r\

r

A- P>

1 1 ^ d

:

0/>«

SPEECH

IB. CALHOUN, OF SOUTH -CAROLINA,

on

THE OREGON BILL.

Delivered in the Senate op the United States, June 27, 1848.

Mr. CALHOUN. — There is a very striking difference between the.bosition
•on which the slaveholding and non-slaveholding States stand in reference to the
subject under consideration: The former desire no action of the Government ;
•demanded no law to give them any advantage in the Territory about to be es
tablished ; are willing to leave it, and other territories belonging to the United
States, open to all their citizens, so long as they continue to be territories, and
when they cease to be so, to leave it to their inhabitants to form such 'govern
ments as might suit them, without restriction or condition, except that imposed
by the; Constitution, as a prerequisite for admission into the Union. 'In short,
they are willing to leave the whole subject where the Constitution arid the great
«.nd fundamental principles of self-government place it. Oil the contrary, the
non-slaveholding Slates, instead of being willing to leave it on this b'road and
¦equal foundation, demand the interposition of the Government, arid the^passage
of an act to exclude the citizens of the slaveholding States from emigrating with
their property into the territory in order to give their citizens and those they
may permit, the exclusive right of settling it, while it remains in thai; 'condition,
preparatory to subjecting it to like restrictions and conditions when it becomes a
State. The 12th section of this bill is intended to assert and maintain this de-
amand of the non-slaveholding States, while it remains a territory, not:3penly or
-directly, but indirectly by extending the provisions of the bill for the establish.
ment of the Iowa Territory to this, and by ratifying the acts of the iriforrnal and
iself-constituted government of Oregon, which, among others, containsijne pro-
hibiting the introduction of slavery. r It thus, in reality, adopts what is called
the Wilmot proviso, not only for Oregon, but, as the bill now stands,°for New
Mexico and California. The amendment, on the contrary, moved bytft Sena
tor from Mississippi, near me, (Mr. Davis,) is intended to assert and 'Ttiaintain
the position of the^slavehblding States. It leaves the territory free and open to
all the citizens of the United States, and Would overrule, if adopted, the act of
the self-constituted Territory of Oregon and the 12th section, as far as it relates
to the subject under consideration. We have thus fairly presented t-Hfi'grounds-
taken by the non-slaveholding and the slaveholding States, or as T ^hall call
them for the sake of brevity, the Northern and Southern 'States,; in their whole
extent for discussion.
The first question which offers itself for consideration is : Has the Northern
States the power which they claim, to exclude the Southern from emigrating free
ly, with their property, into territories belonging ta the United States', aud to mo.
¦;. nopolize them for their1 exclusive be'nefit? '
It is, indeed, a great question. I propose to discuss it calmly and dispassion
ately. I shall claim nothing which does not fairly and clearly belong to tha
' ' Towere, printer, opposite National Intelligencer.

which they might be situated, did not oust the sovereignty or jiiristiction of the
State". They still remained in the State, the United States acquiring only the
title to the place. It, therefore, became necessary to confer on Congress, by
express delegation, the exercise of exclusive power of legislation over this Dis
trict and such places, in order to carry out the object of the purchase and ces
sion. It was simply intended to withdraw them from under the Legislatures of
the respective States within which they might lie, and substitute that of Con
gress in its place, subject to the restrictions of the Constitution and the 'objects
for which the places were acquired, leaving, as I have said, the sovereignty still
in the State in which they are situated, but in abeyance, as far as it extends to
legislation. Thus, in the case of this District, since the retrocession to Virginia
of the part beyond the Potomac, the sovereignty still continues in Maryland in
the manner stated. But the case is very different in reference to territories, ly
ing as they do beyond the limits and jurisdictions of all the States. The United
States possess not simply the right of ownership over them, but that of exclu
sive dominion and sovereignty ; and hence it was not necessary to exclude the
power of the States to legislate over them, by delegating the exercise of exclu
sive legislation to Congress. It would have been an act of snpererogation. It
may be proper to remark in this connection, that the power of exclusive legisla
tion conferred in these cases must not be confounded with the power of absolute
legislation. They are very different things. It is true that absolute power- of
legislation is always exclusive, but it by no means follows that exclusive power
of legislation or of government is likewise always absolute. Congress has the
exclusive power of legislation as far as this Government is concerned, and the
State Legislatures as far as their respective governments are concerned, but we
all know that both are subject to many and important restrictions and conditions
which the nature of absolute power excludes.
I have now made good the assertion I ventured to make, that the clause in
the Constitution relied on by the Senator from New York, so far from conferring
the absolute power of government over the territory claimed by him, and others
who agree with him, confers not a particle of governmental power. Having
conclusively established this, the long list of precedents, cited by the Senator to
prop up the power which he sought in the clause, falls to the ground with the
fabric which he raised ; and I am thus exempted from the necessity of referring
to them, and replying to them one by one.
But there is one precedent referred to by the Senator unconnected with the
power, and on that account requires particular notice. I refer to the ordinance
of '87, which was adopted by the old Congress of the Confederation while the
Convention that framed the Constitution was in session, and about one year be
fore its adoption, and of course on the very eve of the expiration of the old Con-
federation. Against its introduction, I might object that the act of the Congress
otthe Confederation cannot rightfully form precedents for this Government • but
I waive that. I waive also the objection that the act was consummated when
that Government was in extremis, and could hardly be considered compos mentis.
I waive also the fact that the ordinance assumed the form of a compact, and was
adopted when only eight States were present, when the articles of Confederation
required nine to form contacts. I waive also tbe fact, that Mr. Madison de
clared that the act was without shadow of constitutional authority, and shall pro-
ofanytodlgfo'e 7 * ^'^ ^ !t cannot J"4 be considered
'Virginia niade^ the cession of the 'territory north of the Ohio, and lying be-
tween it and the Mississippi and the lakes, in 1784. It now contains the Slates
of Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Michigan, Wisconsin, and a very considerable extent
of temtorylying north of the latter. Shortly after the cession, a committee o
three was raised, of whom Mr. Jefferson was one. They reported an ordinance

