I wish to speak to-day, not as a Massachusetts man, nor as a Northern man, but as an American, and a member of the Senate of the United States. It is fortunate that there is a Senate of the United States; a body, not yet moved from its propriety, not
lost to a just sense of its own dignity, and its own high responsibilities, and a body to which the country looks, with confidence, for wise, moderate, patriotic, and healing counsels. It is not to be denied that we live in the midst of strong agitations, and are surrounded by very considerable dangers to our institutions and government. The imprisoned winds are let loose. The East, the North, and the stormy South, combine to throw the whole ocean into commotion, to toss its billows to the skies, and disclose its profoundest depths. I do not affect to regard myself, Mr. President, as holding, or as fit to hold, the helm in this combat with the political elements; but I have a duty to perform, and I mean to perform it with fidelity, not without a sense of
existing dangers, but not without hope. l have a part to act, not for my own security or safety, for I am looking out for no fragment upon which to float away from the wreck, if wreck there must be, but for the good of the whole, and the preservation of all; and there is that which will keep me to my duty during this struggle, whether the sun and the stars shall appear, or shall not appear, for many days. I speak to-day for the preservation of the Union. “Hear me for my cause.” I speak, to-day, out of a solicitous and anxious heart, for the restoration to the country of that quiet and that
harmony which make the blessings of this Union so rich and so dear to us all. These are the topics that I propose to myself to discuss; these are the motives, and the sole motives, that influence me in the wish to communicate my opinions to the Senate and the country; and if I can do anything, however little, for the promotion of these ends, I shall have accomplished all that I expect.
Mr. President, it may not be amiss to recur very briefly to the events which, equally sudden and extraordinary, have brought the political condition of the country to what it now is. In May, 1846, the United States declared war against Mexico. Our armies, then on the frontiers, entered the provinces of that republic, met and defeated all her troops, penetrated her mountain passes, and occupied her capital. The marine force of the United States took possession of her forts and her towns, on the Atlantic and on the Pacific. In less than two years, a treaty was negotiated, by which Mexico ceded to the United States a vast territory, extending seven or eight hundred miles along the shores of the Pacific, and reaching back over the mountains, and across the desert, until it joins the frontier of the State of Texas. It so happened, in the distracted and feeble state of the Mexican Government, that, before the declaration of war by the United States against Mexico had become known in California, the people of California, under the lead of American officers, overthrew the existing provincial government of California, the Mexican authorities, and run up an independent flag. When the news arrived at San Francisco that war had been declared by the United States against Mexico, this independent flag was pulled down, and the stars and stripes of this Union hoisted in its stead. So, sir, before the war was over, the forces of the United States, military and naval, had possession of San Francisco and Upper California, and a great rush of emigrants from various parts of the world took place into California in 1846 and 1847. But now, behold another wonder.
In January of 1848, the Mormons, or some of them, made a discovery of an extraordinarily rich mine of gold, or, rather, of a very great quantity of gold, hardly fit to be called a mine, for it was spread near the surface, on the lower part of the South, or American, branch of the Sacramento. They seem to have attempted to conceal their discovery for some time; but soon another discovery, perhaps of greater importance, was made of gold, in another part of the American branch of the Sacramento, and near Sutter’s Fort, as it is called. The fame of these discoveries spread far and wide. They inflamed more and more the spirit of emigration towards California, which had already been excited; and persons crowded in hundreds, and flocked towards the Bay of San Francisco. This, as I have said, took place in the winter and spring of 1848. The digging commenced in the spring of that year, and from that time to this the work of searching , for gold has been prosecuted with a success not heretofore known in the history of this globe. We all know, sir, how incredulous the American public was at the accounts which reached us, at first, of these discoveries; but we all know, now, that these accounts received, and continue to receive, daily confirmation, and down to the present moment I suppose the assurances are as strong, after the experience of these several months, of mines of gold apparently inexhaustible in the regions near San Francisco, in California, as they
were at any period of the earlier dates of the accounts. It so happened, sir, that, although after the return or peace, it became a very important subject for legislative consideration and legislative decision, to provide a proper territorial government for California, yet differences of opinion in the counsels of the Government prevented the
establishment of any such territorial government, at the last session of Congress. Under this state of things, the inhabitants of San Francisco and California, then amounting to a great number of people, in the summer of last year, thought it to be their duty to establish a local government. Under the proclamation of General Riley, the people chose delegates to a Convention; that Convention met at Monterey. They formed a constitution for the State of California, and it was adopted by the people of California in their primary assemblages. Desirous of immediate connection with the United States, its Senators were appointed and Representatives chosen, who have come hither, bringing with them the authentic Constitution of the State of California; and they now present themselves, asking, in behalf of their State, that it may be admitted into this Union as one of the United States. This constitution, sir, contains an express prohibition against slavery, or involuntary servitude, in the State of California. It is said, and I suppose truly, that of the members who composed that Convention some sixteen were natives of, and had been residents in, the slaveholding States, about twenty-two were from the non-slaveholding States, and the remaining ten members were either native Californians or old settlers in that country. This prohibition against slavery, it is said, was inserted with entire unanimity.
Mr. Hale. Will the Senator give way until order is restored ?
-P Sergeant-at-Arms will
The Vice resident. The see that order is restored, and no more persons admitted to
the floor.
of the day will not
Mr. Cass. I trust the scene other be repeated. The Sergeant-at-Arms must display more energy in suppressing this disorder.
