16Igagi s=To
----
TOWANDA:
&turbo!) morning, itlaD.lB,
SPEECH OF COL. BENTON,
NILIIILIMEA DUAL,
Delivered to the nOOlO of RapeelielltlitJoesi f
'Tuesday, dpr,ll 23th, /854.
The House being in Committee of the Whole,
Mr. Chandler in the Chair:
Tiff: CHAIRMAN—The question betore the com
mittee is on the Senate amendments to the deft
oency bill; and on that question the member from
gississippi [Mr. Hamel has still the floor.
Mr. Harris not av'ailing himself of his right,
Col. BENToN rose and addressed the Committee.
vie nu.O coasts FROM A VIM ESTATE.
If any bill to' impair the Missouri Compromise
o ute of MO had been brought into this House by a
• m ember from a slave state, or under the adminis
nanon of a President elected from a slave state, I
f hould hive deemed it my duty to have met it at
21hteshold, and to have made the motion which
vi parliamentary law prescribes for the repulse of
. l ati)ects which are dot fit to be considered;
ivuld have moved its rejection at the first reading.
, t it the bill before us, for the two may be consid
ered as one, does not come from that quarter. It
comes from a free stale, and under the administra
iipn of a President elected from a free state; and
tinier that aspect of its origin, 1 deemed it right to
trait, and hear what the members of the treestates
.had to say to it. •
It was a proposition from their own ranks, to give
n, their hall of the slavery compromise of 1820;
and it they chose to du ea, 1 do not see how south
ern members could reuse to accept it It was a
free state cnestion : and the members from the free
states were the majority and could do as they pleas
ed Sol stool aloof, waiting to see their lead, tint
without the :r h2h esi intention of being governed by
I had my own convictions of tight and duty,
and meant to act upon them. I had come into po
lineal tie upon that compromise. I had stood upon
g shove thirty years, and intended to stand upon it
is the end, "solitary and alone, it need be ;" (sp•
iilau=e and laughter] lint preferring company to so
;rude. and not doubting for an idstant what the re
sult was to be.
I have said, that this bill comes into Congress
ceder the administration of a free-state President;
bot 1 do not mean to say or insinuate by that re
mark, that the President favors the bill. 1 know
-.admit; of his disposition towards it ; and if I did,
,inuld not disclose It here. It would be unparlia
mentary, and a breach of the privileges of this
House to do so. The President's opinions can on.
be made known to us by himselt, in a message
.11 wriitiig. In that way it is his right, and often
iiis duty, to communicate with us. And in that way
there is no room for mistake it citing his opinions;
no room for an unauthorized use of his name; no
room for the imputation of contratticto_ry opinions'
to him; and an that was he becomes responsible to
:he American people for the opinions he may de
liver.
All other modes of communication are forbid to
him, as rending to an 'undue and unconstitutional
interference with the freedom of legislation. It is
not bribery alone, attempted upon a member,which
constitutes a breach of the privileges of this House.
It is any attempt to operme upon a member's vote
by any consideration of hope or fear, favor or affec
;ton, prospect of reward, or dread of punishinent
Phis is parliamentatry law, as old as English par
;laments constantly maintained by the British
House of Commons, and lately declared in a most
tienal manner ft was daring the reign of our old
master, George the Third,'and in the famous case
of Fox's East India bill, a report was spread in par
liament by one of the lords of the bedchamberohat
the king was opposed to the bill—that he wished
defeated, and had said that he should consider
any member his enemy who should vote for it.—
The House of Commons took fire at this repon,and
immediately resolved
•That to report any opinion, or pretended opin
m of ha Majesty, upon any bill depending in either
House of Parliament, is a high crime and misileidete
tot, derogatory to the honor of the crown, a breach
I . ..the fundamental privileges of Parliament, and
lubversisre of the constitution of the country.,"
This resolve was adopted in a full House, by a
barmy of seventy•three notes; and was only de.
maratory of exisrittg parliamentary law—such as it
cad existed from the time that English counties and
boroughs first sent knights of the shire and barges
les to represent them in the Parliament House. It
man old English parliamentary law, and is so re
corded by Hatsell, and all the writers on that law.
It is also American law, as old as our Congress,
rad, as such, recorded in Jefferson's Manuals It is
honesr law; and, as such, existent in ever honest
Ilearr. Sir, the President of the United States can
tend us no opinions except in written messages,
and no one can report his opinions to influence the
conduct of members upon a bill, without being ob
hoxtous to the censure which the British House of
Commoni pronounced upon the lord of the bed
chamber, in the case of the King and the Fox East
India bill.
MINISTERIAL INTERFERENCE
Nor can the President's Secretaries—his head
tleike, as Mr. Randolph used to call them—send
or tbeir opinions on subjects of legislation depend
ing before us. They can only report, and that in
smog, on the subjeols• telerred to them by law or
by a rote of the Houses. Non-intervention is their
dory in relation to our legislation;
and if they , at
tempt to intervene in any of our business, I must
be allowed, for one, to repulse the attempt, and to
prEireas for it no higher degree of respect than that
Mr. Burke expressed for the opinions of a Bri•
fish Lord Chancellor, delivered to the House of
Commons, in a case in which he had no concern.
