VOL! Mi: 56.
NEW SERIES.
rgiHIJ BEDFORD GAZETTE,
■ IS PUBLISHED EVERY FRIDAY MORNING
BY B. I MEYERS,
A' the following terms, to wit:
$1 .90 per annum, CASH, in advance.
$2.00 " " if paid within the ypar.
V 2..00 " " if not paid within the year,
subscription taken for less than six months.
QP~NO paper discontinued until all arrearages are
paid, unless at the option of the publisher, it has!
veil decided by the United States Courts that the
stoppage of a newspaper without tne payment ot ar
learages, is prima facte evidence ot fraud and is a
criminal offence.
[CT'The courts have decided that persons are ac
countable lor the subscription price of newspapers,
if they take them from the post office,whether 'hey I
subscribe lor them, or not. j
SPEECH OF
SENATOR OLINGMAN.
OF NORTH CAROLINA,
Oil the subject ot (lie proposed
doctrine ot* the interven
tion to protect Slavery
in the Territories.
The Senate having under consideration the
evolutions offered by Mr. DAVIS, of Mississippi
—Mr. CLIN'GMAN said :
Mr. PRESIDENT : Most of the speech of the Se
nator from Miss. (Mr. Davis,) 1 cordially approve.
There are one or two points however, in which
f differ with him; and, notwithstanding the
lateness of the hour, if Senators will indulge
me, I shall endeavor to state them. It I under
stand his resolutions aright, they contemplate
intervention by Congress for ttie protection, in
the Territories, of property in slaves. For
some years past, we have stood on the docrine
of non-intervention, and there is uo middle
ground which we can take.
The Senator from Mississippi says that he does
not approve of a slave code. Well, sir, wfiat
tore we to uudersiand by a slave code I I take
it to be a legislation to protect, or to regulate
property in slaves. If yo* depart from the
principle of non-intervention, and legislate to
protect property in slaves, you necessarily make
some sort of a slave code, and it may be either
a short one or a long one.
I am opposed to imparting, at this time, from
the policy of non-intervention. I was not one
of the original advocates of that measure. On
the contrary, twelve or fifteen years ago, in
common with the great body of the South, I
ma in I aiiied the opinion that the Federal Gov
ernment had complete jurisdiction over the Ter
ritories , and I voted for the of the
Missouri compromise line to the Pacific. That
necessarily implied two things ; first, that Con
gress had power to prohibit slavery in the ter
■ .lutlOi , k.wml, •.< i. j.Ju puu*. . IU esiaOllSh
or protect it ; because the original Missouri
compromise line declared, in the exact terms of
the Wiimot proviso, that north ol the line of
.16 deg. 30 mm. slavery or involuntary servi
tude never should exist, while it was allowed
to remain south of it. Every one of us who
voted lor the extension ol that line thereby ne
cessarily admit\ed that this Government had au
thority to establish or protect the Constitution ;
and if we had denied the power, we could not
have given the vote. lam free to say, that I,
subsequently changed mv opinion ; and prior to
the decision in the Dred Scott case I published
rtiy views in accordance with the doctrine laid
down in that decision, as I understand it. Tnat
however, is merely personal to myself, and can
not affect the Senate.
But, sir, in 181-7, General Cass brought for
ward the non-intervention doctrine. He was
sustained bv Daniel S. Dickinson and by John
C. Calhoun, and other distinguished statesmen ;
and though I was then an opponent of it, I am
free to say that I believe its advocates were
perhaps nearer right than 1 was. So remarka
ble was the statement ol Mr. Calhoun at that
time that f shall ask the indulgence of the Sen
ile lor a single moment while f read a few ex
11acts Irom his speech. Some of his remarks
were almost prophetic, and anything from him
has great weight with gentlemen of the school
tu which the Senator from Mississippi aod my
• ell belong. In his opening remarks in his
.•peech of June 27th, 1848, he said :
"There is a very striking difference between the
position in which the slaveh olding and non-slave
holding States stand in reference to the subject un
der consideration- The former desire no action of
the Government; demand no lew to give them any
advantage in the Territory about to be establ isbed ;
are willing to leave it, and other Territories belon
ging to the United States, open to all their citizens,
so long as they continue to be Territories, a nd when
they cease te be so, to leave it to their mh abitants
to lorrn such governments as may suit them, with
out restriction or condition, except that imposed by
the Constitution as a pre-requisite for admission
into the Union. In short, they are willin gto leave
the whole subject where the Constitutiou and the
great and fundamental principles of self-government
place it."