Mr. H . The noise is outside of the door.
ale
Mr. Webster. And it is this circumstance, the sir, prohibition of slavery by that Convention, which has contributed to raise, I do not say it has wholly raised, the dispute as to the propriety of the admission of California into the Union under this constitution. It is not to be denied, Mr. President, nobody thinks of denying, that, whatever reasons were assigned at the commencement of the late war with Mexico, it was prosecuted for the purpose of the acquisition of territory, and under the alleged argument that the cession of territory was the only form in which proper compensation could be made to the United States by Mexico, for the various claims and demands which the people of this country had against that government. At any rate, it will be found that President Polk’s message, at the commencement of the session of December, 1847, avowed that the war was to be prosecuted until some acquisition of territory should be made. And, as the acquisition was to be south of the line of the United States, in warm climates and countries, it was naturally, I suppose, expected by the South, that whatever acquisitions were made in that region would be added to the slaveholding, portion of the United States. Very little of accurate information was possessed of the real physical character, either of California or New Mexico; and events have turned out as was not expected; both California and New Mexico are likely to come in as free; and therefore some degree of disappointment and surprise has resulted. In other words, it is obvious that the question which has so long harassed the country, and at some times very seriously alarmed the minds of wise and good men, has come upon us for a fresh discussion; the question of slavery in these United States.
Now, sir, I propose, perhaps at the expense of some detail and consequent detention of the Senate, to review historically this question, which, partly in consequence of its own importance, and partly, perhaps mostly, in consequence of the manner in which it has been discussed in one and the other portion of the country, has been a source of so much alienation and unkind feeling.
We all know, sir, that slavery has existed in the world from time immemorial. There was slavery, in the earliest periods of history, in the oriental nations. There was slavery among the Jews; the theocratic government of that people ordained no injunction against it. There was slavery among the Greeks; and the ingenious philosophy of the Greeks found, or sought to find, a justification for it exactly upon the grounds which have been assumed for such a justification in this country; that is, a natural and original difference among the races of mankind, and the inferiority of the black or colored race to the white. The Greeks justified their system of slavery upon that idea, precisely. They held the African, and in some parts the Asiatic, tribes to be inferior to the white race; but they did not show, I think, by any close process of logic, that, if this were true, the more intelligent and the stronger had therefore a right to subjugate the weaker.
The more manly philosophy and jurisprudence of the Romans placed the justification of slavery on entirely different grounds.
The Roman jurists, from the first and down to the fall of the empire, admitted that slavery was against the natural law, by which, as they maintained, all men of whatsoever clime, color, or capacity were equal; but they justified slavery, first, upon the ground and authority of the law of nations, arguing, and arguing truly, that at that day the conventional law of nations admitted that captives in war, whose lives, according to the notions of the times, were at the absolute disposal of the captors, might, in exchange for exemption from death, be made slaves for life, and that such servitude might descend to their posterity. The jurists of Rome also maintained that by the civil law there might be servitude or slavery, personal and hereditary; first, by the voluntary act of an individual who might sell himself into slavery; secondly, by his being received into a state of slavery by his creditors in satisfaction of his debts; and, thirdly, by being placed in a state of servitude or slavery for crime. At the introduction of Christianity, the Roman world was full of slaves, and I suppose there is to be found no in junction against that relation between man and man, in the teachings of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, or of any of his apostles. The object of the instruction imparted to mankind by the founder of Christianity was to touch the heart, purify the soul, and improve the lives of individual men. That object went directly to the first fountain of all political and all social relations of the human race, as well as of all true religious feeling, the individual heart and mind of man.
Now, sir, upon the general nature, and character, and influence of slavery, there exists a wide difference be tween the Northern portion of this country and the Southern. It is said on the one side that, if not the subject off any injunction or direct prohibition in the New Testament, slavery is a wrong; that it is founded merely in the right of the strongest; and that it is an oppression, like unjust wars, like all those conflicts by which a mighty nation subjects a weaker nation to its will; and that slavery, in its nature, whatever may be said of it in the modifications which have taken place, is not in fact according to the meek spirit of the Gospel. It is not “kindly affectioned;” it does not “seek another’s, and not its own;" it does not “ let the oppressed go free.”
These are sentiments that are cherished, and recently with greatly augmented force, among the people of the Northern States. They have taken hold of the religious sentiment of that part of the country, as they have more or less taken hold of the religious feelings of a considerable portion of mankind. The South, upon the other side, having been accustomed to this relation between the two races all their lives, from their birth; having been taught, in general, to treat the subjects of this bondage with care and kindness, and I believe, in general, feeling for them great care and kindness, have not taken the view of the subject which I have mentioned. There are thousands of religious men, with consciences as tender as any of their brethren at the North, who do not see the unlaw fulness of slavery; and there are more thousands, perhaps, that, whatsoever they may think of it in its origin, and as a matter depending upon natural right, yet take things as they are, and, finding slavery to be an established relation of the society in which they live, can see no way in which, let their opinions on the abstract question be what they may, it is in the power of the present generation to relieve themselves from this relation. And, in this respect, candor obliges me to say, that I believe they are just as conscientious, many of them, and the religious people, all of them, as they are in the North who hold different opinions.
Why, sir, the honorable Senator from South Carolina,
the other day, alluded to the separation of that great
religious community, the Methodist Episcopal Church.
That separation was brought about by differences of
opinion upon this particular subject of slavery. I felt
great concern, as that dispute went on, about the result;
and I was in hopes that the difference of opinion might
be adjusted, because I looked upon that religious deno
mination as one of the great props of religion and morals,
throughout the whole country, from Maine to Georgia,
and westward, to our utmost western boundary. The
result was against my wishes and against my hopes.
I have read all their proceedings, and all their argu
ments ; but I have never yet been able to come to the
conclusion that there was any real ground for that sepa
ration ; in other words, that any good could be produced
by that separation. I must say I think there was some
want of candor and charity. Sir, when a question of
this kind seizes on the religious sentiments of man
kind, and comes to be discussed in religious assemblies of
the clergy and laity, there is always to be expected, or
always to be feared, a great degree of excitement. It
is in the nature of man, manifested by his whole history,
that religious disputes are apt to become warm, as men’s
strength of conviction is proportionate to their views of
the magnitude of the questions. In all such disputes,
there will sometimes men be found with whom every
thing is absolute, absolutely wrong, or absolutely right.
They see the right clearly; they think others ought so to
see it, and they are disposed to establish a broad line of
distinction between what is right, and what is wrong.