Sir,,, I suppose can be allowed to repeat on this
floor an degree of comparison, or figure of speech
Which Par Burke could use on the floor of the Bri
tish House of Commons. He was a classic speak
er, and, besides that, author Ma treatise on the Su.
blime and Beautiful; though I do not consider the
particular figure which I have to repeat, although
just and picturesque in itself, to be a perfect
titua
ttration of either branch of his admired treatise. It
was in reference to Lord Thurlow; who had inter
vened in some legislative business, contrary to the
orator's sense of right and decency. Mr. Burke re.
pulsed the intrutive opinion, and declared that ha
did not care three jumps qJ a louse for it. Sir,
say the same, of any opinion which may be repor
ted here from our Secretaries on any bill depend
ing before as, and that in arty town in which it may
come from them—whether as a unit,or as integers
[Roars of laughter]
MIMIC PRINTitt'S INTchnuttlier..
Stilt Jess do I admit the right of intervention in
out legislative duties in another class of intermed•
diets, and.isimmight nut be able to meddle at all
wild oar business, were it not for the ministration
of our bounty speak of the.public platens, who
get their daily bread Sand that buttered on , both
sides) by our daily printing, and who require the
democratic tuentbers'uf tor e nous°, under the in.
-
• , i ..;:,.,- , --44 , , , 0.12.*. - -_.--- --- .'t , .;l , • ,, ,C . :, '; 1; ~ 1.6:..•,;.. • :..:-..7....:
. T:r iirt7.'s )q 0,51-3 - :.0 -c , : - T
q. ,1A -
1 `...5,
- .
.. ,
N . 1 1 .._. .
. .
. . 1: :.,.....,,,... ..,. ...:,, ...,,, :.:,. ..„ ~......
• ~...„
~....•,,..
,L.,.,.._ : ,,,,., ......,,...
_ ..., ...,
~.5..„..:„.....
_...„.•,.,,_ •. „.: 4 • :...„ . :,.. . : „ ..,.. ,: .... ..,..,,
• ...„,,..
.•,,........_.„.,•a„. _ ,..
._
_ ..
..:.....,,,...•!.! ''';''':,l•4 1 ~,
, 8 .. ':•, •• . .
• -.52:7 , „ , •;,.. ''''''' r ''''''''''.7''''' .
. ' ....7 .. j .: -" t , ' ' ' 4 1 :2;7 ; -:
a : : -•
::::: ' 0
, • . - . 7, , ,' 7 .
. . - . • , :-.4,..
... - -:,, : •
-
. ' ' .•;: .- • ---'" " .4 ' %., . 1
•, '`Z •
•
15' c', '' Z. . - s« .-- ,' - :-. 1 - ..;f:;" ("'- . - k •,,, .
slant penalty of political , damnation, to give, intheir
adhesion to every bill which they - call adminisinu
(ion; and that in every change it may undergo.-, ;
althougir morechangeable than the moon. For that
class of intermeddlers I have no parliamentary law
to administer, nor any quotation lioni Burke to ap
ply--nothing btit a little fabte to lead; the value
of which, as in all good fables, lie
s' in itsportal:—
It is in French, and entitted l eleson maitre,"
which, being done in English, signifies, 77te'ais
and his master," and runs thus:—
"An ass took it into his head to scare his man,
ter, and pot on a lion's 'skin, and went and stood in
the path. And when he saw-his Master corning, he
commenced roaring, as he thought; tint 'he only
brayed, and the master knew iewis his ass : so he
went up to him with a cudgel , and beat him nearly ,
to death."
That is the end of the fable r and ,the rnoral of it
is, a caution to all asses to lake care how they
undertake to scare their masters." [Prolonged ap.
plause, cries of good, good]
Mr. Chairman,,this House will have fallen tat be.
low its constitutional mission, if it suffers itself ,to
be governed by authority, or dragooned by its own
hirelings. I am a man of no bargains, but act open.
ty with any man that acts fax the public good ; and
in this spirit, I offer the' right hand of polit;cal
friendship to every member of this body that will
stand together to vindicate its privileges, protect its
respectability, and maintain it in the high place for
which it was intended—the muter branch of the
American government.
MissOURI COMPROMISE NOT MERELY A STATUTE.
The question before us is, to get rid of the Mis.
souri Compromise line; and, to a lawyer, that is
an easy question. That compromise is in the form
of a statute, and one statfite is repealable by smith.
er. That short view is enough fo( a lawyer. To
a statesman iris something different, and refers the
question cif its repeal, not to law books, but to rea.
sons of state policy—to the circumstances under
which it was enacted, and the consequences which
are to flow from its abrogati on: This compromise
of 1820 is not a mere, statute, to last for a day; it
was intendeij for perpetuity, and so declated itself.
It is Ain enactment to settle, a controversy —and did
settle it—and cannot be abrogatell without reviving
that controversy - .
It has given the country peace for above thirty
years ; how many years 14 disturbance will its ab
rogation bring ?. That is the statesman's question ,•
and without assuming •o be much of a statesman I
claim to be enough so to coesider the consequences
of breaking a seulemeni which pacified acontinent.
I remember the Missouri controversy, and how it
destroyed all social feeling, and all capacity for be.
nelicial legislation; and .merged all political prin-
clple in an angry contest about slavery—dividing
the Union into two parts, and drawing up the two
halves into opposite and confronting lines, like ene
mies ou the field of battle. Ido not wish to see
such times again ; and,. therefore, am against re
viving them by ore king ep the settlement which
quieted them.
THE THEE SLAVEMC COXPROMISES.
