American Eloquence, Volume III. (of 4) by Various

V >> Various >> American Eloquence, Volume III. (of 4)

Pages:
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15

Well, sir, what is this Missouri compromise, of which we have heard
so much of late? It has been read so often that it is not necessary
to occupy the time of the Senate in reading it again. It was an act of
Congress, passed on the 6th of March, 1820, to authorize the people of
Missouri to form a constitution and a State government, preparatory to
the admission of such State into the Union. The first section provided
that Missouri should be received into the Union "on an equal footing
with the original States in all respects whatsoever." The last and
eighth section provided that slavery should be "forever prohibited" in
all the territory which had been acquired from France north of 36 deg. 30',
and not included within the limits of the State of Missouri. There
is nothing in the terms of the law that purports to be a compact,
or indicates that it was any thing more than an ordinary act of
legislation. To prove that it was more than it purports to be on its
face, gentlemen must produce other evidence, and prove that there was
such an understanding as to create a moral obligation in the nature of a
compact. Have they shown it?

Now, if this was a compact, let us see how it was entered into. The bill
originated in the House of Representatives, and passed that body without
a Southern vote in its favor. It is proper to remark, however, that it
did not at that time contain the eighth section, prohibiting slavery in
the Territories; but in lieu of it, contained a provision prohibiting
slavery in the proposed State of Missouri. In the Senate, the clause
prohibiting slavery in the State was stricken out, and the eighth
section added to the end of the bill, by the terms of which slavery was
to be forever prohibited in the territory not embraced in the State of
Missouri north of 36 deg. 30'. The vote on adding this section stood in the
Senate, 34 in the affirmative, and 10 in the negative. Of the Northern
Senators, 20 voted for it, and 2 against it. On the question of ordering
the bill to a third reading as amended, which was the test vote on its
passage, the vote stood 24 yeas and 20 nays. Of the Northern Senators,
4 only voted in the affirmative, and 18 in the negative. Thus it will be
seen that if it was intended to be a compact, the North never agreed to
it. The Northern Senators voted to insert the prohibition of slavery in
the Territories; and then, in the proportion of more than four to one,
voted against the passage of the bill. The North, therefore, never
signed the compact, never consented to it, never agreed to be bound by
it. This fact becomes very important in vindicating the character of the
North for repudiating this alleged compromise a few months afterward.
The act was approved and became a law on the 6th of March, 1820. In the
summer of that year, the people of Missouri formed a constitution and
State government preparatory to admission into the Union in conformity
with the act. At the next session of Congress the Senate passed a joint
resolution declaring Missouri to be one of the States of the Union, on
an equal footing with the original States. This resolution was sent to
the House of Representatives, where it was rejected by Northern votes,
and thus Missouri was voted out of the Union, instead of being received
into the Union under the act of the 6th of March, 1820, now known as the
Missouri compromise. Now, sir, what becomes of our plighted faith, if
the act of the 6th of March, 1820, was a solemn compact, as we are now
told? They have all rung the changes upon it, that it was a sacred and
irrevocable compact, binding in honor, in conscience, and morals, which
could not be violated or repudiated without perfidy and dishonor! * * *
Sir, if this was a compact, what must be thought of those who violated
it almost immediately after it was formed? I say it is a calumny upon
the North to say that it was a compact. I should feel a flush of
shame upon my cheek, as a Northern man, if I were to say that it was a
compact, and that the section of the country to which I belong received
the consideration, and then repudiated the obligation in eleven months
after it was entered into. I deny that it was a compact, in any sense
of the term. But if it was, the record proves that faith was not
observed--that the contract was never carried into effect--that after
the North had procured the passage of the act prohibiting slavery in the
Territories, with a majority in the House large enough to prevent its
repeal, Missouri was refused admission into the Union as a slave-holding
State, in conformity with the act of March 6, 1820. If the proposition
be correct, as contended for by the opponents of this bill--that
there was a solemn compact between the North and the South that, in
consideration of the prohibition of slavery in the Territories, Missouri
was to be admitted into the Union, in conformity with the act of
1820--that compact was repudiated by the North, and rescinded by the
joint action of the two parties within twelve months from its date.
Missouri was never admitted under the act of the 6th of March, 1820. She
was refused admission under that act. She was voted out of the Union
by Northern votes, notwithstanding the stipulation that she should
be received; and, in consequence of these facts, a new compromise was
rendered necessary, by the terms of which Missouri was to be admitted
into the Union conditionally--admitted on a condition not embraced in
the act of 1820, and, in addition, to a full compliance with all the
provisions of said act. If, then, the act of 1820, by the eighth section
of which slavery was prohibited in Missouri, was a compact, it is clear
to the comprehension of every fair-minded man that the refusal of
the North to admit Missouri, in compliance with its stipulations, and
without further conditions, imposes upon us a high, moral obligation to
remove the prohibition of slavery in the Territories, since it has been
shown to have been procured upon a condition never performed. * * *