for the establishment of the territory, containing among other provisions one
of which Mr. Jefferson was the author, excluding slavery from the territory after
the year 1800. It was reported to Congress,, but this provision was struck out.
On the question of striking out, every Southern' State present voted in favor of
it ; and what is more striking, every Southern delegate voted the same way, Mr.
Jefferson alone excepted. The ordinance Was adopted without the' provision.
At the next session, Rufus King, then a member of the old Congress, moved a
proposition, very much in the same shape of the sixth article (that which excludes
slavery) in the ordinance as it now stands, with the exception of* its proviso. It
was referred to a committee, but there was no action on it. A committee was
moved the next or the subsequent year, which reported without including or no
ticing Mr. King's proposition. Mr. Dane was a member of that committee, and
proposed a provision the same as that in the ordinance as it passed, but the com-
mittee reported without including it. Finally, another committee was raised at
the head of which was Mr. Carrington, of Virginia, and of which Mr. Dane
was also a member. That committee reported without including the amend
ment previously proposed by him. Mr. Dane moved his proposition, which was
adopted, and the report of the committee thus amended became the ordinance
of '87.
It may be inferred from this brief historical sketch, that the ordinance was a
compromise between the Southern and Northern States, of which the terms were
that slavery should be excluded from the territory upon condition that fugitive
slaves, who might take refuge in the territory, should be delivered up to their
owners, as stipulated in th'e proviso of the 6th article of the ordinance. It is
manilest from what has been stated that the South was unitedly and obstinately
opposed to the provision when first moved ; that the proposition of Mr. King,
without the proviso, was in like manner resisted by the South, as may be infer.
red from its entire want of success, and that it never could be brought to agree
to it until the provision for the delivery up of fugitive slaves was incorporated in
it. But it is well understood that a compromise involves not a surrender, but
simply a waiver of the right or power ; and hence in the case of individuals, it-
is a well established legal principle, that an offer to settle by compromise a liti
gated claim, is no evidence against the justice of the claim on the side of the
party making it. The South, to her honor, has observed with fidelty her en
gagements under this compromise ; in proof of which, I appeal to the precedents
cited by the Senator from New York, intended by him to establish the fact of*
her acquiescence in the ordinance. I admit that she has acqu'esced in the se
veral acts of Congress to carry it into effect; but the Senator's mistaken- in
supposing that it is proof of a surrender, on her part, of the power over the ter
ritories , which he claims for Congress. No, she never has, and I trust never
will, make such a surrender. Instead of that, it is conclusive proof of her fideli
ty to her eno-agements. She. has never attempted to set aside the ordinance, or:
to deprive The territory, and the Slates erected within its limits, of any right or
advantage it was intended to confer. But I regret that as much cannot be said
in favor of the fidelity with which it has been observed on their part. With the
single exception of th». State of Illinois— be it said to her honor— every other
State erected within its limits have pursued a course and adopted measures,
which have rendered the stipulations of the proviso to deliver up fugitive slaves
nugatory. Wisconsin may, also, be an exception, as she has just entered the
Union, and has hardly had time, to act on the subject.. They have gone further,
and suffered individuals to form combinations, without an effort tosuppress them,
for the purpose of enticing and seducing : the slaves to leave their masters, and
to run them into Canada beyond the reach of our laws— in open violation, not
only of the stipulations of the ordinance, but of the Constitution itself. If I et-<
press myself strongly, it is not for the purpose of producing excitement, but to

draw the attention of the Senate forcibly to the subject. My object is to lay
bare the subject under consideration just as a surgeon probes to the bottom and
lays open a wound, not to cause pain to his patient, but for the purpose of heal
ing it.
I come now to another precedent of a similar character, but differing in this,
that it took place under this Government, and not under that of the old Confede
ration ; I refer to what is known as the Missouri compromise. It is more recent
and better known, and may be more readily dispatched.
After an arduous struggle of more than a year, on the question whether Mis
souri should come into the Union with or without restrictions prohibiting slavery,
a compromise line was adopted between the North and the South ; but it was
done under circumstances which made it nowise obligatory on the latter. It is
true, it was movedby one of her distinguished citizens, (Mr. Clay,) but it is equally
so, that it was carried by the almost united vote of the North against the almost
united vote of the South ; and was thus imposed on the latter by superior num
bers in opposition to her strenuous efforts. The South has never given her sanc
tion to it, or assented to the power it asserted. She was voted down, and has
simply acquiesced in an arrangement which she has not had the power to re
verse, and which she could not attempt to do without disturbing the peace and
harmony of the Union — to which she has ever been adverse. Acting on this
principle, she permitted the territory of Iowa to be formed, and the State to
be admitted into the Union, under the compromise, without objection ; and that
is now quoted by the Senator from New York to prove her surrender of the
power he claims for Congress.
To add to the strength of this claim, the advocates of the power hold up the
name of Jefferson in its favor, and go so far as to call him the author of the so-
called Wilmot proviso, which is but a' general expression of a power of which
the Missouri compromise is a case of its application. If we may judge by his
opinion of that case, what his opinion was of the principle, instead of being the
author of the proviso, or being in its favor, no one could be more deadly hostile
to it. In a letter addressed to the elder Adams, in 1819, in answer to one from
him, he uses these remarkable expressions in reference to the Missouri ques
tion :
" The banks, bankrupt law, manufactures, Spanish treaty, are nothing. These are are occur
rences,- which, like waves in a storm, will pass under the ship. But the Missouri question is a
breaker on which we lose the Missouri country by revolt, and what more, God only knows."
To understand the full force of these expressions, it must be borne in mind
that the questions enumerated were the great and exciting political questions of
the day, on which parties divided. The banks and bankrupt law had long been so.
Manufactures, or what has since been called the protective tariff, was at the
time a subject of great excitement, as was the Spanish treaty, that is, the treaty
by which Florida was ceded to the Union, and by which the western
boundary between Mexico and the United' States was settled, from the Gulf of
Mexico to the Pacific ocean. All these exciting party questions of the day,
Mr. Jefferson regarded as nothing, compared to the Missouri question. He
looked on all of them as in their nature fugitive ; and, to use his own forcible
expression, " would pass off under the ship of State like waves in a storm."
Not so that fatal question. It was a breaker on which it was destined to be
stranded. And yet his name is quoted by the incendiaries of the present
day in support of, and as the author of, a proviso which would give indefinite and
universal extension to this fatal question to all the territories ! It was compro-
mised the next year by the adoption of the line to which I have referred. Mr"
Holmes, of Maine, long a member of this body, who voted for the measure, ad.
dressed a letter to Mr. Jefferson, enclosing a copy of his speech on the occasion"
It drew out an answer from him which ought to be treasured up in the heart of*