What further did he say ?
" Nor should the North fear that, by leaving it
where justice and the Constitution leave it, sbe
would be excluded from her full "hare of the Terri
tories. In my opinion, if it be left there, climate,
soil, and other circumstances, would fix the line
between the slaveholding and non-slaveholding
Slates in about 36 deg. 30 min. It may zig-zag a
little, to accomodate itself to circumstances ; some
times passing to the north and at others to the south
of it; but that would matter little, and would be
more satisfactory to all, and tend less to alienation
betwucn the two great sections than a rigid,
straight, artificial line, prescribed by an act of Con
gress*"
"Eut I go further, and hold that justice and the
Constitution are the easiest and safest guard on
which the question can be settled, regarded in ref
erence to party. It may be settled on that ground
simply by non-action—by leaving the Territories
free and open to the emigration of all the world, so
long as they continue so ; and when they become
States, to adopt whatever constitutiou they please,
with the single restriction to be republican, in or
dei to their admission into the Union. II a party
"..not - afely take this broad and solid position, and
maintain it, what other can it take and tnain
trr. ?"
Remember this was an earnest exhortation to
the Democratic party, prior to the assemblage
ol its national convention in that year.
•'lf st cannot maintain itself by an appeal to the
Mr. GREENE. I wish to correct the Sen
great principles of justice, the Constitution, anil
sell-government, to what other, sufficiently strong
' ? uphold them 111 public opinion, can they 1 appeal I
i greatly mistake the character of the people of this
In ion, if such an appeal would not prove successful
it either party should have the magnimity to step
forward and boldly make it. It would, in my o
pinion, be received with shouts of approbation by
the patriotic and intelligent in every quarter.—
There is a deep feeling pervading the country that
the Union and our political institutions are in dan
ger, which such a course would dispel."— Appendix
to Congressional Glo/.e, fifst session Thirtieth Con
gress, p. 892.
That position was taken by him and others,
and maintained, and gradually obtained strength
until, in 1850, it received a majority of the
votes ot the southern members and of the Dem
ocratic party, and became a part of the public
law ot the country. I hold, sir, that this was
emphatically a compromise between the sec
tions ; and I propose now to give several rea
sons why I am for maintaining it, although at
the time it was adopted I was opposed to it. I
place this view in the foreground; northern gen
tlemen. be it recollected, insisted on the Wiimot
proviso, to prohibit slavery in the Territories,
and we of the South claimed protection. When
the Wiimot proviso was brought up, there were
only seven or eight Democrats in the House of
Representatives who resisted it. Among them
j I recollect the Senator fiom Illinois (Mr. Dou
-1 GLA-S) and his colleague at that time, who is
now a member of the other House, and who was
voted for at an early day of the session for Spea
ker, (Mr. MCCLERNAND.) Excepting those
gentleman, I believe, there is no one else now
in the public councils from the North who op
posed it. Many men of the North said, "if
we are to legislate, to fixthe status of the Ter
ritories, as we represent free communities, we
will carry out their views ; but it you think
proper to turn over the whole question to the
people, under the Constitution, we will join you
in that, and vote down the Wiimot proviso."
That was subsequently accomplished; and in
1852, when the national conventions adopted
it, it became the settled policy of the country
and those in the South who had opposed it, ac
quiesced and adopted it.