And they are not seldom willing to establish that line
upon their own convictions of truth and justice; and
are ready to mark and guard it, by placing along it a
series of dogmas, as lines of boundary on the earth’s sur
face are marked by posts and stones. There are men who,
with clear perceptions, as they think, of their own duty,
do not see how too hot a pursuit of one duty may involve
them in the violation of others, or how too warm an em-
bracement of one truth may lead to a disregard of other
truths equally important. As I heard it stated strongly,
not many days ago, these persons are disposed to mount
upon some particular duty as upon a war horse, and to
drive, furiously on and upon, and over, sdl other duties that
may stand in the way. There are men who, in times of
that sort, and in disputes of that sort, are of opinion that
human duties may be ascertained with the exactness of
mathematics. They deal with morals as with mathema
tics ; and they think what is right may be distinguished
from what is wrong, with the precision of an algebraic
equation. They have, therefore, none too much charity
towards others who differ from them. They are apt, too,
to think that nothing is good but what is perfect, and
that there are no compromises or modifications to be
made in submission to difference of opinion, or in defer
ence to other men’s judgment. If their perspicacious
vision enables them to detect a spot on the face of the
sun, they think that a good reason why the sun should
be struck down from heaven. They prefer the chance
of running into utter darkness, to living in heavenly
light, if that heavenly light be not absolutely’without
any imperfection. There are impatient men, too impa
tient always to give heed to the admonition of St. Paul,
“ that we are not to do evil that good may cometoo
impatient to wait for the slow progress of moral causes
in the improvement of mankind. They do not remem
ber that the doctrines and the miracles of Jesus Christ
have, in eighteen hundred years, converted only a small
portion of the human race; and among the nations that
are converted to Christianity, they forget how many vices
and crimes, public and private, still prevail, and that
many of them, public crimes especially, which are so
clearly offences against the Christian religion, pass with
out exciting particular indignation. Thus wars are
waged, and unjust wars. I do not deny that there may
be just wars'. There certainly are; but it was the re
mark of an eminent person, not many years ago, on the
other side of the Atlantic, that it was one of the greatest
reproaches to human nature, that wars were sometimes
just. The defence of nations sometimes causes a just
war against the injustice of other nations.
Now, sir, in this state of sentiment upon the general
nature of slavery lies the cause of a great part of
those unhappy divisions, exasperations, and reproaches,
which find vent and support in different parts of the
Union. Slavery does exist in the United States. It
did exist in the States before the adoption of this Con
stitution, and at that time.
And now let us consider, sir, for a moment, what was
the state of sentiment, North and South, in regard to
slavery, at the time this Constitution was adopted. A
remarkable change has taken place since; but what did
the wise and great men of all parts of the country think
of slavery, then? In what estimation did they hold it
at the time when this Constitution was adopted? Now,
it will be found, sir, if we will carry ourselves by his
torical research back to that day, and ascertain men’s
opinions by authentic records still existing among us,
that there was no great diversity of opinion between
the North and the South, upon the subject of slavery.
And it will be found that both parts of the country held
it equally an evil, a moral and political evil. It will
not be found that, either at the North or at the South,
there was much, though there was some, invective
against slavery as inhuman and cruel. The great ground
of objection to it was political; that it weakened the
social fabric; that, taking the place of free labor, society
became less strong and labor was less productive; and,
therefore, we find from all the eminent men of the time
the clearest expression of their opinion that slavery was
an evil. And they ascribed its existence, here, not
without truth, and not without some acerbity of temper
and force of language, to the injurious policy of the
mother country, who, to favor the navigator, had entailed
these evils upon the colonies. I need hardly refer, sir,
particularly to the publications of the day. They are
matters of history on the record. The eminent men, the
most eminent men, and nearly all the conspicuous politi
cians of the South, held the same sentiments; that slavery
was an evil, a blight, a blast, a mildew, a scourge, and
a curse. There are no terms of reprobation of slavery
so vehement in the North of that day as in the South.
The North was not so much excited against it as the
South; and the reason is, I suppose, because there was
much less of it at the North, and the people did not see,
or think they saw, the evils so prominently as they were
seen, or thought to be seen, at the South.
Then, sir, when this Constitution was framed, this
was the light in which the Convention viewed it. The
Convention reflected the judgment and sentiments of
the great men of the South. A member of the other
House, whom I have not the honor to know, in a recent
speech, has collected extracts from these public docu
ments. They prove the truth of what I am saying,
and the question then was, how to deal with it, and
how to deal with it as an evil? Well, they came to
this general result. They thought that slavery could
not be continued in the country, if the importation of
slaves were made to cease, and therefore they provided
that after a certain period the importation might be
prevented, by the act of the new government. Twenty
years was proposed by some gentleman, a Northern
gentleman, I think, and many of the Southern gentle
men opposed it as being too long. Mr. Madison, espe
cially, was minething warm against.it. He said it would
bring too much of this mischief into the country to
allow the importation of slaves for such a period. Be
cause we must take along with us, in the whole of this
discussion, when we are considering the sentiments and
opinions in which the constitutional provision originated,
that the conviction of all men was, that if the importa
tion of slaves ceased, the white race would multiply
faster than the black race, and that slavery would there
fore gradually wear out and expire. It may not be
improper here to allude to that, I had almost said, cele
brated opinion of Mr. Madison. You observe, sir, that
the term slave, or slavery, is not used in the Constitution.
The Constitution does not require that “fugitive slaves”
shall be delivered up. It requires that “persons bound
to service in one State, and escaping into another, shall
be delivered up.” Mr. Madison opposed the introduction
of the term slave, or slavery, into the Constitution; for,
he said that he did not wish to see it recognized by the
Constitution of the United States of America, that there
could be property in men. Now, sir, all this took place
at the' Convention in 1787; but, connected with this,
concurrent and cotemporaneous, is another important
transaction not sufficiently attended to. The Convention
for framing this Constitution assembled in Philadelphia
in May, and sat until September, 1787. During all
that time, the Congress of the United States was in ses
sion at New York. It was a matter of design, as we
know, that the Convention should not assemble in the
same city where Congress was holding its sessions. Al
most all the public men of the country, therefore, of
distinction and eminence, were in one or the other of
these two assemblies; and I think it happened, in some
instances, that the same gentlemen were members of
both. If I mistake not, such was the case of Mr. Rufus
King, then a member of Congress from Massachusetts,
and at the same time a member of the Convention to
frame the Constitution. Now, it was in the summer
of 1787, the very time when the Convention in Phila
delphia was framing this Constitution, that the Con
gress in New York was framing the ordinance of 1787.