-every man who loves his country and its institutions. It is brief. I will send
it to the Secretary to be read. The time of the Senate cannot be better oc
cupied than in listenings to it : To John Holmes. " Monticelio, April 22, 1820.
" I thank you, dear 'ir, for the copy you have been so kmd as to send roe of the letter to your
¦ constituents on the Missouri question. It is a perfect justification to them. I had for a long
•time ceased to read newspapers, or pay any attention to public affairs, confident they were in
good hands, and content to be a passenger in our bark to the shore from which I am not distant.
But this momentous question, like a fire bell in the night, awakened and filled me with terror.
J considered it at once as the knell of the Union. It is hushed, indeed, for the moment. But
this is a, leprieve only, not a final sentence. A geographical line, coinciding with a marked
•principle, moral and political, once conceived and held up to the angry passions of men, will
never be obliterated ; and every new irritation will mark it deeper and deeper. I can say, with
conscious truth, that there is not a man on earth who would sacrifice more than I would to re
lieve us from this heavy reproach, in any practicable way. The cession of that kind of property
(for so it is misnamed) is a bagatelle, which would not cost me a second thought, if in that way
a general emancipation and expatriation could be effected ; and gradually, and with due sacri
fices, I think it might be. But as it is, we have the wolf by the ears, and we can neither hold
him, nor safely let him go. Justice is in one scale, and self-preservation in the other. Of one
thing I am cerlain, that as the passage of slaves from one free State to another would not a make
a slave of a single human being who would not be so without it, so their diffusion over a greater
'Si-face would make tlf'em individually happier, and proportionally facilitate the accomplishment
of their emancipation, by dividing the burden on a greater number of coadjutors. An absti
nence, too, from this act of power, would remove the jealousy excited by the undertaking of
Congress to regulate the condition of the different descriptions of men composing a State. This
certainly is the exclusive right of every State, which nothing in the Constitution has taken from
them, and given to the General Government. Could Congress, for example, say that the non-
freemen of Connecticut shall be freemen, or that they shall not emigrate into any other State.
"I regret that I am now to die in the belief that the useless sacrifice of themselves by the
generation of 17.76, to acquire self-government and happiness lo their country, is to be thrown.
away by the unwise and unworthy passions of their sons, and that my only consolation is to be,
that I shall live not to weep over it. If they would but dispassionately weigh the blessings they
will throw away, against an abstract principle, more likely to be effected by union than by scis
sion, they would pause before they wou^d perpetrate this act of suicide on themselves, and of
treason against the hopes of the world. To yourself as the faithful advocate of the Union, I ten
der the offering of my high esteem and respect. THOMAS JEFFERSON."
Mark his prophetic words ! Mark his profound reasoning !
"It [the question] is hushed for the moment. But this is a reprieve only, not a final sen
tence. A geogiaphical line coinciding with a marked principle, moral and political, once con
ceived, andhcldup to the angry passions of men, will never be obllterattd, und every new ir
ritation will mark it deeper and deeptr.
Twenty-eight years have passed since these remarkable words were penned
and there is not a thought which time has not thus far verified ; and it is to be
feared will continue to verify until the whole will be fulfilled. Certain it is, that
he regarded the compromise line as utterly inadequate to arrest that fatal course
of events, which his keen sagacity anticipated from the question. It was but a
" reprieve." Mark the deeply melancholy impression which it made on his
mind :
" I regret that I am to die in the belief, that the useless sacrifice of themselves by the genera
tion of 1776, to acquire •self-government and happiness for themselves is to be thrown away, by
the unwise and unworthy passions of their sons, and that my only consolation is to be, that I
.shall not live to weep over it."
Can any one believe, after listening to this letter, that Jefferson is the author
of the so-called Wilmot proviso, or ever favored it 1 And yet there are at this
time strenuous efforts making in the North to form a purely sectional party on it,
and that, too,. under the sanction of those who profess the highest veneration for.
his character and principles ! But I must speak the truth : while I vindicate the
memory of. Jefferson from so foul a charge, I hold he is not blameless iitrefereace