Now Mr. President, the Senator from Missis
sippi argues that the policy of non-intervention
did not mean to deny the right to protect; that
it merely pledged Congress not to establish or
to prohibit slavery, but did not deny protection
to it. I might, by adverting to the discussions
of that day, 6how that a different construction
was then put upon it by gentlemen generally ;
but I have some authority here which binds the
whole party to which ttiat Senator and myself
baiong, and which, I think, ought to be conclu
sive—l mean the last clause of the thirtv-spc
utia section ot the Kansas-iVPbraska bill, whicn
the Administration of that day, ot which he ,
was a member, made an Administration mea
sure, and wbicii received the support of the
Democratic members of the two houses ; and I
ask the particular attention of the Senate to the j
language:
"That the Constitution, and all the iaws of the
United States which are not locally inapplicable,
shall have the sifme force and etlect within the said
Territory of Kansas as elsewhere within the United
States, except the eighth section of the act prepar
atory to the admission of Missouri into the Union
approved March the 7th, 1820, which, being incon
sistent with the principle of non-intervention by
Congress with slavery in the States and Territories
as recognized bv the legislation of 1850, commonly
called the compromise measures, is hereby declared
inoperative and void ; it being the true intent and
meaning of this act not to legislate slavery into
any Territory or State, nor to exclude it therefrom,
hut to leave the people thereof perfectly free to
form and regulate their domestic institutions in
their own way, subject only to the Constitution of
the United States."
The Missouri line was repealed ; and why ?
Because it was unconstitutional or wrong in it
self ? No, sir ; but because it was "inconsis
tent with the principle of non-intervention by
Congress with slavery in the Slates and Terri
tories."
I admit, if Ihe act had stopped there, there
might have been some plausibility in the argu
ment, but what is the conclusion ?
"PKOVIUFD, That nothing herein contained shall
be construed to revive or put in force any law or
regulation which may have existed prior to the act
of 6th March, 1820, either protecting, establishing,
prohibiting, or abolish ing slavery."
That is, Congress would not only not inter
fere itself; would not only not allow its own
statutes to stand in the way, but would not re
vive any old law which might have been in
force by which slavery was protected in that
Territoiy. Is it not perfectly clear that the
whole purpose of the act, and of the oarty at
that day, was to free Congress from all legisla
tion over the subject of slavery in the Territo
ries, whether byway of protection, or estab
lishment, or prohibition, and leave the Territo
ry free to act, as the Constitution permitted it ?
I remember well how that clause came to be
inserted in the bill. During the discussion, it
was said, by gentlemen who opposed the bill,
that if Congress simply repealed the restriction,
the result would he that the old Louisiaana law,
establishing and protecting slavery, would be
revived. To meet that argument this clause
was introduced, became a part of the bill, and
received the support of every friend of the bill
who voted for it in both Houses of Congress.
I submit, therefore, that, upon a fair construc
tion of that act, you can come to no other con
ciusion except that Congress intended to abne
gate the exercise of any power over this ques
tion in the Territories, and to deny its purpose
to legislate, whether to establish or probioit, or
to restrict or protect slavery in the Territories;
and in J 856, in our platform, we expressly de
clared the doctrine of "non-intervention with
slavery in State or Territory, and in the Dis
trict of Columbia." Where did that leave it I
Congress left it, of course, in the States, to the
States; in the Territories—there being no law
of Congress left, for that repeal removed the
last act of Congress which bore upon them—it
left it unaffected in any way by congressional
legislation; and in the District of Columbia
slavery had already been established, and was
protected by law, so that it left it there un-
BEDFORD, PA, FRIDAY MORNING, JUNE 6, 1860.
I touched. I say this declaration received the
unanimous assent of all the States represented
in the Cincinnati convention. I happened to
be a member of that convention —the only
; convention of the kind which I believe I ever
I had the honor of being in ; and I may have a
little personil pride in that matter; but lam
very sure 1 am not mistaken when I say it was
unanimously adopted by all the delegates there
assembled, alike from the North and the South.
We also, out of abundance of caution to meet
the views of our opponents, voted that every
new State should be admitted with or without
slavery, as it pleased.
Then, Mr. President, where do >ve stand?
The Democracy of trie North and the South a
greed upon this principle of non-intervention.