Mr. President, I did not wish to refer to these things. I did not
understand them fully in all their bearings at the time I made my first
speech on this subject; and, so far as I was familiar with them, I made
as little reference to them as was consistent with my duty; because it
was a mortifying reflection to me, as a Northern man, that we had not
been able, in consequence of the abolition excitement at the time, to
avoid the appearance of bad faith in the observance of legislation,
which has been denominated a compromise. There were a few men then, as
there are now, who had the moral courage to perform their duty to the
country and the Constitution, regardless of consequences personal to
themselves. There were ten Northern men who dared to perform their duty
by voting to admit Missouri into the Union on an equal footing with the
original States, and with no other restriction than that imposed by the
Constitution. I am aware that they were abused and denounced as we are
now--that they were branded as dough-faces--traitors to freedom, and to
the section of country whence they came. * * *

I think I have shown that if the act of 1820, called the Missouri
compromise, was a compact, it was violated and repudiated by a solemn
vote of the House of Representatives in 1821, within eleven months after
it was adopted. It was repudiated by the North by a majority vote, and
that repudiation was so complete and successful as to compel Missouri to
make a new compromise, and she was brought into the Union under the new
compromise of 1821, and not under the act of 1820. This reminds me of
another point made in nearly all the speeches against this bill, and, if
I recollect right, was alluded to in the abolition manifesto; to which,
I regret to say, I had occasion to refer so often. I refer to the
significant hint that Mr. Clay was dead before any one dared to bring
forward a proposition to undo the greatest work of his hands. The
Senator from New York (Mr. Seward) has seized upon this insinuation and
elaborated, perhaps, more fully than his compeers; and now the Abolition
press, suddenly, and, as if by miraculous conversion, teems with
eulogies upon Mr. Clay and his Missouri compromise of 1820.

Now, Mr. President, does not each of these Senators know that Mr.
Clay was not the author of the act of 1820? Do they not know that he
disclaimed it in 1850 in this body? Do they not know that the Missouri
restriction did not originate in the House, of which he was a member? Do
they not know that Mr. Clay never came into the Missouri controversy as
a compromiser until after the compromise of 1820 was repudiated, and it
became necessary to make another? I dislike to be compelled to repeat
what I have conclusively proven, that the compromise which Mr. Clay
effected was the act of 1821, under which Missouri came into the Union,
and not the act of 1820. Mr. Clay made that compromise after you had
repudiated the first one. How, then, dare you call upon the spirit of
that great and gallant statesman to sanction your charge of bad faith
against the South on this question? * * *

Now, Mr. President, as I have been doing justice to Mr. Clay on this
question, perhaps I may as well do justice to another great man, who
was associated with him in carrying through the great measures of 1850,
which mortified the Senator from New York so much, because they defeated
his purpose of carrying on the agitation. I allude to Mr. Webster. The
authority of his great name has been quoted for the purpose of proving
that he regarded the Missouri act as a compact, an irrepealable compact.
Evidently the distinguished Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Everett)
supposed he was doing Mr. Webster entire justice when he quoted the
passage which he read from Mr. Webster's speech of the 7th of March,
1850, when he said that he stood upon the position that every part
of the American continent was fixed for freedom or for slavery by
irrepealable law. The Senator says that by the expression "irrepealable
law," Mr. Webster meant to include the compromise of 1820. Now, I will
show that that was not Mr. Webster's meaning--that he was never
guilty of the mistake of saying that the Missouri act of 1820 was an
irrepealable law. Mr. Webster said in that speech that every foot of
territory in the United States was fixed as to its character for freedom
or slavery by an irrepealable law. He then inquired if it was not so
in regard to Texas? He went on to prove that it was; because, he said,
there was a compact in express terms between Texas and the United
States. He said the parties were capable of contracting and that there
was a valuable consideration; and hence, he contended, that in that case
there was a contract binding in honor and morals and law; and that it
was irrepealable without a breach of faith.