8
to this subject. He committed a great error in irisertiriifthe provision he did, m
the plan he reported fur the government of the territory, as much modified as it-
was. It was the first blow — the first essiy "to draw a geographical line co
inciding with a marked principle, moral and political." It originated vviih him
in philanthropic, but mistaken vjews of the most dangerous character, as I shall
show in the sequel. Others, with very different feelings and views, followed,
and have given to it a direction and impetus, which, if nol promptly and efficiently
arrested, will end in the dissolution of the Union and the destruction of our po-
litical institutions.
I have, I trust, established beyond controversy, that neither the ordinance of
1787, nor the Missouri compromise, nor the precedents growing out of them, nor
the authority of Mr. Jefferson, furnishes any evidence whatever to prove that
Congress possesses the power over the territory, claimed by those who advocate
the 12th section of this bill. But admit, for the sake of araurnent, (hat I am
mistaken, and that the objections I have urged against them are groundless — give
them all the force which can be claimed for precedents — and they would not have
the weight of a feather against the strong presumption which I, at the outset of
my remarks, showed to be opposed to the existenre of the power. Precedents, .
even in a court of justice, can have but little weight, except where the law is
doubtful, and should have little in a deliberative body in any case on a constitu
tional question, and none, where the power to which it has been attempted to
trace it does not exist, as 1 have shown, I trust, to be the case in this instance.
But while I deny lhat the clause relating to the territory and other property
of the United States, confers any governmental, or that Congress possesses ab
solute power over the territories, I by no means deny that it has any power over
them. Such a denial would be idle on any occasion, but much more so on this,
when we are engaged in constituting a territorial government, without an objec
tion being whispered from any quarter against our right to do so. If there be
any Senator of that opinion, he ought at once to rise and move to lay the billon
the table,, or to dispose of it in some other way, so as to prevent the waste of
time on a subject upon which we have no right to act. Assuming, then, that we
possess the power, the only questions that remain are — whence is it derived?
and, what is its extent ?
As to its origin, I concur in the opinion expressed by Chief Justice Marshall,
in one of the cases read by the Senator from New York, that it is derived from
the right of acquiring territory ; and I am the more thoroughly confirmed in it
from the fact, that I entertained the opinion long before I knew it to be his. As to
the right of acquiring territory, I agree with the Senator from New York, that it
is embraced, without going further, both in the war and treaty powers. Admit
ting, then, what has never been denied, and what it would be idle to do so in a.
discussion, which relates to territories acquired both by war and treaties, that
the United States have the right to acquire territories, it would seem to follow
by necessary consequence, that they have the right to govern them. As they
possess the: entire right of soil, dominion, and sovereignty over them, they must
necessarily carry with them the right to govern. But this government, as the
sole agent and representative of the United States — that is, the States of the
Union in their federal character — must, as such, possess the sole right if it exists
at all. But if there be anyone disposed to take a different view of the origin of
the power, I shall make no points with him, for whatever maybe its origin, the
conclusion would be the same, as I shall presently show.
But it would be a great error to conclude, that Congress has the absolute pow
er of governing the territories, because it has the sole or exclusive power.
The revei'se is the case. It is subject to many and important' restrictions
and coriditioiis, of which some are expressed and others implied. Among the
former rnay be classed all the general and absolute prohibition's of the Cbnstitu.

9
tion ; that is, all those which prohibit the exercise of certain powers under any "
circumstance. In thiscfass is included the prohibition of granting titles of no
bility ; passing ex post, facto laws and bills of attainder ; the suspension of the-
writ of habeas corpus, except in Certain cases ; making laws respecting the es
tablishment of religion, or prohibiting its free exercise ; and every other of like-
description, which conclusively shows that the power of Congress over the ter
ritories is not absolute. Indeed, it is a great error to suppose, that either this
or the Slate governments possess in any case absolute power. Such power can
eelong only- to the supreme ultimate power called sovereignly, and that, in our sys
tem, i elides in the people of the several States of the Union. With us, gov
ernments, both federal and State, are but agents, or, more properly, trustees, and'
as such, possess, not absolute, but subordinate and limited powers ; for all pow
ers possessed by such governments must from their nature be trust powers, and
subject to all the restrictions to which that class of powers are.
Among them, they are restricted to the nature and the objects of the trust ; and
hence no government under our system, federal or Stale, has the right to do any
thing inconsistent with the nature of the powers entrusted to it, or the objects
for which it was entrusted ; or to express it in more usual language, for which it
was delegated. To do either would be to pervert the power to purposes never
intended, and would he a violation of the Constitution, and that in the most dan
gerous way it could be made, because more easily done and less easily detected.
But there is another and important class of restrictions which more directly re
late to the subject under discussion ; I refer to those imposed on the trustees by
the nature and character of the party, who constituted the trustees and invested
them with the trust powers tobe exercised for its benefit. In this case it is the
United States, that is, the several States of the Union. It was they who con
stituted the Government as their representative or trustee, and entrusted it with
powers to be exercised for their common and joint benefit. To them in their
united character the territories belong, as is expressly declared by the Constitu
tion. They are their joint and common owners, regarded as property or land ;
and in them, severally, reside the dominion and sovereignty over them. They
are as much the territories of one State as another — of Virginia as of New
Yoik ; of the Southern as the Northern States. They are the territories of all,
because they are the territories of each ; and not of each, because they are
the territories of the whole. Add to this the perfect equality of dignity, as well
as rights, which appertain to them as members of a common federal Union, which
all writers on the subject admit to be a fundamental and essential relation be
tween States so united, and it must be manifest that Congress in governing the
territories, can give no preference or advantage to one State over another, or
to one portion or section of the Union over another, without depriving the State
or section over which the preference is given, or from which the advantage is
withheld, of their clear and unquestionable right, and subverting the very
foundation on which the Union and Government rest. It has no more power to
do so than to subvert the Constitution' itself. Indeed the act itself would be sub
version.' It would destroy the relation of equality on the part of the Southern
States, and sink them to mere dependants of the Northern, to the total destruc
tion of the federal Union, •
I have now shown, I trust, beyond controversy, that Congress has no power
whatever to exclude the citizens of the Southern States from emigrating with their
property info the territories of the United States, or to give an exclusive monopo
ly of them to the North. I now propose to go one step further, and show that
neither the inhabitants of the territories nor their legislatures have any such
right. A very few words will be sufficient for the purpose'; for of all the posi
tions' ever taken, I "hold that which claims the power for them to be the most
absurd.'!: If the territories belong to the United States— if the ownership, do-