If there ever was a compromise made under this
Government, that was one. Eeach side sur
rendered something. We surrendered our
claim to protection ; our northern friends aban
doned the Wifmot proviso, and everything look
ing to it, and met lis on common ground.
Though I was not an original party to the a
greement, I am bound to it bv mv acquiescence;
and I hold that neither section can honorably
depart from it without some great pressing ne
cessity, which does not now exist.
I know it is said that the Dred Scott decision
has modified the question. I contess I do not
think so. I fully agree to the decision in the
sense in which the Senator from Mississippi ex
explains it ; but let us test it for a moment in
this way ; in that decision the court say the
Missouri compromise line, or the Wiimot pro
viso, is unconstitutional. Granted ; but sup
pose the\* had decided the other way, and said
it wasj constitutional, would the northern men
have had a right to come forward and say, "this
question being settled in our favor, the Su
preme Court having admitted that the Wifmot
proviso is constitufional, we now want to go in
for intervention against siavery ? lam sure
every Democrat in the South would have said
at once; ''though you have this power, yoirare
not bound to exercise it." Well, suppose the
court decided that Congress have the right to
protect, and not to prohibit, can we honorably
and fairly, without a great pressing necessity,
abandon the policy of non-intervention? I
think not.
Now, is there any such necessity ? The Sen
ator himsell admits that theie is not. His col
league (Mr. BROWN) insists that we ought to
have a slave code or congressional legislation
i on the subject : but the Senator from Mississippi
to whom lam replying, says that there is no
such necessity at this time. Then why depart
from the principle ot non-intervention? lam
free to admit that if, in an unwise moment,
• .uu U inatn u vuiupiorTiise iuai isrni-fintis 10 mm,
! he may, under great necessity, avoid it, perhaps;
| but I deny that any such necessity exists in this
case; and the highest evidence ol it is lhatthe
Senator from Mississippi, who sits behind me,
(Mr. BROWN,) has been striving for the last three
or four months to get a positive act passed to
J protect slavery in Kansas, and he has never yet
found a second for it. If any one Senator upon
| this floor, notwithstanding the urgent and elo
quent appeals of that gentleman, has declared
his willingness to vote for it, 1 have not heard
| him say so, and I do not believe there is such a
' one. And yet everybody knows that Kansas
| has lately refused all protection to slave prop
j erty. If gentlemen, therefore, intend to stand
up for all their rights to the fullest extent, why
: not at once come up and pass a law to protect
I slaves in Kansas ? They show, by their con-
I duct, that they do not believe that any real ne
; cessity exists in fact for depaitiug 1 from non
! intervention.
I say, then, Mr. President, that in my judg
ment no necessity exists for an abandonment of
the compromise; but the Senator proposes to
make a declaration that we shall do it in a fu
ture contingency. I have no doubt of the pow
er of the Government, but why make that dec
laration ? A declaration of the Senate binds
nobody. These are naked resolutions ; they
are not laws ; they carry no force to the coun
try except what may be derived from the sound
ness of the opinions aJvanced in them. They
will not control the action ot the courts. They
will not, perhaps, change the opinion of a sin
gle man in this country. Why pass them? I
think I shall show, before 1 take my seat, some
very valid and strong reasons whv we should
not do so.
My first objection, then, is, that the system
of non-iotervention is a compromise, and that
no necessity exists to abandon it, as I have al
ready stated. I come now to my second objec
tion. During the discussion of 1850, the advo
cates of non-intervention said, it you adopt it,
if you leave the question to the Territorial Le
gislature, they may pass laws to protect slave
property. I resisted it. I made speech after
speech to show that the Mexicans were hostile
to us ; that they were not accustomed to slave
ry, and might legislate against it but what has
been the result l New Mexico has passed the
most stringent slave code. There is, perhaps,
not a State in the Union has, by law, pro
tected slave property more securely than the
Territory of New Mexico, which reaches from
Texas to the Gulf of Calalbrnia, and extends up
to the thirty-eight degree of north latitude.
