The southern press. [volume], June 18, 1850, Image 1

About The southern press. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1850-1852

Image provided by: Library of Congress, Washington, DC

                
W?'> ' ' '
PW> . 'W . v
? f
HMTBD IT
>1A*r * Mwh P< LMi.
TERMS,
kll*, ...... |10 00
U-WEEELY, 5 00
JCEEL.Y, ...... 2 00
jP^-8nhw?lf>b? parable in advance. Any party
areamIng are subscriber* shall receive one copy
litis. Aff tetters to the Editor* to he post-paid.
PRINTED BT
. A- SAGE & HER. H. HEATH.
I ?; . I ...
Orricc, Pennsylvania Avenue, south sole, between
end 4ft streets.
* * ' '* w
THE SOUTHERN PRESS.
1 j 1 asszaeBsem in ' , i 1 i I'limii .i.) 111 i ,i, mi m
' ' ; DAILY. . _ ' ; 1
Vol. 1. Washington, Tuesday, June 18, 1S50. No. 111.
! y
Congressional.
CALIFORNIA DEBATE.
In Houit, June 14.
The House resolved itself iuto Commit?e
of the Whole ou the State of the Union,
Mr. Boyd, of Kentucky, in the Chair,)
.od resumed the consideration of the Calibrnia
question.
The amendment offered yesterday bv Mr.
$T'anton, of Tennessee, and wbicn had
>een renewed by Mr. Baker, was withdrawn.
.jo
Mr. THOMPSON, of Mississippi, rejewed
the amendment, which was as follows:
Pnmdtd, however, That it shall be no obstacle
to the admission into the Union of any State, which
may hereafter be formed out of the territory lying
south of the parallel of latitude 36? 3C, that the con'
atitution of said State may authoaiaa or establish
! African slavery therein.
Mr. T. said he had renewed the amendment
for the purpose of making one or two remark*,
chiefly in reply to those submitted
yesterday by the gentleman from Georgia,
[Mr. Stephens.] I (continued Mr. T.)
U A 1 a _ A A L _ _ ? AA-J
men auempieu 10 gei me noor. i regreueu
to hear the remarks of the gentleman, not
.because the argument, or anything he said,
related to myself, but because I regretted
.the effect produced by the speech. And
I am willing to avow my belief, that the
Democratic party is responsible, in a great
degree, for the introduction of these Territories.
I believe they are in justice bound,
as patriots, to do all which it may be in their
power to do, to settle these questions. I believe
that if they bad done' so immediately
.upon the acquisition of these Territories, they
would now have been in the ascendency,
and would at this moment have been invested
t with the power of this Government. But,
at the same time, it is to be remembered
.that during the last Presidential election, this
was made a prominent question of discussion.
The democratic party having failed to settle
it, the country, panting as it was for a settlement,
released that party from all responsibility,
aud the responsibility then devolved
upon the Whig party. And I appeal to
the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Stephens]
to say, whether he does not feel
that a heavy responsibility rests upon that
party for the settlement of the question
in a manner amicable, just, and satisfactory
to all portions of the Union?
Does not the gentleman feel that almost
the entire responsibility rests upon that
party for the settlement of this question?
Does he not know that when General layior
vras a candidate for the Presidency, his
election was advocated upon the broad
ground that be was to be trusted with the
settlement of this question, in preference to
the Democratic candidate, General Cassr
And, I ask him, can he justify his own .
friends in refusing any settlement of this
question, except by the enactment of the
Wilmot Proviso, or by doing that which is
equivalent, the continuance of the military
government in that country, under the direction
of the President, until the South
jjt shall have been entirely excluded?thus practically
carrying out the Wilmot Proviso as
iffeotually as though it were enacted into a
taw ? Will the gebtleman justify his Whig
friends in thus attempting to be unjust upon
this subject ? I do not wish to raise any
issue with the gentleman upon this subject;
on the contrary, I am willing that by-gones
should be by-gones; I am willing that my
record should be made up, and the gentleman's
record should be made up, and I have
i no wish to open it now. I do not wish to
recur to the past, because in so doing we
- would each find that which would be made
I the subject of party recrimination and violent
remark; but 1 do hope that if jve can
agree upon any great measure which will
give peace and quietness to the country, we
will, for a while at least, lay down our party
armor. :
1 do not wish to vindicate myself at this
time for the votes I have given, having
always acted in accordance with thf prin.
ciples of the Missouri compromise, atod with
the hope that all parts of the country would
be just, that all parties would be patriotic,
and that a settlement would finally be made
which should be such as to give peace and
quietness to the whole' country and secure
the rights and the equality of all the States.
, Mr. OLDS interposed, and inquired if
i tl\g gentleman from Mississippi had voted for
the Missouri compromise?in the annexation
f Texas?
Mr. THOMPSON. I did vote for the
Missouri compromise in'the annexation of
TJ'exas I am glad my friend recurs to the
matter. It was then asserted and understood
by the whole country?at least all my
friends of Texas?who were the Democratic
party?that that line should be the line of
division to the Pacific, and we immediately
acted up to that great principle, when we
came to organize a Territorial Government
for Oregon.
( Mr. STEPHENS, of Georgia. 1'have
but a word to say in reply to the gentleman
ffrom Mississippi.
The CHAIRMAN. It is not in order,
Spending the amendment, moved by the gentleman
from Mississippi.
I Mr. THOMPSON. I withdraw the
{amendment for the gentleman from Georgia.
I Mr. STEPHENS. 1 renew it. I have
but a word, Mr. Chairman.
I TH1IR M AN rnsp In n nmnl <->f
order, and sent up to the Chair, in writing,
ithe following :
| " Mr. Thurman raines the point of order, that
when a gentleman has spoken five minutes, and
the floor i? given to another gentleman, the former
gentleman not being entitled to the floor, hna no