10
¦minion and sovereignty over them be in the States of this Union, then neither
'the inhabitants of the territories, nor their legislatures, can exercise any power
but what is subordinate to them ; but if the contrary could be shown, which I
hold >to be impossible, it would be subject to all the restrictions, to which I
have shown the power of Congress is, and for the same reason, whatever power
they might hold, would, in the case supposed, be subordinate to the Constitution,
and controlled by the nature and character of our political institutions. But if
the reverse be true — if the dominion and sovereignty over the territories be in
their inhabitants, instead of the United States — they would indeed, in that case,
have the exclusive and absolute power of governing them, and might exclude
whom they pleased, or what they pleased. But, in that case they would cease
to be the territories of the United States, the moment we acquired them and per-
mit them to be inhabited. The first half dozen of squatters would become the
sovereigns, with full dominion and sovereignty over them ; and the conquered
people of New Mexico and California would become the sovereigns of the coun
try as soon as they become the territories of the United States, vested with the
full right of excluding even their conquerers. There is no escaping from the
alternative, but by resorting to the greatest of all absurdities, that of a divided
sovereignty — a sovereignty, a part of which would reside in the United States,
and a part in the inhabitants of the territory. How can sovereignty — the ulti
mate and supreme power of a State — be divided ? The exercise of the powers
of sovereignty may be divided, but how can there be two supreme powers ?
We are next told that the laws of Mexico preclude slavery ; and assuming
that they will remain in force until repealed, it is contended, that until Congress
passes an act for their repeal, the citizens of the South cannot emigrate with
their property into the territory acquired from her. I admit the laws of Mexi
co prohibit, not slavery, bjt slavery in the form it exists with us. The Puros
are as much slaves as our negroes, and are less intelligent and well treated. But,
I deny that the laws of Mexico can have the effect attributed to them. As soon as
the treaty between the two countries is ratified, the sovereignty and authority of
Mexico in the territory acquired by it becomes extinct, and that of the United
States is substituted in its place, carrying with it the Constitution, with its over
riding control over all the laws and institutions of Mexico inconsistent with it.
It is true, the municipal laws of the territory not inconsistent with the condition
and the nature of our political system would, according to the writers on the
laws of nations, remain, until changed, not as a matter of right, but merely of
sufferance, and as between the inhabitants of territory, in order to avoid a state
of anarchy, before they can be brought under our laws. This is the utmost
limits to which sufferance goes. Under it the peon system would continue ; but
not to the exclusion of such of our citizens as may choose to emigrate with their
slaves or other property, that may be excluded by the laws of Mexico. The hu
mane provisions of the laws of nations go no further than to protect the inhabi-
tants in their property and civil rights, under their former laws, until others can
be substituted. To extend them further and give them the force of excluding
emigrants from the United States, because their property or religion are such
as are prohibited from being introduced by the laws of Mexico, would not
only exclude a great majority of the people of the United States from erai-
grating into the acquired territory, but would be to give a higher authority to
the extinct authority of Mexico over the territory than to our actual authority
over it. I say the great majority, for the laws of Mexico not only prohibit the
introduction of slaves, but of many other descriptions of property, and also the
Protestant religion, which Congress itself cannot prohibit. To such absurdity
would the supposition lead. J
I have now concluded the discussion, so far as it relates to the power; and
:Jiave, I trust, established beyond controversy, that the territories are free and'open

11
>to all of the citizens of the United States, and that there is ho power under any
•aspect the subject can be viewed in by which the citizens ot the South can be
•excluded from emigrating with their property into any of them. I have ad
vanced no argument which I do not believe to be true, nor pushed any one be
yond what truth would strictly warrant. But, if mistaken, if my arguments, in
stead of being sound and true, as I hold them beyond controversy to be, should
'turn out to be a mere mass of sophism, and if in consequence, the barrier op
posed by the want of power, should be surmounted, there is another still in the
way, that cannot be. The mere possession of power is not of itself sufficient
*to justify its exercise. It must be, in addition, shown, that in the given case i;
•can be rightfully and justly exercised. Under our system, the first inquiry is
• does the Constitution authorize the exercise of the power? If that be decided
in the affirmative, the next is : can it be rightfully and justly exercised under the
circumstances ? And it is not, until that too is decided in the affirmative, thp.t
the question of the expediency of exercising it, is presented for consideration.
Now, I put the question solemnly to the Senators from the North : Can you
rightly and justly exclude the South from territories of the United States, and
monopolize them for yourselves, even, if in your opinion, you should have the
power? It is this question I wish to press on your attention, with all due so
lemnity and decorum. The North and the South stand in the relation of part
ners in a common Union, with equal dignity and equal rights. We of, the South
have contributed our full share of funds, and shed our full share of blood for the
acquisition of* our territories. Can you, then, on any principle of equity and
justice deprive us of our full share in their benefit and advantage? Are you
ready to affirm that a majority of the partners in a joint concern have the right
to monopolize its benefits to the exclusion of the minority, even in cases where
they have contributed their full share to the concern ? But to present the case
more strongly and vividly, I shall descend from generals to particulars, and shall
begin with the Oregon Territory. Our title to it is founded first, and in my
opinion mainly, on our purchase of Louisiana ; that was strengthened by the
Florida treaty, which transferred to us the title also of Spain ; and both by the
discovery of the mouth of the Columbia river by Capt. Gray, and the explora-
tion of the entire stream, from its source down to its mouth, by Lewis and Clark.
The purchase of Louisiana cost fifteen millions of dollars ; and we paid Spain
five millions for the Florida treaty ; making twenty in all. This large sum was
advanced out of the common funds of the Union, the South, to say the least, con
tributing her full share. The discovery was made, it is true, by a citizen of
Massachusetts ; but he sailed under the flag and protection of the Union, and of
• course whatever title was derived from his discovery, accrued to the benefit of
the Union. The exploration of Lewis and Clark was at the expense of the
Union. We are now about to form it into a territory ; the expense of governing
which, while it remains so, must be met out of the common fund, and towards
which the South must contribute her full share. The expense will not be small.
Already there is an Indian war to be put down, and a regiment for that purpose,
and to protect the territory, has been ordered there. To what extent the expense
may extend we know not, but will not, improbably, involve millions before the ter
ritory become a State. I now ask, is it right, is it just ; after having contributed
• our full share for the acquisition of the territory, with the liability of contribut
ing in addition our full share of the expense for its government, that we
should be shut out of the territory, and be excluded from participating in its bene-
fits 1 What would be thought of such conduct in the case of individuals ? And
can that be ri°-ht and just in Government, which every right minded man would
cry out to be base and dishonest in private life ? If it would be so pronounced
in a partnership of thirty individuals, how can it be pronounced otherwise in one
of thirty States ?