We were content with the line of 36 deg. 30
min. we were willing to run the Missouri line
to the Pacific, and abolish slavery absolutely
north of 36 deg. 30 min. and take a mere im
plication without an express protection south
of it. Sir, practically by non-intervention, we
have got more than we asked for ; we have got
a larger amount of territory than we should
have obtained under the Missouri compromise
line. Gentlemen may say, perhaps, that Kan
sas has legislated against us. I grant it ; but
we should not have got Kansas at all under the
Missouri compromise. Kansas onlj comes
down to the thirty-seventh parallel, the whole
Territory being north of the Missouri compro
mise line. Besides, while New Mexico has le
gislated in our favor, and the same thing, I be
lieve, is true of Utah
Freedom of Thought and Opinion.
ator in a matter of fact. Utah has not passed
any Jaw protecting slavery. They have an ap
prentice system, which expires in a very short
time.
Nr. GLIXGMAN. lam obliged to the gen
tleman for the suggestion ; but I consider the
I fact with reference to Utah immaterial, be
cause it lies on a table land several thousand
feet above the sea, very far north, reaching up
to the lorty-second parallel, and having a very
cold-climate. Surely, the Senator does not de
ny the fact that, as far as New Mexico is con
cerned, we have got everything we desire, and
that it covers more territory than we claimed
in 1850. I was about to say, though, that e
ven in Kausas slave property was protected by
the Territorial Legislature for several years, but
lately ttrey have legislated against it. I be
lieve that, but for the extraordinary excitement
which grew up out of the repeal of the Missou
ri restriction, the Territory of Kansas never
would have legislated adversely to us, but we
all know that a great crowd were sent in there
from the North, with extreme anti-slavery
views, and the result of the excitement there
has been legislation against us ; but we are 110
worse off in that respect than if we had never
repealed the restriction, and we are much better
otf as far as the Territory of New Mexico is
concerned, by adopting non-intervention.
Mr. GRI I 'ENDEN. Will the gentleman
give way to a motion to adjourn.
Mr. CLINGMAN. As it is late, if there is no
objection to the question going over until to
morrow, it will be more agreeable tome.
Mr. CRI IT EN DEN. I move that the Sen
ate adjourn.
The motion was agreed to and the Senate ad
journed.
TUESDAY, MAY S, IS6O.
*•***••*•*
I yesterday alluded to the opinions of Mr.
Calhoun. It is perhaps right that I should say,
in the very same speech from which I read, he
expressed the opinion that a Territorial Legisla
ture hah no right to exclude slavery, or to
legislate against it. I concur with him in that.
He also, I think almost uniformly, perhaps in
variably, held that Congress had a right and
ought to protect all property in the Territories
subject to its jurisdiction ; but he waived that
right in his speech, to which I referred, and in
his support of the Clayton compromise bdl,
which passed at the same session of Congress,
and only a few weeks aterwards, he again'wai
ved it. By the provisions of that bill, Con
gress did not legislate at all in relation to sla
very in the Territories, but transferred the sub
ject to the Territorial Legislature, with an in
. (hat ihnul'l power
to abolish or establish slavery—those were the
terms—but saying nothing as to how far they
might legislate. It turned over the whole sub
ject to them, and let them to legislate, subject,
of course, to the control of the courts. That
was the prominent idea of that bill.
.Now, sir, one other remark 111 connection
with the first point which I made. During the
discussion of 1850, 1 insisted that if the gentle
men would come forward and repeal the
restriction, and throw open all the territority,
I would agree to take it ; and in fact, in a
speech in the House of Representatives, I a
greed to vote for this principle if they would
remove the reati iction up to the fortieth paral
lel, from 36 d. 30 m. considering that sufficient
compensation. It was not done, however, and
I opposed the scheme. But, in 1554-, the
northern portion of the Democratic party, with
! great magnanimity and with great risk to
themselves, came up and repealed this old re
striction. In doing that they had to encoun
ter prejudices at home ; they had to take upon
their shoulders the responsibility of repealing
a line which had been regarded as sanctified
by thirt-four years' existence, and which was
called a compromise. They had the manli
ness, in carrying out this principle of non-in
tervention, to come forward and repeal that
line. Why? It was in order that all the
territory might be placed upon the same foot
ing ; and I hold l hat after that sacrifice upon
their part ; that willingness to carry out this
compromise, begun in 1850, indorsed in 1852,
by the Democratic and also by the Opposition
convention, we of the South are under the high
est obligation to stand to it. Now, sir, I make
no reflection on any honorable Senator who
who diflers from me on this question. I do
them all the justice to say that, it they looked
upon it as I do, as a compromise, I am very
sure they would not seek to disturb it. Ta
king the view of it I do, believing that the two
parties settled down upon non-intervention, I
feel it to be my duty to adhere to it in the ab
sence of any great pressing necessity which
would {justify its abandonment.