The Missouri Ompromise of 1820 was the par
titioning between the tree and slave states, of a
great province, taking the character of a perpetnal
settlement ; and classing with the two great com
promises which gave us the ordinance of July 13,
1787, and the federal constitution of September 17,
of the same year. There are three slavery com•
promises in our history, which connect themselves
w toe foundation and preservation of this Union.
First, the territorial partition ordinance of 1787,
with it' clause for the recovery of fugitnie slaves
secondly, the contemporaneous constitutionat re
cognition of slavery in the stales which chose to
have it, with the fugitive slave recovery clause , in
the same instrument; thirdly the Missouri partition
line of 1820, with the eame clause annexed for the
recovery of fugitive"slaves
All three of these compromises are part' nd par
cel of the same policy; and neither of them could
have been formed without the other, nor either of
them without the fugitive slave recovery clause in
•orporated in it. The anti-slavery clause in the
ordinance of 1787 could not have been adopted (as
was proved by its three yeartf , rejection) without
the fugitive Slave recovery Aanse added to it; the
constitution could not have been formed without its
recognition 'of slavery in the states which chose it,
and the guaranty of the right to recover slaves flee
ing into the free states; the Missouri controversy
could not bare been settled without a partition of
Louisiana between free and slave soil; and that
partition could not have been made without the ad
dition of the same clause for the recovery of fut,i.
live slaves. Thus, all three compromises are set
tlements of existing questions, and intended to be
perpetual. They are all three of equal moral va
lidity. The constitutional compromise is guarded
by a higeer obligation in consequence of its' incor
potation in that instrument; but it ion° way differs
from the other two in the circumstances which
in
duced it, the policy which guards it, or the conse
quences which would flow from its obligation. A
proposition to destroy the slavery compromises in
the constitution would be an open proposition to
break up the Union ; the attempt to abrogate the
compromises of 1787 and 1820 would be virtue's'.
tempts to destroy the harmony of the Union, and
prepare it for dissolution, by destroying-the confi
dence and affection in which it is founded. -
The Missouri Compromise of 1820 is a continua
tion of the ordinance of 1787—its extension to the
since acquired territory West of the Mi_rsissippi,nnd
no way differing from iteither in principle or de
tail. The ordinance of 1787 divided the then ter
ritory of the United States about equally between.
the tree and slave states ; the Missouri Compromise
line did the same by the additional territory of the
United States as it stood in 1820.; and in tiothcases
it was done by act of Congress, and was the settle
ment of a difftittlty which was to taut forever. I
consider them both, with their fugitive slave re
covery claims, and the similar clause in the con
stitution, as part and parcel of the same Iran
sactiort—cliirerent articles in the same general set-
tlement.
The anti-slavery clause in the ordinance of 1787
could not have been put in (as was proved by its
three years' rejection) without the fugitive slave
recovery clause added to it. The constitution could
hot have been tormed without the recognition of
slavery in the states which' chose- it, and the right
of recovering slaves fleeing to-the free metes. , The
Missouri Compromise could not have been settled
except by the prohibition of slavery in the tippet
halt of the territory of Louisiana; and that prohibi
tion could not have been obtained withoot the
right to recover fugitive slaves horn the part made
tree.
PUBLiSHED EVERY SATURDAY - 4;011 1 014, BRADF011,1):-Mar,l.Lo - r O'NEARA,GOODRICIL
Thus, the three measures are one, and the or
dinance of 1787 father to the other two. It led to
the adoption ot the fugitive slave clause in the con
stitution, and we me) say, to the formation of the
constitution itaelf, which could not have been adopt
ed withoot that clause, and the recognition hf slave
property in which it was founded, This vital fact
results of itself from the history of. 0 5 0- ! n
March of ibe year,l7B4, the Virginia delegation In
the then Congress of the otinfederation, headed by
Mr../ofteraon and Mr:Monroe, conveyed the north.
western territory to the thirteen. UnhPd •S tatel l`
t o h f e hi at r on 3 t e h ge o r ft oo, alprilewoaanysing,
bent tb upon;
organizingvni andmind
administration, brought in an ordinance_ for the
agdfiltDLESS' OP DENUNCIATION - PROM ANY 414144TER. ."
government-oldie lemony so conveyed, 'with the
anti slavery clause as a part 44, to take effect in
the year 18004 but without a clause' for dierecove,
ry of fugitive slaves. 'Per the want of this provi
sion the -anti-slavery Clause was opposed - by the
slaveholding states, & rejected; and the ordinance
was, passed without it. .In July oldsesear 1787.,the
ordinance was, re modelled , the anti slavery clause,
with the 1011111v° slave recovery chide, as they now
stand, were inserted in it ; and in that shape the
ordinance had the unanimous vote of every state
present—.eight in the. whole—rind on equal number
of slave and free statettpresent. Thee,_ it is clear
that the anti-slavery Clause in the ordinance of 1787
could tiothatiei.passed Without the fugitive slave
recovery clause annexed. They were inseparable
in their binh, and must be, so in their, life; and
those who love one muse.axcept the other.
city
of
was done in the month of July, in the city
of New Yotir, where the Congress of thetonfeder
ation then sat. The. National Convention was sit.
ling at the same time in the city of Philadelphia, at
work upon a federal conatitutfon. Two bodies were
in constant communication with each other, and
some leading•membera (as Mr. Madison and Gen.