They passed that ordinance on the 13th July, 1787, at
New York, the very month, perhaps the very day, on
which these questions, about the importation of slaves
and the character of slavery, were debated in the Con
vention at Philadelphia. And, so far as we can now
learn, there was a perfect concurrence of opinion be
tween these respective bodies; and it resulted in this
ordinance of 1787, excluding slavery as to all the ter
ritory over which the Congress of the United States
had jurisdiction, and that was, all the territory north
west of the, Ohio. Three years before, Virginia and
other States had made a cession of that great territory
to the United States. And a most magnificent act it
was. I never reflect upon it without a disposition to do
honor and justice, and justice would be the highest
honor, to Virginia, for the cession of' her northwestern
territory. I will say, sir, it is one of her fairest claims
to the respect and gratitude of the United States, and
that, perhaps, it is only second to that other claim
which attaches to her; that, from her counsels, and
from the intelligence and patriotism of her leading
statesmen, proceeded the first idea put into practice of
the formation of a general constitution of the United
States. Now, sir, the ordinance of 1787 was applied
thus to the whole territory over which the Congress
of the United States had jurisdiction. It was adopted
two years before the Constitution of the United States
went into operation; because the ordinance too effect
immediately on its passage, while the Constitution of
the United States, having been framed, was to be sent
to the States to be adopted by their Conventions; and
then a government was to be organized under it. This
ordinance, then, was in operation and force when the
Constitution was adopted and the Government put in
motion, in April, 1789.
Mr. President, three things are quite clear as histori
cal truths. One is, that there was an expectation that,
on the ceasing of the importation of slaves from Africa,
slavery would begin to run out here. That was hoped
and expected. Another is, that, as far as there was any
power in Congress to prevent the spread of slavery in
the United States, that power was executed in the most
absolute manner, and to the fullest extent. An honora
ble member, whose health does not allow him to be here
to-day—
C
A Senator. He is here. (Referring to Mr. alhoun.)
Mr. W . I am very happy to hear that he is;
ebster
serve his country! The honorable member said, the
other day, that he considered this ordinance as the first,
in the series of measures, calculated to enfeeble the
South, and deprive them of their just participation in the
benefits and privileges of this government. He says very
properly that it was enacted under the old confedera
tion and before this Constitution went into effect; but,
my present purpose is only to say, Mr. President, that
it was established with the entire and unanimous con
currence of the whole South. Why, there it stands!
The vote of every State in the Union was unanimous in
favor of the ordinance, with the exception of a single
individual vote, and that individual vote was given by a
Northern man. But, sir, the ordinance abolishing, or
rather prohibiting, slavery northwest of the Ohio, has
the hand and seal of every Southern member in Con
gress. So this ordinance was no aggression of the North
on the South.
The other and third clear historical truth is, that the
Convention meant to leave slavery/ in the States, as
they found it, entirely under the authority and control
of the States themselves.
This was the state of things, sir, and this the state of
opinion, under which those very important matters were
arranged, and those three important things done; that
is, the establishment of the Constitution with a recogni
tion of slavery as it existed in the States; the establish
ment of the ordinance prohibiting, to the full extent of
all territory owned by the United States, the introduc
tion of slavery into that territory, while leaving to the
States all power over slavery in their own limits; and
creating a power, in the new government, to put an end
to the importation of slaves, after a limited period. And
here, sir, we* may pause. We may reflect for a moment
upon the entire coincidence and concurrence of senti
ment, between the North and the South, upon all these
questions, at the period of the adoption of the Constitu
tion. But opinions, sir, have changed, greatly changed,
changed North, and changed South. Slavery is not re
garded in the South now as it was then. I see an honor
able member of this body paying me the honor of listening
to my remarks (Mr. M ) ; he brings to me, sir, freshly
ason
and vividly, what I have learned of his great ancestor,
so much distinguished in his day and generation, so
worthy to be succeeded by so worthy a grandson, with
all the sentiments he expressed in the Convention in
Philadelphia.
Here we may pause. There was, if not an entire
unanimity, a general concurrence of sentiment, running
through the whole community, and especially entertained
by the eminent men of all parts of the country. But
soon a change began, at the North and the South, and a
severance of opinion showed itself; the North growing
much more warm and strong against slavery, and the
South growing much more warm and strong in its sup
port. Sir, there is no generation of mankind whose
opinions are not subject to be influenced by what ap
pears to them to be their present, emergent, and exigent
interests. I impute to the South no particularly selfish
view in the change which has come over her. I impute
to her certainly no dishonest view. All that has hap
pened has been natural. It has followed those causes
which always influence the human mind and operate
upon it. What, then, have been the causes which have
created so new a feeling in favor of slavery in the South,
which have changed the whole nomenclature of the
South on that subject, so that, from being thought and
described in the terms I have mentioned and will not
repeat, it has now become an institution, a cherished in
stitution in that quarter; no evil, no scourge, but a great
religious, social, and moral blessing, as I think J have
heard it latterly spoken of? I suppose this, sir, is owing
to the sudden uprising and rapid growth of the COTTON
plantations of the South. So far as any motive consist
ent with honor, justice, and general judgment could act,
it was the COTTON interest that gave a new desire to
promote slavery, to spread it, and to use its labor. I
again say that that was produced by causes which we
must always expect to produce like effects; the whole
interest of the South became connected, more or less,
with it. If we look back to the history of the commerce
of this country at the early years of this government,
what were our exports ? Cotton was hardly, or but to a
very limited extent, known. The tables will show that
the exports of cotton for the years 1790 and 1791 were
not more than forty or fifty thousand dollars a year. It
has gone on increasing rapidly, until the whole crop may
now, perhaps, in a season of great product and high prices,
amount to a hundred millions of dollars. In the years
I have mentioned, there was more of wax, more of* in
digo, more of rice, more of almost every article of export
from the South, than of cotton. I think it is true
when Mr. Jay negotiated the treaty of 1794 with Eng
land, that he did not know that cotton was exported at
all from the United States; and I have heard it said, also,
that the custom-house in London refused to admit cotton,
upon an allegation that it could not be an American
production, there being, as they supposed, no> cotton
raised in America. They would hardly think so now 1
Well, sir, we know what followed. The age of cotton
became the golden age of our Southern brethren. It
gratified their desire for improvement and accumulation,
at the same time that it excited it. The desire grew by
what it fed upon, and there soon came to be an eager
ness for other territory, a new area or new areas, for the
cultivation of the cotton crop; and measures leading to
this result were brought about rapidly, one after another,
under the* lead of Southern men at the head of the
Government, they having a majority in both branches
to accomplish their ends. The honorable member from
South Carolina observed that there has been a majority
all along in favor of the North. If that be true, sir, the
North has acted either very liberally and kindly, or very
weakly; for they never exercised that majority effi
ciently five times in the history of the Government,
when a division, or trial of strength, arose. Never.