12 f
The case of our recently acquired territory, from Mexico, is, if possible, more
mar .ed. The events connected with the acquisition are too well known to re
quire a long narrative.^ Il was won by arms, and a great sacrifice of men and
money. The South, fn lhe contest, performed her full share of military duty,
and earned-afoll share of military honor; has poured out her full share of blood
freely, and has and will bear a full share of the expense ; has evinced a full
share of skill and bravery, and if I were to say even more than her full share of
both, I would not go beyond tbe truth ; to be attributed, however, to no superiori
ty, in either respect, but to accidental circumstances, which gave both its officers
and soldiers more favorable opportunities for their display. AH have done their
duty nobly, and high couiage and gallantry, are but common attributes of our
people. Would it be right and just to close a territory thus won against the
Soulh, and leave it open exclusively to the North ? Would it deserve the name
of free soil, if one half of the Union should be excluded and the other half should
monopolize il, when it was won by the joint expense and joint efforrs of all? Is
the great law to be reversed — that which is won by all should be equally enjoy
ed by all ? These are questions which address themselves more to the heart
than the head. Feeble must be the intellect which does not see what is right
and just, and bad must be the heart, unless unconsciously under the control of
deep and abiding prejudice, which hesitates in pronouncing on which side they
are to be found. Now, I put the question to the Senators from the North, what
are you prepared to do ? Are you prepared to prostrate the barriers of the Con
stitution, and in open defiance of the dictates of equity and justice, to exclude
the South from the territories and monopolize them for the North ? If so, vote
against the amendment offered by the Senator from Mississippi, (Mr. Davis,)
and if that should fail, vote against striking out the 12th section. We shall then
know what- to expect. If not, place us on some ground where we can stand as
equals in rights and dignity, and where we shall not be excluded from what has
been acquired at the common expense, and won by common skill and gallantry.
All we demand is to stand on the same level with yourselves, and to participate
eq lally in what belongs to all. Less we cannot take.
I turn now to my friends of the South, and ask, what are you prepared to do ?
If neither the barriers of the Constitution nor the high sense of right and justice'
should prove sufficient to protect you, are you prepared to sink down into a state
of acknowledged inferiority; to be stripped of your dignity of equals among
equals, and be deprived of your equality of rights in this federal partnership of
States? If so, you are wofully degenerated from your sires, and will well de
serve to change condition with your slaves ; but if not, prepare to meet the issue.
The time is at hand, if the question should not be speedily settled, when the
South must rise up, and bravely defend herself, or sink down into base and ac
knowledged inferiority ; and it is because I clearly perceive that this period is
favorable for settling it, if it is ever to be settled, that I am in favor of pressing
he question now to a decision — not because I have any desire whatever to em
barrass either party in reference to the Presidential election. At no other pe
riod could the two great parties into which the country is divided be made to see
and feel so clearly and intensely the embarrassment and danger caused by the
question. Indeed, they must be blind not to perceive that there is a power in
action that must hurst asunder the ties that bind them together, strong as they
are, unless it should be speedily settled. Now is the time, if ever. Cast your
eyes to the North, and mark what is going on there ; reflect on the tendency of
events for the last three years in reference to this the most vital of all questions,
and you must see that no time should be lost.
I am thus brought to the question, How can the question be settled? It can,
in my opinion, be finally and permanently adjusted but one way, and that, is on
the high principles of justice and the Constitution. Fear not to leave it to them. ,

