest unanimty- | was ex-
ceptio1 to this remark, for had announced already
my separation from the organization of the Wing
party. l repeat that tho southern Opposition of
that day, under the lead of Mr.. Clay, the first
portion Of their fellowcitizens to abandon the Mis-
souri, line and support the principle Of nonncrvcn-
ton by Congress- On the other hand. the last and
frmcst friends of the Missouri line were those
presented at the Nashville convention-whosc ult-
matam it was-and such Senators and Represcn.
tatives from the South as were in that day de-
nounced As ultras and fire eaters, because of their
not adopting the principle of congressional non-in-
PREVENTION in lieu OF the Missouri line. When these
facts are remembered, will the present southern OPP
position and its organs continue to asSa the Demo-
cratic party for an act which they themselves earn
esty and unitedy concurrcd in: Can they take
the ground that it right to abolish the Missouri
line, in order th,t free States should be made south
Of it. but that it should not in like manner be OBJ
liberated to place the South equal footing
north of it? After majority both of the South
and of the Democratic party had adopted the prtn.
ciple Of congressional non-intcrventon, who had
opposed it ac1uiesced, and the Democratic and Wing
conventions Of 1852 both sanctioned it.
When the Territories of Kansas and Nebraska
were admitted, the Democratic party applied the
same principle to them; and in so doing, found it
necessary to repeal the old Missouri restriction, in
order that there might be no Intervention by Con-
gress to control in any way the inhabitants Of those
Territories We're they not committed to this, in
the strongest and most emphatic terms, by their
platform and their late action as to the Mexican ter
ritories while the Wing or Opposition convention
had protested, in its PLATFORM to have acquesced in
the same principles! But it is said that both par
ties had declared themselves opposed to further
agitation of the slavery question So they had; but
there was specific pledge in favor Of congressional
nonintcrvention in the Territories; and the carry
ing it out ought to have produced no agitation what
ever, and would not in a healthy state Of public
opinion in the North. The Democratic party could
not honorably avoid doing what it did; and would
have been liable to the charge, had it failed to dc
this Of shifting its principles from time to time anc
shaping its course as to favor non-interventior
when it would thereby admit free States into thu
Union, and of going for congressional interrention
on the other hand, when it might thereby prevent
the formation of slaveholdng State. Had it faiet
to maintain its principles on this occasion, it woult
have been justly exposed to this charge. Their op
poncnts in the North however, on the repeal of thu
Missouri restriction, raised at once an immense clam
or, showing that their friendship for non-intervcn
ton was only pretended, and that they had acquies