Whether they were out-generaled, or whether it was
owing to other causes, I shall not stop to consider; but
no man acquainted with the history of the country
can deny, that the general lead in the politics of the
country for three-fourths of the period that has elapsed
since the adoption of the Constitution, has been a South
ern lead. In 1802, in pursuit of the idea of opening a
new cotton region, the United States obtained a cession
from Georgia of the whole of her western territory, now
embracing the rich and growing State of Alabama. In
1803, Louisiana was purchased from Erance, out of
which the States of Louisiana, Arkansas, and Missouri,
have been framed, as slaveholding States. In 1819, the
cession of Florida was made, bringing in another region
of slaveholding property and territory. Sir, the honorable
member from South Carolina thought he saw in certain
operations of the Government, such as the manner of col
lecting the revenue, and the tendency of measures cal
culated to promote emigration into the country, what ac
counts for the more rapid growth of the North than the
South. He ascribes that more rapid growth, not to the
operation of time, but to the system of government,
and administration, established under this Constitution.
That is matter of opinion. To a certain extent it may be
true; but it does seem to me that if any operation of the
Government could be shown in any degree to have pro
moted the population, and growth, and wealth of the
North, it is much more sure that there are sundry im
portant and distinct operations of the Government, about
which no man can doubt, tending to promote, and which
absolutely have promoted, the increase of the slave in
terest and the slave territory of the South. Allow me
to say that it was not time that brought in Louisiana;
it was the act of men. It was not time that brought in
Florida; it was the act of men. And lastly, sir, to com
plete those acts of men which have contributed so much
to enlarge the area and the sphere of the institution of
slavery, Texas, great and vast and illimitable Texas,
was added to the Union as a slave.State in 1845; and
that, sir, pretty much closed the whole chapter, and set
tled the whole account. That closed the whole chapter,
that settled the whole account, because the annexation
of Texas, upon the conditions and under the guaranties
upon which she was admitted, did not leave within the
control of this Government an acre of land, capable of
being cultivated by slave labor, between this Capitol and
the Rio Grande or the Nueces, or whatever is the proper
boundary of Texas, not an acre. From that moment,
the whole country, from this place to the western bound
ary of Texas, was fixed, pledged, fastened, decided, to
be slave territory forever, by the solemn guaranties of
law. And I now say, sir, as the proposition upon which
I stand this day, and upon the truth and firmness of
which I intend to act until it is overthrown, that there
is not at this moment within the United States, or any
territory of the United States, a single foot of land, the
character of which, in regard to its being free-soil terri
tory or slave territory, is not fixed by some law, and
some irrepealable law, beyond the power of the action
of the Government. Now, is it not so with respect to
Texas ? Why it is most manifestly so. The honorable
member from South Carolina, at the time of the admis
sion of Texas, held an important post in the Executive
Department of the Government; he was Secretary of
State. Another eminent person of great activity and
adroitness in affairs, I mean the late Secretary of the
Treasury (Mr. W ), was a conspicuous member of
alker
this body, and took the lead in the business of annexa
tion, in co-operation with the Secretary of State; and I
must say that they did their business faithfully and tho
roughly; there was no botch left in it. They rounded
it off, and made as close joiner-work as ever was ex
hibited. Resolutions of annexation were brought into
Congress, fitly joined together, compact, firm, efficient,
conclusive upon the great object which they had in
view, and those resolutions passed.
Allow me to read a part of these resolutions. It is
the third clause of the second section of the resolution
of the 1st March, 1845, for the admission of Texas,
which applies to this part of the case. That clause
reads in these words:—
“New States, of convenient size, not exceeding four
in number, in addition to said State of Texas, and hav
ing sufficient population, may hereafter, by the consent
of said State, be. formed out of the territory thereof,
which shall be entitled to admission under the provisions
of the Federal Constitution. And such States as may
be formed out of that-portion of said territory lying
south of thirty-six degrees thirty minutes north latitude,
commonly known as the Missouri Compromise line, shall
be admitted into the Union with or without slavery, as
the' people of each State asking admission may desire;
and in such State or States as shall be formed out of
said territory'north of said Missouri Compromise line,
slavery or involuntary servitude (except for crime) shall
be prohibited.”