Hamilton) 'were members of each, and attending
by tume.in eactve The constitution was finished in
September, and received the fugitive slave recov•
ery clause immediately aher its ibsertion in the or•
dinance. It was the wotk of the same hands, and
at the same time, in both instruments; and it is
well known that the constitution Could not have
been formed without that clause.
Thus the compromise clause in the ordinance is
father to the compromise'claose in the constitution ;
and the Missouri Compromise results from both;
and all three stand before me as founded in the
same cucurnstances f induced by. the same consid•
erations, and directed by the same policy—that of
the peace, harmony" and perpetuity of this Union.
In point of moral obligation I consider them equal,
andiesulling from conditions which Tender them
indispensible. Two of them have all the - qualities
of a compromise—those of the ordinance and of the
constitution. They are founded in agreement—in
consent—in compact—and are as sacred and Imo
fable as human agreements can be. The third one
—that of the Missouri anti•slavery liue—was not
made upon agreement.
MISSOURI COMPROMISE IMPOSED BY SOUTHERN VOTES
rt was imposed 6y votes—by the South Upon the'
North—resisted by the North at thet time—aegni
esced in afterwards; and by thet accinieseence be•
came a binding v. eo.ns traty• bOill • flatt
and the mote so on the South because ehe Impr)s.
ed. I repeal ; it was an imposition, not a compact.
The South divided, and took choice and nuw it
will not do to claim the other halt on the ground of
original dissatisfaction of the other party. Broth
ers cannot di% itle an estate in that way—one make
the division, and take choice, and atterwardsclaim
the other halt, The South has her half She gave
it away once—gave it to Spain ; and the North
helped her to get it back, even at the expense of
war—without suspecting that she wasstrengthening
the South to enable it to lake the other hall. But
this 'attempt does not come from the South, and
finds resistence there.
THE RESULT OF AN ATTEMPT TO REPEAL THE
COMPROMISE OF 1787.
This brings us to the question of repeal or abro- '
gation of these compromises. The one in the con
initution• cannot be got rid of without an amend
ment to that instrument, and is, .4herefore, beyond
the reach of Congress. The other two, being in
the form of statutes, are subiects of legislation ; and,
legally repealable by Congress. Efforts were made
to impair one, that of 1787, some fifty years ago
An effort is now made to repeal the other ; and the
history and fate of the first attempt may be advan
tageous in the consideration of the second. It was
in the year 1803. The territory of Indiana had been
slave territory under the French Government, and
continued so under the American until 17 87. It
extended to the Mississippi, and contained many
slaves. Vincennes, Caltokia, Prairie de Rocher,
Kaskaskia, were all slaveholding towns. The in
habitants were attached to (bat property, and wish
ed to retain it, at least temporarily ; and also to in
vite a slaveholding emigration, until an increase of
population should form an adequate supply, of free
labor; and they petition Congress accordingly.—
The petition came from a convention of the people
presided by Governor Harrison, and only asked for
the suspension of the anti-slavery part of The ordi
nance for ten years, and limited in its application
to their own territory. The petition was referred
to a select committee of the House; Mr. Randolph
was chairman, and received its answer in a report,
in these words:
„ The rapid population of the State of Ohio suf
deiently evinces, in the opinion of your committee,
that the labor of slaves is not necesrary to, support
the growth and settlements of colonies in that region.
That this labor, demonstrably the dearest of any,
can only be einplo ed to advantage in the culture of
products more. vaLuable than any known io that guar.
ter of the United States ; that the committee deem
it highly dapgerous and inexpedient to impair a
provision wisely calculated to promote the happiness
and prosperity of the northwestern country, and to
give strength and security to that extensive frontier.
In the salutary operation of this sagacious and be
nevolent restraint, it is believed that the inhabitants
of Indiano will, at no very distant day; find ample
remuneration for a temporary privation of labor rod
emigration.”
This was the answer of the select committee;
and it became the answer of the House—of this
Hodge jaw 50 years ago—when the markt/as about
as ably, represented here as d ever has been since,
and when its relative strength was greater than it
has ever been since. The answer is a peremptory
refusal to yield to the petition of the people of In
thane, even - for a ten years local suspension of this
anti-slavery clause: a Highly dangerous and in•
expedient to impair that provision " Yes, to im
pair ! that is the word ; and ir' is a refusal' to weak
en or lessen, in the smallest degree, an act which
the committee calla a " benevolent and sagacious
act,".and which they recommend to maintain un
impaired, because it is "calculated to increase the
happiness arid prosperity of the northwest, and to
give strength and security to its frontier" That
Congress—and that without division between North
and South—would not impair , an act of so much
future good to posterity, not even upon the mistak
e en application of a few present inhabitants.
Bat this was not the end of the petidons. The
people of Indiana•were not satisfied with one re
pulse. They returned to the charge ; and four
times mcire, in the ,course ,of as many years, re
newed their application for the ten years' suspen
don of the ordinance. It was rejected each time,
and once in the Senate, where the North Carolina
senator (Mr." Jesse Fraohlio) was chairman of the
Conant nice which made the report against a. Five
tithes, in as many year, re feted by. Congress; and
the reletaion the more eniphatic in' some instances
because IF Was the reversal by the House of a fa
ratable report from a committee.. An d now, what
411)4 011 qt ~c4pAnf.bara ,Pot # lB .
deliyerenee whiefs the,. firmness,
_of congress
then 'gave them, - in ignite of the request of lii intuits.
itants filly years eget •
Thus, five times in the beginning this century
~.fcredigetent times, .and without soy „distinction
between, notthern and .sontbern, members—did
Congress refit* to ", impaio the slavery contra.