Mr. President, what are the points of differ
ence between the two parties ? The Senator
from Mississippi, if I read his resolution aright,
does not propose to favor intervention by Con
gress to protect slavery in the Territories at
this time, but he declares if it should turn out
hereafter that the existing Jaws are not suffi
cient to protect it nnder the Constitution, he is
'hen for legislation. What do those who op
pose his resolution say ? The Senator from
Ohio {Mr. PUGH) and the Senator from Illinois
(Mr. DOUGLAS) say that if, hereafter, the courts
shall make decisions which cannot be carried
out without legislation, they will legislate to
carry them out. The Senator from Mississippi
says that the Dred Scott decision has settled the
question, and he wants a declaration that we
mean to legislate in future. These gentlemen,
admitting, as they must, that the judges have, in
the Dred Scott case, expressed their opinion
that a Territorial Legislature cannot legislate
adversely to slavery, say, however, that point
in fact was not presented in the case ; but that,
if such was the settled opinion of the court,
when a proper case is directly presented it
will so decide ; and they stand ready to carry
out that decision of the court when it shall be
made.
Then, do we not all come together on the
same point ? The Senator from Mississippi
says that if the courts make decisions which
cannot be enforced without legislation, he is
for legislation. These gentlemen sav that
when ttie court does make decisions, they will
submit to them and cariy them out. It seems,
theretore, that they are traveling in lines that
will converge and come together at a certain
point. Then, why dispute now in advance ?
This may be readily illustrated. Suppose I
have a controversy with a neighbor about the
title to a piece of land. Neither of us is in a
nurry to have possession. We are willing to
await the decision of the court. He comes to
me, however, and says : '-I find that the court,
in expressing an opinion in another case, which
I admit is not like ours, and does not present
the same facts, has declared, nevertheless, that
in a case like yours and mine my title would
be goog, and theretore I wish you to give ine a
deed acknowledging my title to be good, though
Ido not want possession now, end am willin*
to wait for it until the case decided." I replv
to him, "I admit that the court may have ex
pressed such an opinion, but the point between
us did not arise in that case, was not argued by
my counsel or any other counsel ; all I can say
to you is, if that be the opinion of the court, of
course, when they decide our case, they will
decide in yoer favor, and I shail then surren
der to you ; but I am not willing to assume
beforehand that the court will so decide." It
seems to me, then, Air. President, that in the
present condition of the case there is no neces
sity for ill-feeling 011 either side, or for declara
tions in advance.
My second point was, that New Mexico had
already established a slave code and given us
more territory than we should have gotten un
der the Missouri line, it carried out. I come
now to the third point, and that is, what has
grown out of the decision of the court in the
Dred Scott case. When this subject was un
der debate in 1850. we of the South objected
to non-intervention on the ground that it wouki
leave the Mexican law in force ; and inao
rnuch as the Supreme Court had maintained
the opinion in a case from Florida, and per
haps in some other decisions, that where territo
ry was acquired the local law might remain
in force, we were disinclined to tako non-in
tervention without a repeal of the Mexican
law. During the interesting controversy, we
a caucus of southern members, consisting ol
Senators ami Representatives, and on that occa
sion the Senator from Georgia, who usually siti
behind me, (Air. TOOMBS,) introduced a proposi
tion into our caucus that we would support th<
compromise measures if they would repeal lh<
Mexican laws and substitute the British colo
mat Jaws whtfh prevailed la our colonies prlu:
to the Revolution. That was adopted, ant
that gentleman moved it in the House o
Representatives as an amendment, but it wa
defeated. lam free to say that if at that fin*
we had been satisfied that the court would hoh
that under the Constitution slave propert;
could exist and be protected in the territories
without reference to local laws, I am ven
sure we should all have voted for the compro
miseof 1850.