Now what is here stipulated, enacted, secured? It
is, that all Texas south of 36° 30', which is nearly the
whole of it, shall be admitted into the Union as a slave
State. It was a slave State, and therefore came in as a
slave State; and the guaranty is, that new States shall
be made out of it, and that such States as are formed
out of that portion of Texas lying south of 36° 30' may
come in as slave States to the number of four, in addi
tion to the State then in existence, and admitted at that
time by these resolutions. I know no form of legisla
tion which can strengthen this. I know no mode of
recognition that can add a tittle of weight to it. I
listened respectfully to the resolutions of my honorable
friend from Tennessee (Mr. B (. He proposed to re
ell
cognize that stipulation with Texas. But any additional
recognition would weaken the force of it; because it
stands here on the ground of a contract, a thing done
for a consideration. It is a law founded on a contract
with Texas, and designed to carry that contract into
effect. A recognition, now, founded not on any consi
deration or any contract, would not be so strong as it
now stands on the face of the resolution. Now I know
no way, I candidly confess, in which this Government,
acting in good faith, as I trust it always will, can relieve
itself from that stipulation and pledge, by any honest
course of legislation whatever. And, therefore, I say
again that, so far as Texas is concerned, in the whole of
Texas south of 36° 30', which, I suppose, embraces all
the territory capable of slave cultivation, there is no
land, not an acre, the character of which is not established
by law, a law which cannot be repealed without the vio
lation of a contract, and plain disregard of the public
faith.
I hope, sir, it is now apparent that my proposition,
so far as it respects Texas, has been maintained; and
that the provision in this article is clear and absolute; and
it has been well suggested by my friend from Rhode
Island that that part of Texas which lies north of
thirty-four degrees of north latitude and which may be
formed into free States, is dependent, in like manner,
upon the consent of Texas, herself a slave State.
Well, now, sir, how came this? How came it to pass,
that within these walls, where it is said by the honor
able member from South Carolina that the free States
have always had a majority, this resolution of annexa
tion, such* as I have described it, found a majority in
both Houses of Congress ? Why, sir, it found that ma
jority by the great number of Northern votes added to
the entire Southern vote, or at least nearly the whole
of the Southern votes. The aggregate was made up
of Northern, and Southern votes. In the House of
Representatives it stood, I think, about eighty Southern
votes for the admission of Texas, and about fifty North
ern votes for the admission of Texas. In the Senate,
the vote stood for the admission of Texas twenty-seven,
and twenty-five against it; and of those twenty-seven
votes, constituting a majority for the admission of Texas
in this body, no less than thirteen came from the free
States, and four of them were from New England. The
whole of these thirteen Senators, constituting, within a
fraction, you see, one-half of all the votes in this body
for the admission of Texas, with its immeasurable ex
tent of slave territory, were sent here by free States.
Sir, there is not so remarkable a chapter in our his
tory of political events, political parties, and political
men, as is afforded by this measure for the admission of
Texas, with this immense territory, that a bird cannot
fly over in a week. [Laughter.] Sir, New England,
with some of her own votes, supported this measure.
Three-fourths of the votes of liberty-loving Connecticut
were given for it, in the other House; and one-half here.
There was one vote for it in Maine, but I am happy to
say not the vote of the honorable member who addressed
the Senate the day before yesterday (Mr. H ), and
amlin
who was then a Representative from Maine in the.
House of Representatives: but there was a vote or
two from Maine, ay, and there was one vote for it from
Massachusetts, given by a gentleman then represent
ing, and now living in, the district in which the pre
valence to some extent of free-soil sentiment for a cou
ple of years or so has defeated the choice of any mem
ber to represent it in Congress. Sir, that body of North
era and Eastern men, who gave those votes at that time,
are now seen taking upon themselves, in the nomen
clature of politics, the appellation of the Northern
Democracy. They undertook to wield the destinies
of this empire, if I may call a republic an empire, and
their policy was, and they persisted in it, to bring into
this country, and under this government, all the ter
ritory they could. They did it under pledges, abso
lute pledges to the slave interest in the case of Texas,
and afterwards they lent their aid in bringing in these
new conquests to take their chance for slavery or free
dom. My honorable friend from Georgia, in March,
1847, moved the Senate to declare that the war ought
not to be prosecuted for acquisition, for conquest, for
the dismemberment of Mexico. The same Northern
Democracy entirely voted against it. He did not get a
vote from them. It suited the views, the patriotism, the
elevated sentiments of the Northern Democracy to bring
in a world here, among the mountains and valleys of
California and New Mexico, or any other part of Mexico,
and then quarrel about it; to bring it in, and then endea
vor to put upon it the saving grace of the Wilmot pro
viso. There were two eminent and highly respectable
gentlemen from the North and East, then leading gentle
men in the Senate—I refer, and I do so with entire re
spect, for I entertain for both of those gentlemen, in
general, high regard, to Mr. Dix, of New York, and Mr.
Niles, of Connecticut—who both voted for the admission
of Texas. They would not have that vote any other way
than as it stood; and they would have it as it did stand.
I speak of the vote upon the annexation of Texas.
Those two gentlemen would have the resolution of an
nexation just as it is, and they voted for it just as it is,
and their eyes were all open to its true character. The
honorable member who addressed us the other day from
South Carolina, was then Secretary of State. His corre
spondence with Mr. Murphy, the charge d’affaires of the
United States in Texas, had been published. That cor
respondence was all before those gentlemen, and the
Secretary had the boldness and candor to avow in that
correspondence that the great object sought by the an
nexation of Texas was to strengthen the slave interest of
the South. Why, sir, he said so, in so many words—
Will the
Mr. Calhoun. honorable Senator permit me
to interrupt him for a moment?
Mr. W . Certainly.
ebster
Mr. Calhoun very reluctant
. I am to interrupt the
honorable gentleman; but, upon a point of so much im
portance, I deem it right to put myself
rectus in curia.
I did not put it upon the ground assumed by the Sena
tor. I put it upon this ground: that Great Britain had
announced to this country, in so many words, that her
object was to abolish slavery in Texas, and through
Texas to accomplish the abolishment of slavery in the
United States and the world. The ground I put it on
was, that it would make an exposed frontier, and, if
Great Britain succeeded in her object, it would be impos
sible that that frontier could be secured against the ag
gressions of the abolitionists; and that this Government
was bound, under the guaranties of the Constitution, to
protect us against such a state of things.