L wise of 1787, notwithstanding five times asked for
•
: • -›.•
by the people of th e tetritiiiy." 'Oh', NO:Wei' enter•
eighty! where were you then? It was a case for
you to have.shown-yonr. head—to-have arisen in
your might;--and established your suptemany for
ever, it was a'case of a convention of the sover
eigns themselves; and neither.this convention nor
the Congress had a dream et ttiniftovereig,rdy. The'
convention petitioned. Congrani-as a ward would
its guardian, or children under age' would - petition
their father, and '..Congress awarded 'lik'e•a good
guardiruk.otaiciodiaiher t , that irmiauld not give
them an evil, although they begged for it. Benight
ed times these, and-infinitely 'behind the present
age.. The mare's nestchadlnbuthenbeezi found - .
which has been laid the marvellous egg , out of
whi9h has been batched 'the' nendiseupf
'yclept 1, squatter enverigiity". (I„tinghter.) .l The
illustrious principle ocnoe.iniervention_had,not then
been inventet.l., The sgngramue of that, day~ bad
never heard of it, though now to be learned in ev.
fry horn-book; and,,lbefievuolo, where . else but
in the horn-hooks. (Renewed merriment.)
lOW IT 16-PEOPOSKTI TO DISTURB THE COISPHOMITE
Five times in the beginning of this century dill
Congress refuse to impair the Winery compromise
ol 'B7 ; and now, In the middle of the century
and after 30 years peace under the Missouri Corn
promise—the offspring and confirmation of that 01
1 87—we are called upon, not merely to. impair for
a season, but to destroy for ever, a tar greater corn
promise—extending to far more territory, and
growing out of necessities far more pressing. And
how called upon? Not by the inhabitants—not by
any one human being living, or expecting to live
on the territory to be affected—but upon a motion
In Congress—a silent, secret, limping, halting,
creeping ; squinting, im pish motion—conceived in
the datk—rnidwifed in a committee mom, and
sprung upon Congress and the country in the style
in which Guy Fawkes intended to blow up the
Parliament house, with his live hundred barrels of
eunpowder hid in the cellar, under the wood
(Le/tighter )
My answer to each a motion is to be found in the
whole volume of my pohtical • lite. 1 have stood
upon the Missouri Compromise for above thirty
years, and mean to stand upon it to the end of my
life ; and,' in doing so, shall act, not only according
to my own cherished convictions. of duty, but ac
cording to the often.declared convictions of the
General Assembly Of my state. The inviolability
of that compromise line has often been declared
by that General Assembly ; and, as late as 117,
in these words:
" Resolved, That the peace, permanency,ind wel
fare of our national Union depend upon a *islet ad
herence to the letter and spirit of the eighth section
of the act of Congress of the United States, entitled,
An act to authorize the people %of the Missouri
territory to form a constitution and state government
and for the admission of such states into the Union
on an equal footing with the original states, and to
prohibit slavery in certain territories', approved
March 0, 1820. "
—with an instruction to the senators, and a re
quest to the representatives in Congress, to vote
accordingly.
" The peace,permanency'& welfare of the Union
depend upon a strict,,,adherence to the Missouri
Compromise of 1K20. 4 So resolved the General
Assembly of Missouri as late as 1847. I believed
the Assembly was right then believe It now—
and so believing, shall "adhere" to the compro•
mise now, as then, " in spirit and in letter."
I shofild oppose any movements to impair that
compromise, made in •an open, direct, manly man
ner:. much more shall 1 oppose it if made in a co
vert, indirect, and unmanly way,. The bill or bills
before us undertake to accomplish their object w iih•
out professing it-upon reasons which are con'radic.
tory and unfounded—in terms Which are ambigu
ous and inconsistent—and by throwing on others
the responsibility of its own act.
IN . SIDIOCTS CHARACTER OF THE NEBRASKA BILL -- AN
ATTEMPT TO SMUGGLE SLAVERY INTO THE TERRITORY.
It professes not to interfere with the sovereign
right of the people to legislate for themselves; and
the very first tine of this solemn profession throws
upon diem a horse load of law, which they may
have no right to refuse, or time. to read, or money
to purchase, or ability to understand It throws up
on 'heal all the laws of the United States which are
not locally inapplicable ; and that comprehends all
that are specially made for other places; also, it
gives them the constitution; of the United
States, but without the privilege.ol voting at presi
dential or congressional elections, or of making
Meteors', judiciary. This is non-interference with
a vengeance. A community to he bored under a
mountain of strange law, and covered with a con-
ablution under which they are not to have one sin
gle
political right
Why this circumlocution? this extension of a
mountain of irrelevant law, with the exception of
the only one relevant and applicable I, Sir, it is the
crooked, insalions and pusillaniinous way of eflect-
ing the repeal of the Missouri Compromise line.—
It includes all law for the sake of leaving out one
law; and effects . a repeal by an omissiou, and legis.
bites by an exception. It is a new way otrepeal•
ing a law, and a bungling, attempt to smuggle slave
ry into the territory, and all the country out to the
Canada Mid and up the Rocky mountains. The
crooked line of this smuggling process in this:
Cl Abolish die compromise, line, and extends the
constitution over the country ; the constifw ion rec
ognises slavery ;therefore, slavery is established as
soon as the line is abolished, non the constitution
entended: and bein g put there by the constitution,
it cannot be le g islated out." This is the toglish
of this smuggling process; and certainly nothing
more unworthy of legislation=more derogatory to
a legislative body—was ever attempted to be made
into law. Sir, the constitution was not made for
territories, but fox states.. .Its provisions are applica.