13
The less you do 'the better. If the North and South cannot stand together on
their broad and solid foundation; there is none other on which they can; If the
obligations1 of the Constitution and justice be too fe ble to command the respect '
of the North, how can the South expect that she will regard the far more feeble
obligations of an act of Congress ? Nor should the North fear, that, by leaving
it where justice and the Constitution leave it, she would be excluded from her
full share of the territories. In my opinion, if it be left there, climate, soil, and
other circumstances would fix the line between the slaveholding and nonslave-
holding States in about 36 30. It may zigzag a little, to accommodate itself to
circumstances — sometimes passing to the north and at others passing to the
south of it ; but that would matter little, and would be more satisfactory to all,
and tend less to alienation between the two great sections than a rigid, straight,
artificial line, prescribed by an act of Congress.
And here, let me say to Senators from the North, you make a great mistake
in supposing that the portion which might fall to the south of whatever line might
be drawn, if left to soil, and climate, and circumstances to determine, would be
closed to the white labor of the North, because it could not mingle with slave
labor without degradation. Tho fact is not so. There is no part of the world
where agricultural, mechanical, and other descriptions of labor are more re
spected than in the South, with the exception of two descriptions of employ
ment — that of menial and body servants. No Southern man — not the poorest
or the lowest — will, under any circumstance, submit to perform either ol them.
He has too much pride for that, and I rejoice that he has. They are unsuitedto
the spirit of a freeman. But the man who would spurn them feels not the least
-degradation to work in the same field with his slave ; or to be employed to work
with them in the same field or in any mechanical operation ; and, when so em
ployed, they claim the right, and are admitted, in the country portion of the
South, of sitting at the table of their employers. Can as much, on the score of
equality, be said of the North? With us the two great divisions of society are
not the rich and poor, but white and black ; and all the former, the poor as well
as the rich, belong to the upper class, and are respected and treated as equals,
if honest and industrious ; and hence have a position and pride of character of
which neither poverty nor misfortune can deprive them.
But I go further, and hold that justice and the Constitution are the easiest
and safest guard on which the question can be settled, regarded in reference to
party. It may be settled on that ground simply by non-action — by leaving the
territories free and open to the emigration of all the world, so long as they con-
tinue so, and when they become States, to adopt whatever Constitution they
please, wilh the single restriction, to be republican, in order to their admission
into the Union. If a party cannot safely take this broad* and solid position and
successfully maintain it, what other can it take and maintain? If it cannot
maintain itself by an appeal to the great principles of justice, the Constitution,
and self-government, to what other, sufficiently strong to uphold them in public
opinion, can they appeal? I greatly mistake the character of the people of thi?
Union if such an appeal would not prove successful, if either party should have
the magnanimity to step forward, and boldly make it. It would, in my opinion,
be received with shouts of approbation by the patriotic and intelligent in every
quarter. There is a deep feeling. pervading the country that the Union .and our
political "institutions are in danger, Which such a course would dispel, and spread
joy over the land.
Now is the time to take the. step, and bring about a result so devoutly to be
wished. I have believed from the beginning that this was the only question
¦sufficiently potent to dissolve the Union, and subvert our system of government ;
and that the sooner it was met and settled, the safer and better for all. I have
never doubted but that if permitted to progress beyond a certain point, its settle-

14
ment would become impossible, and am under deep conviction that it is now
rapidly approaching it, and that if it is ever to be averted, it must be done
speedily. In uttering these opinions I look to the whole. If I speak earn
estly, it is to save and protect all. As deep as is the stake of the South itt
the Union and our political institutions, it is not deeper than that of the North..
We shall be as well prepared and as capable of meeting whatever may come,.
as you.
Now, let me say, Senators, if our Union and system of government are
doomed to perish, and we to share the fate of so many great people who have
gone before us, the historian, who, in some future day, may record the events
ending in so calamitous a result, will devote his first chapter to the ordinance of
of 'b7, as lauded as it and its authors have been, as the first to that series which
led to it. His next chapter will be devoted to the Missouri compromise, and
the next to the present agitation. Whether there will be another beyond, I
know not. It will depend on what we may do.
If he should possess a philosophical turn of mind, and be disposed to look to
more remote and recondite causes, he will trace it to a proposition which origi
nated in a hypothetical truism, but which, as now expressed and now understood,
is the most false and dangerous of all political error. The proposition to which
I allude, has become an axiom in the minds of a vast many on both sides of the-
Atlantic, and is repeated daily from tongue to tongue, as an established and in
controvertible truth ; it is, that " all men are born free and equal." I am nol;
afraid to attack error, however deeply it may be entrenched, or however widely
extended, whenever it becomes my duty to do so, as I believe it to be on this.
subject and occasion.
Taking the proposition literally, (it is in that sense it is understood,) there is-
not a word of truth in it. It begins with " all men are born," which is utterly
untrue. Men are not born. Infants are born. They grow to be men. And*
concludes with asserting that they are born " free and equal," which is not less
false. They are not born free. While infants they are incapable of freedom,.
being destitute alike of the capacity of thinking and acting, without which there
can be no freedom. Besides, they are necessarily born subject to their parents,
and remain so a.-nong all people, savage and civilized, until the development of
their intellect and physical capacity enable them to take care of themselves.
They grow to all the freedom, of which the condition in which they were born
permits, by growing to be men. Nor is it less false that they are born " equal."
They are not so in any sense in which it can be regarded ; and thus, as I have
asserted, there is not a word of truth in the whole proposition, as expressed and
generally understood.
If we trace it back, we shall find the proposition differently expressed in the
declaration of independence. That asserts that " all men are created equal."
The form of expression, though less dangerous, is not less erroneous. All men
are not created. According to the Bible, only two, a man and a woman, ever
were, and of these one was pronounced subordinate to the other. All others have
come into the world by being born, and in no sense, as I have shown, either free
or equal. But this form of expression being less striking and popular, has given
away to the present, and under the authority of a document put forth on so great
an occasion, and leading to such important consequences, has spread far and
wide, and fixed itself deeply in the public mind. It was inserted in our declara
tion of independence without any necessity. It made no necessary part of
our justification in separating from the parent country, and declaring ourselves
independent. Breach of our chartered privileges, and lawless encroach.
ment on our acknowleged and well established rights by the parent coun
try, were the real causes, and of themselves sufficient, without resorting to any
other, to justify the step. Nor had it any weight in constructing the govern.