Mr. W . That comes, I suppose, sir, to exactly
ebster
the same thing. It was, that Texas must be obtained
for the security of the slave interest of the South.
Mr. Calhoun Another very given.
. view is distinctly
Mr. W . That was the object set forth in the cor
ebster
respondence of a worthy gentleman not now living, who
preceded the honorable member from South Carolina in
the Department of State. There repose on the files of the
Department of State, as I have occasion to know,' strong
letters from Mr. Upshur to the United States minister in
England, and I believe there are some to the same min
ister from the honorable Senator himself, asserting to this
effect the sentiments of this Government, viz: that Great
Britain was expected not to interfere to take Texas out
of the hands of its then existing Government, and make
it a free country. But my argument, my suggestion is
this; that those gentlemen who composed the Northern
Democracy when Texas was brought into the Union,
saw, with all their eyes, that it was brought in as a slave
country, and brought in for the purpose of being main
tained as slave territory to the Greek Kalends. I rather
think the honorable gentleman who was then Secretary
of State might, in some of his correspondence with Mr.
Murphy, have suggested that it was not expedient to say
too much about this object, lest it should create some
alarm. At any rate, Mr. Murphy wrote to him, that
England was anxious to get rid of the constitution of
Texas, because it was a constitution establishing slavery;
and that what the United States had to do, was to aid
the people of Texas in upholding their constitution; but
that nothing should be said, which should offend the
fanatical men of the North. But, sir, the honorable mem
ber did. avow this object himself, openly, boldly, and
manfully; he did not disguise his conduct, or his motives.
Mr. Calhoun. Never, never.
Mr. Webster. he means is very say.
What he apt to
Mr. C . Always, always.
alhoun
Mr. W . And I honor him for it. This admis
ebster
sion of Texas was in 1845. Then, in 1847,
flagrante bdlo
between the United States and Mexico, the proposition I
have mentioned was brought forward by my friend from
Georgia, and the Northern Democracy voted straight
ahead against it. Their remedy was to apply to the ac
quisitions, after they should come in, the Wilmot proviso.
What follows ? These two gentlemen, worthy and honor
able and influential men, and if they had not been they
could not have carried the measure, these two gentlemen,
members of this body, brought in Texas, and by their
votes they also prevented the passage of the resolution
of the honorable member from Georgia, and then they
went home and took the lead in the Free-soil party. And
there they stand, sir! They leave us here, bound in ho
nour and conscience by the resolutions of annexation;
they leave us here, to take the odium of fulfilling the
obligations in favor of slavery, which they voted us into,
or else the greater odium of violating those obligations,
while they are at home making capital and rousing
speeches for free-soil and no slavery. [Laughter.] And,
therefore, I say, sir, that there is not a chapter in our
history, respecting public measures and public men, more
full of what should create surprise, more full of what does
create, in my mind, extreme mortification, than that of
the conduct of this Northern Democracy.
Mr. President, sometimes, when a man is found in a
new relation to things around him and to other men, he
says the world has changed, and that he has not changed.
I believe, sir, that our self-respect leads us often to make
this declaration in regard to ourselves, when it is not
exactly true. An individual is more apt to change, per
haps, than all the world around him. But, under the
present circumstances, and under the responsibility which
I know I incur by what I am now stating here, I feel at
liberty to recur to the various expressions and statements,
made at various times, of my own opinions and resolu
tions respecting the admission of Texas, and all that has
followed. Sir, as early as 1836, or in the early part of
1837, there was conversation and correspondence between
myself and some private friends, on this project of annex
ing Texas to the United States; and an honorable gentle
man with whom I have had a long acquaintance, a friend
of mine, now perhaps in this chamber, I mean General
Hamilton, of South Carolina, was knowing to that corre
spondence. I had voted for the recognition of Texan in
dependence, because I believed it was an existing fact,
surprising and astonishing as it was, and I wished well to
the new republic : but I manifested from the first utter
opposition to bringing her, with her slave territory, into
the Union. I happened, in 1837, to meet friends in New
York, on some political occasion, and I then stated my
sentiments upon the subject. It was the first time that I
had occasion to advert to it; and I will ask a friend near
me to do me the favor to read an extract from the
speech, for the Senate may find it rather tedious to listen
to the whole of it. It was delivered in Niblo’s Garden,
in 1837.
Mr. G then read the following extract from the
reene
speech of Mr. Webster, to which he referred:
“ Gentlemen, we all see that, by whomsoever possessed,
Texas is likely to be a slaveholding country; and I
frankly avow my entire unwillingness to do any thing
which shall extend the slavery of the African race on
this continent, or add other slaveholding States to the
Union.
“ When I say that I regard slavery in itself as a great
moral, social, and political evil, I only use language
which has been adopted by distinguished men, them
selves citizens of slaveholding States.
“ I shall do nothing, therefore, to favor or encourage
its further extension. We have slavery already among
us. The Constitution found it among us; it recognised
it, and gave it solemn guaranties.
“ To the full extent of these guaranties, we are all
bound in honor, in justice, and by the Constitution. All
the stipulations contained in the Constitution in favor of
the slaveholding States, which are already in the Union,
ought to be fulfilled, and, so far as depends on me, shall
be fulfilled in the fulness of their spirit, and to the exact
ness of their letter. Slavery, as it exists in the States,
is "beyond the reach of Congress. It is a concern of
the States themselves. They have never submitted
it to Congress, and Congress has no rightful power
over it.
“ I shall concur, therefore, in no act, no measure, no
menace, no indication of purpose, which shall interfere or
threaten to interfere with the exclusive authority of the
several States over the subject of slavery, as it exists
within their respective limits. All this appears to me to
be matter of plain and imperative duty.
“ But when we come to speak of admitting new States,
the subject assumes an entirely different aspect. Our
rights and our duties are then both different. * * *
“ I see, therefore, no political necessity for the annexa
tion of Texas to the Union—no advantage to be derived
from it; and objections to it of a strong, and, in my
judgment, of a decisive character.”