ble to states, and cannot be pot in operation in ter
ritories. They cannot vote for President, or Vice-
President, or members of Congress, nor elect their
own officers, or prescribe the qualifications of voters,
oradminister their own (awe by: their own Judges,
sheriffs, and attorneys; and the clause extending the
constitution to them is a cheat and an, illusion, and
a trick to smuggle slavery, into the territory. Nor
is it intended that they "shall have any legislative
right under the eenstitution, even'in relation to
slavery. They admit it because it is to be Meta
by the constitution: tuey cannot exclude it, because
theconstitutiort pnte it them. That is the argument;
and it is a jtiggls"worthy of the trick of one egg,
under three hats at the- same 'time--and under
neither at any time Besides, the constitution,
an otg,anic, not an administrative act. It is a code
of
. principles, not of lawi., Not a Clause in it
can be executed except 'by visit:Wide law Made
under it—not even the clausefor recovering fugitive
slaves. ,
SERUM* A$ ASYLUM "FOR RuRAwAy Maly=
But i am not done yet with the beauties of th(s
mode 4)1 repealing ajaw_by an exception. There
is a hirther.consequence tote detected in it. The
Missouri Compromise consists of two distinet parts
first, arrabolitten of shortly hall the Wiest Lon
iBlamsmink and , west of Missouri ,sbcond yot pro
vision tor iheietoyery of ittgitive slaves in the terri
tory made
,free By the omitted eXtiinsion' this
section;both these pads are. repute& A tract of
country huger thaw the.old thirteen Atlantic states,
and bordering &thousand mile, un itritjA. dem in
one, is nalsde an asylum for fugitive &litres. There
ME
DEEM
'will be no law to-reetntesaslave from all that vast
region..,,
Ihe erinistititninallirowision tO stater.;
the provision Atbei net of. 1787 is ,limited to the
North-west territory.; the seeend part of die Missouri
'CempEomise estentled:thisAight to all the territory
north en& weal ottibowki,iinti . that being repeal
ed, that right of rectivesy is.. Witt 1. object , to this
on theßart of the ewe
,ofAtissouri—the state to be
most injured by Convening all the territory north
and west of her, quite out to the British hue, into
any_asylum, for ; runeway,slaves. The blunder can.
not be corrected(at :least in the, opinion of those
who ileny thevenstitutional potver of Congress to
legislate on slavery in .territories) by act of Coe,
greS;i• „
, .
' TlienComes dismissed ferment ing the M issou ri
Compromise Irom the exiensionwhich is given to
kmass oUaws whieti are not there, and denied to
itself which is there. If the lessen had been, be.
cause it was already there, it would have been a
logical and gomprebensible reason ; but that isnot
the cause assignei4 and those which are assigned
are actually numerous and curious, and worthy of
esaininarion. First, because it was superseded by
certiiin acts of 1850; next, that it is inconsistent with
those acts; then that it is inoperative; and finally,that
it never was there, being dead in its birth ur.der
thirconstitution, and void from the beginning.
TIM COMPILONIef. Ow 1850 ow NOT burEasEDE, THAT
• ow 1820.
Let us look into these reasons, seriatim, as the
- -
lawyers say: and first of supersession. It is said
the measures of 1850 superseded this compromise
of 1820 If so, why treat it now as still existing,
and therefore to be repealed by an exception in
order to get rid of it? If it was repealed in IRSO,
why do it over again. in , 1854 I Why kill the dead?
But it was not superseded ; but acknowledged and
confirmed by every speaker in 1850 that retained
to the subject, and by. every act that mentioned it.
This being matter of tact, and proven by all sorts
of testimony—parol, written, and record—it had
to be given up, (though a test of political orthodoxy
as long as it stood,] and sometlinig else put in its
place. There upon supersession was itself super
seded by " inconsistent." Out of the frying pun into
the fire! (Laughter.]
Inconsistent signihes inability to stand together
—two things which cannot stand together—from
con and sisto. . Now, what is the tact with respect
to the compramises of 1820 and 1850 I Can they
not stand together? And if not, wh.t knock the one
that is afresdy down ? It is now Idur years
since this inability to stand Loge her took effect;
and how do the two sets of measure make out to
gether at the end of this time? Perfectly well.—
They are both on their feet—stautling bolt uptight
—and will stand so forever, unless Congress knocks
one or the other of them down. This is fact, known
to every body, admitted by the bill itself; for it the
first is inconsistent with the second, .and unable to
stand, Why all this trouble to put it down r Why
trip up the heels of the man already flat of his back
.on the ground! Then comes another reason—that
this compromise of 1820 is inoperative and void.—
If 60, those who are against its operation should be
content. It is in the very condition they wish it—
, useless, Outverless, inactive, dead—and no bar to
the progress ofslavery to the North. Void is vacant
empty, nothing of it. Now, it the line, of 36 der ,
30 RIM is inoperative and void. it is in the con&
Lion of a fence pulled down, and the rails carried
away, and the field left open for the stock to enter.