If it be true, as the Senator from Mississippi
contends, that the Dred Scott decision settles
the question and supports the right of slavehol
der in a territory, then there is another strong
reason why we should acquiesce in non-inter
vention at this time. This, therefore, is a third
reason ;and I now propose to give one or two
others why a person like myself, who origi
nally did not adopt it, may now be for it.
It has been adopted as the policy of the coun
try for ten years. Can we now pass through
resolutions or bills to establish or protect slavery
iu the territories ? That is the question. Re
collect, it is only in a case where the people of a
territory are hostile to our rights ; it is only
where they are so hostile that they refuse to
protect UP, or even legislate against us that we
have been called upon to exercise this power.
Nobody pretends that there is any necessitj' for
our going into New Mexico, or other territories
that are favorable to us, with this legislation.—
Therefore, the question presented is simply
this : suppose a territory is hostile to us, and its
Legislature will not protect slave property, or
even legislate against il, will Congress inter
vene? First, is there any political possibility
that we can pass such a law through the two
Houses? We have had a test on the question
already. Here is the territory of Kansas,
which not only does not give us any protec
tion, but which, lam informed has legislated
adversely. One Senator from Mississippi (Mr.
BROWN) has brought forward a proposition to
interfere for the protection of slavery in that
Territory, and yet he has not got one southern
man to break him ; and if you were to submit
the question to a body of southern Senators I
have very great doubt whether you would get
them to agree to such legislation. Why is it ?
If we of the South are willing to impose the
institution—that is the common phrase—on a
territory against the wish of a majority, why is
it that gentlemen do not come up and support
the proposition of the Senator from Mississippi ?
Is it because that it is politically and morally
wrong to interfere in tnis way ? Is that it, or
is il because gentlemen know that such legisla
tion would be unavailing ? I ask why we have
not induced southern Senators yet come up
and vote for the establishment or protection of
slavery in Kansas, notwithstanding the adverse
legislation ol the territorial authorities I leave
every gentleman to give his own reasons. But
suppose every southern Senator went for it, we
could pass it; and how many norther men
are there who are ready to vote for it ? How
many northern members aie there in the other
House for it ? It will take thirty northern Re
presentatives to pass through such a bill. We
all know what a clamor was raised two or
three years ago by the Abolitionists—falsely
raised—when it was alleged that Congress in
tended to force slavery upon the territory of
Kansas, whether it wished it or not. Now, if
I we undertake to protect or maintain slavery
WHOLE UdDER, 2009.
in a territory against the wish of the inhabit
ants, I ask you how northern men are likely to'
sustain us in it ? At present we have no south
ern men for it that I know of except one.
There may be others; but they have not thought
proper alter a debate of three months, to state
the fact. But suppose they come up aod do it
how many men will you get from the North ?
I hold that it is a political impossibility that we
should pass such ar measure ; and, as I shall pre
sently endeavor to show, nothing but mischief
will result from the attempt.
But suppose lhere were nothing in this fourth
objection of mine, and that Congress should ac
tually pass a law ot that sort, how much would
it be wortn in a Territory where the people are
thoroughly adverse to it and unwilling that the
institution should exist or be protected. If you
are going to enforce the law, you must send ei
ther an army, or an immense number of officials
and scatter them all over tlie Territory. Gen
tlemen know how difficult it is to recover a
runaway negro from the free States. From
some ot these States you can only get him bv
the help of an army. It was stated the other
day, in a speech by a member of the Republican
party, who, I suppose, knows—l mean IVIr.