He went on to say:

"Now, as to California and New Mexico, I hold slavery to be excluded
from these Territories by a law even superior to that which admits
and sanctions it in Texas--I mean the law of nature--of physical
geography--the law of the formation of the earth."

That was the irrepealable law which he said prohibited slavery in
the Territories of Utah and New Mexico. He went on to speak of the
prohibition of slavery in Oregon, and he said it was an "entirely
useless and, in that connection, senseless proviso."

He went further, and said:

"That the whole territory of the States of the United States, or in the
newly-acquired territory of the United States, has a fixed and settled
character, now fixed and settled by law, which cannot be repealed in
the case of Texas without a violation of public faith, and cannot be
repealed by any human power in regard to California or New Mexico; that,
under one or other of these laws, every foot of territory in the States
or in the Territories has now received a fixed and decided character."

What irrepealable laws? One or the other of those which he had stated.
One was the Texas compact; the other, the law of nature and physical
geography; and he contended that one or the other fixed the character
of the whole American continent for freedom or for slavery. He never
alluded to the Missouri compromise, unless it was by the allusion to
the Wilmot proviso in the Oregon bill, and therein said it was a useless
and, in that connection, senseless thing. Why was it a useless and
senseless thing? Because it was reenacting the law of God; because
slavery had already been prohibited by physical geography. Sir, that was
the meaning of Mr. Webster's speech. * * *

Mr. President, I have occupied a good deal of time in exposing the cant
of these gentlemen about the sanctity of the Missouri compromise, and
the dishonor attached to the violation of plighted faith. I have exposed
these matters in order to show that the object of these men is to
withdraw from public attention the real principle involved in the bill.
They well know that the abrogation of the Missouri compromise is the
incident and not the principle of the bill. They well understand that
the report of the committee and the bill propose to establish the
principle in all Territorial organizations, that the question of slavery
shall be referred to the people to regulate for themselves, and that
such legislation should be had as was necessary to remove all legal
obstructions to the free exercise of this right by the people. The
eighth section of the Missouri act standing in the way of this great
principle must be rendered inoperative and void, whether expressly
repealed or not, in order to give the people the power of regulating
their own domestic institutions in their own way, subject only to the
Constitution.

Now, sir, if these gentlemen have entire confidence in the correctness
of their own position, why do they not meet the issue boldly and
fairly, and controvert the soundness of this great principle of popular
sovereignty in obedience to the Constitution? They know full well that
this was the principle upon which the colonies separated from the crown
of Great Britain, the principle upon which the battles of the Revolution
were fought, and the principle upon which our republican system was
founded. They cannot be ignorant of the fact that the Revolution grew
out of the assertion of the right on the part of the imperial Government
to interfere with the internal affairs and domestic concerns of the
colonies. * * *