Mr. W . I have nothing, sir, to add to, nor to
ebster
take from, those sentiments. That speech, the Senate
will perceive, was in 1837. The purpose of immediately
annexing Texas at that time was abandoned or postponed;
and it was not revived with any vigor for some years. In
the meantime it had so happened that I had become a
member of the Executive Administration, and was for a
short period in the Department of State. The annexation
of Texas was a subject of conversation, not confidential,
with the President and heads of Departments, as well as
with other public men. No serious attempt was then
made, however, to bring it about. I left the Department
of State in May, 1843, and shortly after I learned, though
by means which were no way connected with official in
formation, that a design had been taken up of bring
ing Texas, with her slave territory and population, into
this Union. I was in Washington at the time, and per
sons are now here who will remember that we had an
arranged meeting for conversation upon it. I went home
to Massachusetts and proclaimed the existence of that
purpose, but I could get no audience, and but little atten
tion. Some did not believe it, and some were too much
engaged in their own pursuits to give it any heed. They
had gone to their farms, or to their merchandise, and it
was impossible to arouse any sentiments in New England
or in Massachusetts, that should combine the two great
political parties against this annexation; and indeed there
was no hope of bringing the Northern Democracy into
that view, for their leaning was all the other way. But,
sir, even with Whigs, and leading Whigs, I am ashamed to
say, there was a great indifference towards the admission
of Texas, with slave territory into this Union. The
project went on. I was then out of Congress. The an
nexation resolutions passed the 1st of March, 1845; the
Legislature of Texas complied with the conditions and
accepted the guaranties ; for the phraseology of the lan
guage of the resolution is, that Texas is to come in “ upon
the conditions and under the guaranties herein prescribed.”
I happened to be returned to the Senate in March, 1845,
and was here in December, 1845, when the acceptance by
Texas of the conditions proposed by Congress was commu
nicated to us by the President, and an act for the consum
mation of the connexion was laid before the two Houses.
The connexion was then not completed. A final law doing
the deed of annexation, ultimately, had not been passed;
and when it was put upon its final passage here, I expressed
my opposition to it, and recorded my vote in the negative;
and there that vote stands, with the observations that I
made upon that occasion. It has happened that between
1837 and this time, on various occasions and opportunities,
I have expressed my entire opposition to the admission of
slave States, or the acquisition of new slave territories, to
be added to the United States. I know, sir, no change in
my own sentiments, or my own purposes, in that respect.
I will now again ask my friend from Rhode Island to
read another extract from a speech of mine made at a
Whig Convention in Springfield, Massachusetts, in the
month of September, 1847.
Mr. Greene here read the following extract:
“We hear much just now of for the dangers
& panacea
and evils of slavery and slave annexation, which they call
certainly is a just sentiment,
the/ Wilmot proviso’ That
but if is not a sentiment to found any new party upon.
It is not a sentiment on which Massachusetts Whigs differ.
There is not a man in this hall who holds to it more firmly
than I do, nor one who adheres to it more than another.
(i I feel some little interest in this matter, sir. Did not
I commit myself in 1837 to the whole doctrine, fully, en
tirely ? And I must be permitted, to say that I cannot
quite consent that more recent discoverers should claim
the merit and take out a patent.
“ I deny the priority of their invention. Allow me to
say, sir, it is not their thunder. * * *
“We are to use the first and last and every occasion
which offers to oppose the extension of slave power.
“ But I speak of it here, as in Congress, as a political
question, a question for statesmen to act upon. We must
so regard it. I certainly do not mean to say that it is
less important in a moral point of view, that it is not
more important in many other points of view; but, as a
a legislator, or in any official capacity, I must look at
it, consider it, and decide it as a matter of political
action.”
Mr. W . On other occasions, in debates here, I
ebster
have expressed my determination to vote for no acquisi
tion, or cession, or annexation, North or South, East or
West. My opinion has been, that we have territory
enough, and that-we should follow the Spartan maxim,
“Improve, adorn what you have, seek no further.” I
think that it was in some observations that I made
on the three-million loan bill, that I avowed that senti
ment. In short, sir, the sentiment has been avowed quite
as often, in as many places, and before as many assem
blies, as any humble sentiments of mine ought to be
avowed.
But now, that, under certain conditions, Texas is in,
with all her territory, as a slave State, with a solemn
pledge, also, that if she shall be divided into many States,
those States may come in as slave States south of 36° 30',
how are we to deal with this subject ? I know no way
of honest legislation, when the proper time comes for the
enactment, but to carry into effect all that we have stipu
lated to do. I do not entirely agree with my honorable
friend from Tennessee, (Mr. B ,) that, as soon as the
ell
time comes when she is entitled to another representa
tive, we should create a new State. The rule in regard
to it I take to be this: that, when we have created new
States out of Territories, we have generally gone upon
the idea that when there is population enough to form a
State, sixty thousand or some such thing, we would create
a State; but it is quite a different thing when a State is
divided, and two or more States made out of it. It does
not follow, in such a case, that the same rule of appor
tionment should be applied. That, however, is a matter
for the consideration of Congress, when the proper time
arrives. I may not then be here. I may have no vote
to give on the occasion, but I wish it to be distinctly under
stood, to-day, that, according to my view of the matter, this
Government is solemnly pledged, by law and contract, to
create new States out of Texas, with her consent, when
her population shall justify and call for such a proceeding,
and- so far as such States are formed out of Texan terri
tory lying south of 36° 30', to let them come in as slave
States. That is the meaning of the resolution which our
friends,1 the Northern Democracy, have left us to fulfil;
and I, for one, mean to fulfil it, because I will not violate
the faith of the Government. What I mean to say is,
that the time for the admission of new States formed out
of Texas, the number of such States, their boundaries,
and the requisite amounts of population, and other things
connected with the admission, are in the free discretion
of Congress, except this, to wit, that when new States,
formed out of Texas, are to be admitted, they have a
right, by legal stipulation and contract, to come in as
slave States.