But the lence is not pulled dowu yet The line is
riot yet inoperative and void. It is an existing
substantive line, alive and opt•rating ; and operat
ing effectually to bar the progress of slavery to the
North ; and will so continue to operate %mil Con•
gress shall stop its operation.
Then comes the final reason, that there never
was any such line in the woad—that it wts uticon
stitutional and void—that it had no existence from
the beginning; and that it must not be recysaled by
a direct act, for that would be to acknoweldge its
previous existence, and to nullity the conititutional
agreement and, what is m. re terrible, involve the
authors oldie doctrine in an inconsistency of their
own; and thereby make themselves inoperative
and void. And this is the anaTysis oh the reasons
for the Nebraska bill—that part o f it which is to get
rid of the compromise of MO; untrue, colour:trite
Cory, suicidal and preposrerous. And why such
ti larrage of nullities, incongruities ; and inconsist.
envies"!
Pnrely and simply to throw, upon others—upon
the Congress of 1850 and the innocent constitution
—the btan.e of what the bill itself is doing,; the
blame of destroying the compromise of 1820; and
with it, destroying all confidence between the North
and the South, and arraying one hall of Union
against the other in deadly hostility. It is to be
able to throw blame upon the innocent that this
farrago is served op to us.
TERRITORIAL sOVEREMNTY, NONSENSE
And what is all this hutch-porch tor? It is to
establish a princ:ple,they say—the principle anon
intervention-4f squatter sovereignty. Sir, there
is no such principle. The territories are the chit.
then cf the states. They are minors, under twenty.
one years of age ; and it is the business of ihe states,
through their delegation in Congress, to take care
of there minors until they are of age—until they
are ripe for state government—then give them that
.government, rind admit mem to an eqnaley with
their, fa:hers. That is the law and the sense of the
zase; arid has ,been so ackno wleilued, since the
first ordinance MI, by ali awhoi tiles, federal
and state,jegistative, judicial end executive.
The states in Congress are the guardians of the
territories, aad are bound to exeictse the guardian
ship; and cannot abdicate it without a breach of
'trust and a dereliction - of duty. Territorial sover
eignty is a monstrosity, be n of timidity and ambi
hatched into. existence in the hot incubation
of a presidential canvass, and revolting to the hold
ers when first presented.
Well do I remember that day when it was first '
shown into the Senate, hlaik Anthony did not
better . remember the day . wt Ctrsar film put on
that Mental through which he was afterwards pier
ced With three and -tiventy '• envious stabs." It was
in the Senate in 1848, and was received as non
sense—as the essensenre of nonsense—as the
gnintresence of nonsense—as the five times distill
_ ed essence of political ronsensical4.
STUMP SPECCII 18
.71-1 E
Why, sir, the territory itself is the property olthe
states, and they do what they please with it—per
mit it to be settled or not, as ihey please ; cut n op
by lines, as they please ; sell it, or give it away, as
they please; chase white people horn it, as they
please. After this fermi —this olld podritla— comes
a little stomp speech, injected in the betty of the
bill, and which 'must have a prodigious effect when
recited in the prairies, and out towards the—fron
tiers, and op towards the heads of the creeks
(Loughterand sensarion.) twill read it, and 1 hope
without fatiguing the House ; for it is both brief and
beautiful, and tune thus: . ,
"It being the true-intent and moaning of this act
not to legislate slavery into - say state or .terriogy,
1 1 not to exclude it therefrom; but to leeve the people
thereof perfectly free to form and .fegulate their do.
mastic institutions in their own way, Subject only
to the constitution of the United States."
This is the speech, ands pretty little Ming itself,
sad a very proper to be spoken from a stump in
the praitie. U his intent, sad attne intent which
MEM
inir
=ME
=EMI
FNMA
is netherto legislate elavety into or bit of a state
or territory. 'Ttien Why legyllate at all? Why all
this disturbance ir nu effect is produced, and things
remain jest be they were! Let well' enough
alone; was the ohl doctrine; to make well enough
still better, is the doctrine of progress; and that, itt ,
spite oldie Italian epitaph, which Sap: " was
well, and would be better, took physic, and here
I am." But the states must be greatly delighted
at the politeness and lorbarance ol ibis bill. It puts
slates and territories upon precise equality with
respect to the power of Congress over them. Con•
gess does not mean to put slavery in or obi or any
stale or tell tll7 To that polite abnegation's! have
to say that; in Moped of the stales, it is the super
erogation of modesty and' humility, as Congress
happens to have no powet to put slavery in Them;
or out of them ; and in respect of the territories, it
is an abdication ol a constitu ionetpower and duty ;
it being the right of Congress to legislate upon sla-
very in the territories, and 'its dory to do so when
, there is occasion for it-•-•as in 1787 and 1820.
I object. to this shilly-sbally--willy wonity—
don'ty-canlty.—style offegtslation. '(Roars of laugh.
ter.) It is not legislative. It is not parliamentary.
it is not manly. it is not womanly. No woman
would talk that way. No ihilly•shally in a wo•
man. Nothing of the female gender was ever born
young enough, or lived long enough, to get befog
god in such a quandary as this. (Renewed laugh
ter.) It is one thine, or the other with them; arid
what they say they • stick to. No break
ing bargains with them But the 'end of this stomp
speech is the best of the whole. Different trom
good milk, in which the cream rises to the top, it
here settles to the bottom, and is in these words :
" Leave it to the people thereof, that is to say, of
the states and of the territories, to regulateslavery for
themselves as they please, only subject to the 'con•
stitutiou of the United States."