The Declaration of Independence had its origin in the violation of that
great fundamental principle which secured to the colonies the right to
regulate their own domestic affairs in their own way; and the Revolution
resulted in the triumph of that principle, and the recognition of the
right asserted by it. Abolitionism proposes to destroy the right and
extinguish the principle for which our forefathers waged a seven years'
bloody war, and upon which our whole system of free government is
founded. They not only deny the application of this principle to the
Territories, but insist upon fastening the prohibition upon all the
States to be formed out of those Territories. Therefore, the doctrine
of the Abolitionists--the doctrine of the opponents of the Nebraska
and Kansas bill, and the advocates of the Missouri restriction--demands
Congressional interference with slavery not only in the Territories, but
in all the new States to be formed therefrom. It is the same doctrine,
when applied to the Territories and new States of this Union, which the
British Government attempted to enforce by the sword upon the American
colonies. It is this fundamental principle of self-government which
constitutes the distinguishing feature of the Nebraska bill. The
opponents of the principle are consistent in opposing the bill. I do
not blame them for their opposition. I only ask them to meet the
issue fairly and openly, by acknowledging that they are opposed to the
principle which it is the object of the bill to carry into operation.
It seems that there is no power on earth, no intellectual power, no
mechanical power, that can bring them to a fair discussion of the true
issue. If they hope to delude the people and escape detection for any
considerable length of time under the catch-words "Missouri compromise"
and "faith of compacts," they will find that the people of this country
have more penetration and intelligence than they have given them credit
for.

Mr. President, there is an important fact connected with this slavery
regulation, which should never be lost sight of. It has always arisen
from one and the same cause. Whenever that cause has been removed,
the agitation has ceased; and whenever the cause has been renewed, the
agitation has sprung into existence. That cause is, and ever has been,
the attempt on the part of Congress to interfere with the question of
slavery in the Territories and new States formed therefrom. Is it not
wise then to confine our action within the sphere of our legitimate
duties, and leave this vexed question to take care of itself in each
State and Territory, according to the wishes of the people thereof, in
conformity to the forms, and in subjection to the provisions, of the
Constitution?

The opponents of the bill tell us that agitation is no part of their
policy; that their great desire is peace and harmony; and they complain
bitterly that I should have disturbed the repose of the country by the
introduction of this measure! Let me ask these professed friends of
peace, and avowed enemies of agitation, how the issue could have been
avoided. They tell me that I should have let the question alone;
that is, that I should have left Nebraska unorganized, the people
unprotected, and the Indian barrier in existence, until the swelling
tide of emigration should burst through, and accomplish by violence what
it is the part of wisdom and statesmanship to direct and regulate by
law. How long could you have postponed action with safety? How long
could you maintain that Indian barrier, and restrain the onward march of
civilization, Christianity, and free government by a barbarian wall? Do
you suppose that you could keep that vast country a howling wilderness
in all time to come, roamed over by hostile savages, cutting off all
safe communication between our Atlantic and Pacific possessions? I tell
you that the time for action has come, and cannot be postponed. It is
a case in which the "let-alone" policy would precipitate a crisis which
must inevitably result in violence, anarchy, and strife.

You cannot fix bounds to the onward march of this great and growing
country. You cannot fetter the limbs of the young giant. He will burst
all your chains. He will expand, and grow, and increase, and extend
civilization, Christianity, and liberal principles. Then, sir, if you
cannot check the growth of the country in that direction, is it not the
part of wisdom to look the danger in the face, and provide for an event
which you cannot avoid? I tell you, sir, you must provide for lines of
continuous settlement from the Mississippi valley to the Pacific ocean.
And in making this provision, you must decide upon what principles the
Territories shall be organized; in other words, whether the people shall
be allowed to regulate their domestic institutions in their own way,
according to the provisions of this bill, or whether the opposite
doctrine of Congressional interference is to prevail. Postpone it,
if you will; but whenever you do act, this question must be met and
decided.

The Missouri compromise was interference; the compromise of 1850 was
non-interference, leaving the people to exercise their rights under the
Constitution. The Committee on Territories were compelled to act on this
subject. I, as their chairman, was bound to meet the question. I chose
to take the responsibility regardless of consequences personal to
myself. I should have done the same thing last year, if there had been
time; but we know, considering the late period at which the bill
then reached us from the House, that there was not sufficient time to
consider the question fully, and to prepare a report upon the subject.