15
ments which were substituted in the place of the colonial. They were formed
of the old materials and on practical and well established principles, borrowed
for the most part from our own experience and that of the country from- which.
we sprang.
If the proposition be traced still further back, it will be found to have beem
adopted from certain writers on government who had attained much celebrity in .
the early settlement of these States, and with whose writings all the prominent
actors in our Revolution were familiar. Among these, Locke and Sydney were-
prominent. But they expressed it very differently. According to their expres
sion, " all men in the state of nature were free and equal." From this the
others were derived ; and it was this to which I referred when I called it a
hypothetical truism. To understand why will require some explanation.
Man, for the purpose of reasoning, may be regarded in three different states : -
in a state of individuality ; that is, living by himself apart from the rest of his-
species. In the social; that is, living in society, associated with others of his.
species. And in the political ; that is. living under government. We may
reason as to what would be his rights and duties in either, without taking into*
consideration whether he could exist in it or not. It is certain, that in the first,
the very supposition that he lived apart and separated from all others would make
him free and equal. No one in such a state could have the right to command '
or control another. Every man would be his own master, and might do just as
he pleased. But it is equally clear, that man cannot exist in such a state ; that
he is by nature social, and that society is necessary, not only to the proper de
velopment of all his faculties, moral and intellectual, but to the very existence
of his race. Such being the case*, the state is a purely hypothetical one ; and
when we say all men are free and equal in it, we announce a mere hypothetical
truism ; that is, a truism resting on a mere supposition that cannot exist, and of
course one of little or no practical value.
But to call it a state of nature was a great misnomer, and has led to danger- -
ous errors ; for that cannot justly be called a state of nature which is so opposed i
to the constitution of man as to be inconsistent with the existence of his race-
and the development of the high faculties, mental and moral, with which he is s
endowed by his Creator.
Nor is the social state of itself his natural state ; for society can no more exist:
without government, in one form or another, than man without society. It is ;
the political, then, which includes the social, that is his natural state. It is the •
one for which his Creator formed him, into which he is impelled irresistibly, and •
in which only his race can exist and all its faculties be fully developed.
Such being the case, it follows that any, the worst form of government, is bet- -
ter than anarchy ; and that individual liberty, or freedom, must be subordinate to .
whatever power may be necessary to protect society against anarchy within or
destruction without; for the safety and well-being of society are paramount
to individual liberty, as the safety and well-being of the race is to that of indi
viduals ; and in the same proportion the power necessary for the safety of socie--
It is paramount to individual liberty. On the contrary, government has no right
to control individual liberty beyond what is necessary to the safety and well-being
of society Such is the boundary which separates the power of government
and the liberty of the citizen or subject in the political state, which, as I have
shown is the natural state of man-the only one in which his race can exist, and
thp on'e in which he is born, lives, and dies.
It follows from all this that the quantum of power on tne part of the Govern
ment and of liberty on that of individuals, instead of being equal m all cases
^necessarily be very unequal among different people, accord.ng to heir dif
ferent condWons. For just in proportion as a people an, ignorant stupid, deba-
fed corrup exposed to violence within, and dangerfrom without, the power ne-

3 i 16
•cessaryfor government to possess, in order ;to, preserve society against anarchy
-and destruction, becomes greater and greater, and individual liberty less and less,
until the lowest condition is reached when absolute and despotic power become
necessary on the part of the government, and individual liberty extinct. So, on
the contrary, just as a people rise in the scale of intelligence, virtue, and pat-
riotism, and:the more perfectly they become acquainted with the nature of gov.
ernment,the ends for whi:-h it was ordered, and how it ought to be administered,
and the less the tendency to violence and disorder within, and danger from
abroad, the power necessary for government become less and less, and indi-
vidual liberty greater and greater. Instead then of all men having the same
right to liberty and equality, as is claimed by those who hold that they are all born
free and equal, liberty is tho noble and highest reward bestowed on mental and
moral developement, combined with favorable circumstances. Instead then of
liberty and equality being born with men, instead of all men and all classes
and descriptions being equally entitled to them, they are high prizes to be won,
and are in their most perfect state, not only the highest reward that can be be
stowed on our race, but the most difficult to be won, and when won, the most
difficult to be preserved.
They have been made vastly more so by the dangerous errors I have attempt.
ed to expose, that all men are born free and equal, as if those high qualities be-
longed to man without effort to acquire them, and to all equally alike, regardless
of their intellectual and moral condition. The attempt to carry into practice this,
the most dangerous of all political errors, and to bestow on all, without regard
to their fitness, either to acquire or maintain liberty — that unbounded and indi
vidual liberty supposed to belong to man in the hypothetical and misnamed state
of nature, has done more to retard the cause of liberty and civilization, and is
doing more at present than all other causes combined. While it is powerful to
pull down governments, it is still more powerful to prevent their construction on
proper principles. It is the leading'cause among those which have placed Europe
in its present anarchical condition, and which mainly stands in the way of re-
constructing good governments in the place of those which have been overthrown,
threatening thereby the quarter of the globe most advanced in progress and
• civilization, with hopeless anarchy, to be followed by military despotism. Nor
are we exempt from its disorganizing effects. We now begin to experience
the danger of admitting so great an error to have a place in the declaration of
• our independence. For a long time it lay dormant; but in the process of time
it began to germinate, and produce its poisonous fruits. It had strong hold on
the mind of Mr. Jefferson, the author of that document, which caused him to
take an utterly false view of the subordinate relation of the black to the white
race in the South ; and to hold, in consequence, that the latter, though utterly
unqualified to possess liberty, were as fully entitled to both. liberty and equality
as the former; and that to deprive them of it was unjust and immoral. To this
error, his proposition to exclude slavery from the territory northwest of the Ohio
may be traced, and to that the ordinance of 1787, and through it the deep and
dangerous agitation which now threatens to engulf, and will certainly engulf, if
not speedily settled, our political institutions, and involve the country in countless
woes.

YALE UNIVERSITY LIBRARY

3 9002 08760 1150

u