Certainly this is a new subjection fur the states.
Heretofore they, have been free to regulate slavery
for themselves—admit it, or reject it; and that
not:by virtue of any grant of power in *the
commotion, but by virtueol an unsurreudered part
of their old sovereignty. It is also new of the ter
ritories. Heretofore they have been held to be
wards of Congress, and entitled to nothing, under
the constitution, but that which Congress extends
to them. Byttatti4 elaustsis.not i secidaritally here;
it IS tolceep up the dogma of the constitution in
territories ; but only there in relation to slavery,
and thatlor its admission—not its rejection.
Three dogmas now afflict the land ; videlicet :
squatter sovereignty, non-intervention, and no pow.
er in Congress to legislate upon slavery in territo
ries. And this bill asserts the whole three, anti
beautifully illustrates the whole three, by knocking
each one on the head with the other and trampling
each under foot in its turn. Sir, tWe bill does deny
squatter sovereignty, and it does intervene, and it
'does legislate upon territories, and for a proof of
that, see the bill; and see it as the lawyers sey,pas
sim; that is to say, here, and there, and every
where.
It is a bill of assumptions and contradictions—
assuming what is unfounded, and contradicting what
it assumes—ami balancing every affirmation by a
negation. It is a see-saw bill; but not the innocent
see saw which children play on a plank stuck dim'
a fence ; but the up-and•down game of politician%
played at the expense of the peace and harmony of
the Union,-gad to the sacrifice of all business in Con
gress. Hisn amphibological bill, stuffed with mon
strositi4 es übb led with - contradictions, and Badge red
Wilk rovis (Laughter.)
tc ..
Amphibology is a cause for the rejection of bills,
not only by L?ongress, but by the President when
'carried to him for his approval: General Jackson
rejected one fur that cause. and it was less amphibm
logical than this; it was the last night of the last
day of his last administration, and a quarter before
midnight. Congress had sent him a bill to repeal
the specie circular, and to inaugurate the paper mos
ney of a thousand local banks as the currency of the
Federal Government. It was an object not to bo
avowed, nor to be done in any direct . , or palpable
manner. Paraphrases, circumlocution, ambidexte.
rity and ambiguity, were, necessary to cover up the
design ; and it-was.piled on until it was unintelli
gible. The President read it, and could make no
thing of it; he sent to his Attorney General, who
was equally puzzled. lie then returned it, with a
message to the Senate, refusing to sign the bill for
ampbibology. We should reject this bill for the
same cause, if for nothing else. Hard is the fate of
party fealty. It has to keep up with the ever-chang
ing measure. Often have these bills changed; and
under every phase they have had to be received as
a test of orthodoxy ; and have more changes to un
dergo yet, arul to continue to be a test ander all mu
tations.
SQUATTER SOVEREIGIRTT EXPOSED
And now, what is the object of this movement
which so disturbs Congress and the country? What
does it propose to accomplish? To settle a princi
ple, is the answer—the principle of non-intervention,
and the right of the people of the territory to decide
the question of slavery for themselves. Sir, there is
no such principle. The territories are the children
of the states. They are minors, under age, and it is
the business of the states, through their delegations
in Congressoo take care of thetri until they are of
age—until they are ripe forMato government ; then
to give them that governmeak, and admit them to an•
• equality with their fathers. That is law, and has
I been so admitted and acknowledged since the first
I ordinance, in 1784.
The states in Congrece are the guardians of the
territories, and are bound to exercise that guardian.
ship; and cannot abdicate it without a breach of
trust and a dereliction of duty. W hy, sir. the terri
tory itself is the property of the states, and they do
with it what they please—permit it to be settled or
not, as they please; cut it up by finesses they please ;
sell, or give it away as they please: Chase white
people from it,. as they please• This has been al
ways the case. There is a proclamation now extant
of tho old Congress of the confederation; describing
the first ratter in the Northwest territory as " disor
d, as- persons." and ordering them to be driven off
by the military.
I mmember many such military expulsions in the
early settlement of the western conntry, often exe
' euted with severity—burning houses. cutting up
corn, destroying tences,and drivingoff people at the
point of the bayonet.ancl under the edge of the sabre.
As late as 1835-'36, arid after the extension of the
Indian title to the Platte country in Missouri, similar
orders were given to the then colonel of dragoons
commanding on that frontier, the now ienator in
Congress, Henry Dodge. to expel the people from
that purchase : orders which he executed in gent
tleness and mercy, going alone, explaining his busi
ness, and requiring them to go away—which they
did, like good and orderly people—and when he was
gone, came back like sensible and industrious peo
ple, and secured their pre-emptions. Not only
settled,, but organized territory, has been io treated
by the federal government, and worse—the people
driven off, and their houses given away. This hap
pened tnArkatisas in 1829, when twelve lhonsand
square miles of her organized territory was given to
the Cberokeesiand the peopti driven away. Why
sir, this very Heidi 3 6° 30m., with all the territory
on One aide of it, and two degrees on the other side.
w 'i r egiven away to the King, of Spain. This, has
been. the seventy years practice I)ftbe government ;
to treat the territories as property, and the people
as uninvited guests, to be entertained or turned out.
as the owner of the Lope chooses. Fine sovereigna
these! chased off by the military, and their hottaes
g,iven to Indians or Spaniards. The tr hole idea cf
ISE
El
=ELMS ti ea