Year: 1860

Republican party right, and the Democrat.


&c party wroug-totally, entirely wrong.


But you say this ordinance was not en-


acted under the Constitution, but prior to
i, and that under and by virtue Of the


Constitution, we have no power 70 prohibit


slavery In the Territories by acts Of Con-


gress. Let Us now see what the fathers said


on that subject; and, particularly, let US


observe what they did must insist on


the point of examining into what the elder


men of the Republic did, for this reason :


these men made, pondered, studied, adop-


ted the Constitution. They had great ven


Grafton for il; and all of them who acted


under it, whether in Legislative, executive,


or judicial capacity, took a solemn oath to


support and not to violate il. If they


were honest (and think we will scarcely


dispute it,) then, if they did violate the


Constitution, they were ignorant men, and


did not understand their own work as well


as We sages here assembled. think the


characteristic modesty of this House will


scarcely ass=rt the latter propositionl!


THE MISSOURI COMPROMISE AND THE POWER


OF CONGRESS OVER THE TERRITORIES.


Passing by many facts in our political


history which threw some light on the sub


ject before, let US pause moment at the


year 1920. Not long before this time we


had passed through our second war with


great Britain. AT that time, I began


to look out upon the political affairs of the


world with that interest which novelty and


Importance would inspire in all young


minds. read the arguments in the Mis-
souri, case with great deal of care. AL


though the sentiment of the country was
generally against Tie, / then formed the
opinion that Missouri had right to come
into the Union with slavery. I thought
that right was founded upon the treaty
siipulations by which that Territory was
acquired.


Now, sir, who were they, disputing at
that time about this question of the ben
efits of slavery, the disadvantages of sla-
very, the evils of slavery, looking at it in
all its aspects, social, moral, political p
They were The men of 1920; they were
men who had just emerged from that strug-
gle with Great Britain, second in impor-
lance, as they thought, only 10 that in
which they conquered our independence;
they rejoiced that they had come out of it
with reputation to the country. Their
hearts were American. Whether Demo-
Gratis, Republicans or Federalists, they were
all Americans; all party lines had been
obliterated.. We know that the period to
which refer was called the haIcyon period
of the Republic. God knows it vas a
happy day in the public affairs, compared
with the present. What did they do?-
Just what we should do tomorrow, if we
were like them. They admitted Slave
State because they were bound to do it,
either by treaty obligations or by those
fra;ernal relations that must exist between
the States and they said that slavery nev-
er should exist in tie territory north of
Missouri.


You say that they had no constitutional
power to do it. Is it to be supposed that
the men of those days did not understand
their constitutional obligations? There
were Mr.. Monroe and John Quincy Adams,
and William H. Crawford-my Georgia
friends can understand who / mean when |
l speak of him-a man, in my memory,
quite as illustrious as any citizen that has
ever lived in that great State. He was
Secretary of the Treasury in the Cabinet
of Mr.. Monroe. There was Mr.. Smith
Tompkins, afterward Judge Of the Supreme
Court, man whom everybody who knew
him will now remember as one possessing
great learning in matters of constitutional
law, as well as in common and civil law q
jurist, in the best sense of the word; an
old fashioned man, in the best sense Of the
word; man of large and well-furnished
head, and sound patriotic heart. He was
Secretary Of the Navy. Mr.. Mclean was
not at that time a member Of that Cabin
ct. 1t remained for General jackson to
bring the Postmaster General into the
Cabinet but he was in familiar association
with that Caminet. But who was he,
ask you, whose only function it was at that
lime to give constitutional law to the Cab
met? Who was the Attorney General.
who has nothing else to do but that, or
would have nothing else to do if we had
not imposed extra official duties upon him
William Writ was the man, Virginiap.
I presume my honorable friend from Vir-
yinia who sits before me now, Mr.. Bocock]
would have had some doubt about the pro-
priety of bis own opinion upon legal and
constitutional points, if Mr.. Writ had diff
fered from him.


John C. Calhoun of South Carolina
was also member Of that Cabinet. This
rery question-the power Of Congress to
prohibit slavery in the Territories-was
submitted to that Cabinet. Was Mr..
Monroe an Abolitionist Doubtless, like
others Of his compeers of that period, be
lid entertain the opinion that wherever
Tho white man could labor with ad-
it would be better to prohibit
slavery; but that was not the question
submitted to bim-him of the revloution-
lry era; him an honored influential pat
not from the time of our independence up
10 the constitutional era, contempora-
y of the Constitution itself, who knew all
he motives and reasons. the pros and cons
why this power was put in, and that was left
out, of that nstrument-which. as eloquent
y remarked the other day, is SO delicate
, piece Of machinery that if it be dernnged
in a single spring the whole falls into chaos.