I was, therefore, persuaded by my friends to allow the bill to be
reported to the Senate, in order that such action might be taken as
should be deemed wise and proper. The bill was never taken up for
action--the last night of the session having been exhausted in debate on
a motion to take up the bill. This session, the measure was introduced
by my friend from Iowa (Mr. Dodge), and referred to the Territorial
Committee during the first week of the session. We have abundance of
time to consider the subject; it is a matter of pressing necessity,
and there was no excuse for not meeting it directly and fairly. We were
compelled to take our position upon the doctrine either of intervention
or non-intervention. We chose the latter for two reasons: first, because
we believed that the principle was right; and, second, because it was
the principle adopted in 1850, to which the two great political parties
of the country were solemnly pledged.

There is another reason why I desire to see this principle recognized as
a rule of action in all time to come. It will have the effect to destroy
all sectional parties and sectional agitations. If, in the language of
the report of the committee, you withdraw the slavery question from
the halls of Congress and the political arena, and commit it to the
arbitrament of those who are immediately interested in and alone
responsible for its consequences, there is nothing left out of which
sectional parties can be organized. It never was done, and never can
be done on the bank, tariff, distribution, or any party issue which has
existed, or may exist, after this slavery question is withdrawn from
politics. On every other political question these have always supporters
and opponents in every portion of the Union--in each State, county,
village, and neighborhood--residing together in harmony and good
fellowship, and combating each other's opinions and correcting each
other's errors in a spirit of kindness and friendship. These differences
of opinion between neighbors and friends, and the discussions that grow
out of them, and the sympathy which each feels with the advocates of
his own opinions in every portion of this widespread Republic, add
an overwhelming and irresistible moral weight to the strength of
the Confederacy. Affection for the Union can never be alienated or
diminished by any other party issues than those which are joined upon
sectional or geographical lines. When the people of the North shall
all be rallied under one banner, and the whole South marshalled under
another banner, and each section excited to frenzy and madness by
hostility to the institutions of the other, then the patriot may well
tremble for the perpetuity of the Union. Withdraw the slavery question
from the political arena, and remove it to the States and Territories,
each to decide for itself, such a catastrophe can never happen. Then
you will never be able to tell, by any Senator's vote for or against any
measure, from what State or section of the Union he comes.

Why, then, can we not withdraw this vexed question from politics? Why
can we not adopt the principle of this bill as a rule of action in all
new Territorial organizations? Why can we not deprive these agitators of
their vocation and render it impossible for Senators to come here upon
bargains on the slavery question? I believe that the peace, the harmony,
and perpetuity of the Union require us to go back to the doctrines of
the Revolution, to the principles of the Constitution, to the principles
of the Compromise of 1850, and leave the people, under the Constitution,
to do as they may see proper in respect to their own internal affairs.

Mr. President, I have not brought this question forward as a Northern
man or as a Southern man. I am unwilling to recognize such divisions
and distinctions. I have brought it forward as an American Senator,
representing a State which is true to this principle, and which has
approved of my action in respect to the Nebraska bill. I have brought it
forward not as an act of justice to the South more than to the North. I
have presented it especially as an act of justice to the people of those
Territories and of the States to be formed therefrom, now and in all
time to come. I have nothing to say about Northern rights or Southern
rights. I know of no such divisions or distinctions under the
Constitution. The bill does equal and exact justice to the whole Union,
and every part of it; it violates the right of no State or Territory;
but places each on a perfect equality, and leaves the people thereof to
the free enjoyment of all their rights under the Constitution.

Now, sir, I wish to say to our Southern friends that if they desire to
see this great principle carried out, now is their time to rally around
it, to cherish it, preserve it, make it the rule of action in all future
time. If they fail to do it now, and thereby allow the doctrine of
interference to prevail, upon their heads the consequences of that
interference must rest. To our Northern friends, on the other hand,
I desire to say, that from this day henceforward they must rebuke the
slander which has been uttered against the South, that they desire to
legislate slavery into the Territories. The South has vindicated her
sincerity, her honor, on that point by bringing forward a provision
negativing, in express terms, any such effect as a result of this bill.
I am rejoiced to know that while the proposition to abrogate the eighth
section of the Missouri act comes from a free State, the proposition to
negative the conclusion that slavery is thereby introduced, comes from
a slave-holding State. Thus, both sides furnish conclusive evidence that
they go for the principle, and the principle only, and desire to take no
advantage of any possible misconstruction.

Pages:
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15