RxYMONd, who was once Lieutenant Governor
of New Yoik—that of the runaways who went
to the North, not one in five hundred ever was
recovered , and yet it rs much easier to send a
posse or a body of troops there to get a single
negro at one point and return him, than it would
be to support an army and protect it over a
whole 1 eiritory. But, nevertheless, suppose
you could maintain it there, what then ? Ev
erybody on our side of the House admits that
when such a people made a State constitution
they would make it anti-slavery ? Any com
munity on earth who had forced upon them a
system to which they were adverse would in
evitably throw it off when they could. What
would be the result T Every State brought in
to the Union under these circumstances would 1
not only be a free State, but would probably be
abohtionized ; probably strong anft-slavery fea
tures would be thrown into its constitution
What advantage is that to u% of the South, I
ask gentlemen? We would like to have slave
States; they would give us additional strength
in the two houses of Congress ; but slave Terri
tories are worth nothing to us—they give us no
strength. We should Bke to have slave Terri
tories that might be formed ;into slave States ;
but if we can only give them under a system
which is almost sure to make them germinate
into frep and hostile States, they are ot no ad
vantage to us.
I have now, Mr. President, given some five'
reasons why, in my judgment, even if non-in
h-iventro-i had not bprn right originally, it
would be the true policy now ; but gentlemen
say, if it is our right to have protection, let us
insist upon it. I take it for granted that every
man believes he has rights which he cannot in
sist on at all tunes. Ifo man will insist on an
abstract, remote sort of right which he can turn
to no practical advantage, and thereby merely
incur very great losses. It a man believed that
he had a certain valuable property in the moon
nobody would expect him to attempt to get at
it there, either by baloons or otherwise. Ev
erybody would regard it as impossibility, and
any expenditure of time and money that he
made to effect it would be regarded as thrown
away. lam free to say that, in my jdgment,
there is about as much probability of effecting
a thing of that sort as there is of getting
through Congress and maintaining a system of
legislation to protect slavery in Territories that
are so utterly hostile to it that they make their
Legislature act against 'it, and then to bring
them in as slaveholding States. One is a politi
cal, the other a pysical impossibility. I thibk
we shall lose by the operation ; and this brings
me to another class of objections.
If we take this system of congressional in
vention for the protection of slavery, we must
act in opposstion to the settled policy of the
Democratic party for the last ten years. Then
you necessarily divide the party. The move
ment will not divide our opponents ; they will
all stand as they now do, firmly united
against us;,.but we shall divide our own party in
to two sections, and I beg leave to call the atten
tion of Senators to the fact that, on looking over
the resolutions adopted in the Democratic con
ventions of the free States—and I have examin
ed all of them but one—every single one of
them, as far as I know or believe, has declared
in favor ol the Cincinnati platform, and non-in
tervention. So have many of the southern
States likewise. Jf we adopt a different policy
all these gentlemen must change their ground
at once, or be driven out of the party. I ask
you, Mr. President, can they maintain them
selves before their opponents under this dis
advantage ? Suppose, for example, the delega
tion from Pennsylvania go home from a con
vention where the policy of intervention has
been adopted : bow will their opponents meet
them ? Their Republican opponents will say
to them : you have all been fighting for ten
years upon the principle of non-intervention
and at your State Convention last March, you
passed resolutions, without division, unanimous
ly declaring that Congress had no power to le
gislate on the subject of slavery in the Territo
ries ; and that it wonld not be expedient for
them to exercise it, if they had it ; you went to
the national convention, and the slave power
have imposed on you an intervention plank—a
plank by which 30U will have to legislate sla
very into and maintain it in the Territories."
They will call it, of course, a slave code. Will
our friends be able to maintain themselves
advantageously under these circumstance"? I
put it to the common sense of everybody if that
can be expected. 1 will not say, as a southern
gentleman said to me the other day, who was
in favor of a southern candidate at Charleston,
that if the angel Gabriel was put upon a slave
code plank he would be defeated all through
the North. I do not know anything about
what sort of a run angels would make , but I
am clearly of the opinion that it would weaken
VOL. a NO. 49.