right to withdraw the amendment.
The reporter did not understand that the
point of order was pressed at this time.
Mr. STEPHFJSS, of Georgia, renewed
the amendment, and said that he had but a
few words to otfer in reply to the gentleman j
from Mississippi [Mr. Thompson.] He
would tell him candidly, that he was utterly
opposed to keeping these territories i.nder
military governments. There was no day,
dur&g the last two sessions of Congress,
that he would not have voted to impeach
Mr. Polk for the creation or establishment
at those governments. It was done without
ibe authority of law, and in violation of the
I \
Constitution of the United States, as he i
firmly believed, as he had often decla:ed on
this floor, and as he believed every Whig i
who was then here was ready to vote. His i
(Mr. S.'a) past course and position upon
this subject could not be forgotten or mis- i
taken. The creation of these civil governments,
even in time of war, by the authority
of the President of the United States, he
held to be a m >st glaring and dangerous
usurpation of power, and it deserved the
rebuke and condemnation of Congre'ss at the
time.
But it was then defended by the friends
of the President, as a war measure. He
derived his power (he and they said) from
fliA ^ Inura n>f nofinna nnrl fkn rirrltU r\f urea "
?"* ?' Mgui. WE "
Nobody pretended that such governments
could or ought to be maintained in time of
peace. And the on'y way that he got out
of the difficulty, at the termination of the
war, was to assume the position that the
governments were rightfully instituted in
time of war, as war measures, and that,
though they ceased to exist as such on the
conclusion of peace, yet that, as they were
the existing governments at the time <f peace,
they could continue to exist, under the laws
of nations, as governments de facto, until
others were organized. In tins light they
were recognized by him after the peace; .
and in this condition the present Administration
found th m.
Mr. S. said he did not deem it necessary
for him to state what course he thought it
would have been proper for the present Administration
to take towards them. Finding
the governments existing there as they
did, perhaps those in authority couhl not
have done better than to continue tp recognize
them as governments de Jacto, until
they should be superseded by others instituted
by competent authority. The present
Administration, therefore, he did not think
were to blame for the present state of things;
but he wished it distinctly understood that
he did not approve, and he never could be
brought to sanction the policy of having these
territories, in time of peace, under military
sway and rule. It was contrary to the first
principles of republican constitutional liberty.
Upon the acquisition of these Territories?
upon the ratification of the treaty?the government
of them devolved upon Congress,
and it was ths duty of Congress, either to
allow the people there to govern themselves
according to their choice, or t<? provide a
government for them suitable to'their condition.
And in candor, he would say to the
gentleman from Mississippi, that those Whigs,
in his opinion, who now avow the extraordinary
policy of leaving the territories under
a military government in time of peace, are
strangely inconsistent with the position that
they and he occupied two years ago, when
they held up for public condemnation such a
course of policy even in time of war. We
live in a government of laws and under a
written Constitution, and from neither of
which is any authority possessed by the
President to maintain military governments
over any portion of our Territories. The
whole idea is revolting to every one who has
a proper appreciation 01 tne value oi American
liberty.
But, said Mr. S., the gentlemen from
Mississippi has alluded to the late canvass
for the Presidency, and says that while General
Cass was openly against the Wilmot
Proviso, that .the people of the South had
preferred General Taylor, because they were
more willing to trust him with the settlement
of these questions than General Cass; and
hence he argues, that the responsibility has |
passed from the Democratic party to the <
Whig party of adjusting them. He (Mr.S.)
wished simp y to say, that he believed other ,
considerations had much more to do with the
late Presidential election than these difficult
questions. The very policy that brought
these difficulties upon us, was one of the
main reasons that induced him to take such
an active part in the overthrow of the late
Administration. It was true, General Cass
was opposed to the Wilmot proviso, and he
(Mr. S.) had never, on this floor or before
hi.- constituents, attempted to represent him
otherwise. He had generously awarded to
him al! the merit that he was entitled to for
that position. But he had stated, what he
w-uld now say to the gentleman from Mississippi,
that the position of Genera! Cass
was no better, if it was not worse, for the
interests of the South, than an open advocacy
of the Proviso itself; for General Cass
held, thi>t slavery did not exist in these Territories?that
it never could go there?and
that it was not within the Constitutional power
of Congress to make provision for its extension
or protection there. This was the
purport of General Cass's Nicholson letter.
This was his (Mr. S.'s) understanding of it
at the time. He never misrepresented him.
He knew it was read one way at the North
and another at the South ; but he had never
i:? his life done General Cass the slightest
intentional njustice on this subject. lie represented
his position fairly, as he understood
it, and just as General Cass himself had
staled it a few days ago in the Senate. He
there said, on Tuesday last, after reviewing
the Nicholson letter:
*' And am I not right in saying, that whatever
other qualities he may want, a man, with my letter
before him, who could say thixt I never took the
fCrmind that slavery could not exist ?? the neir terri*
lories, does not want moral courage?"
How anybody could candidly have come
to any other conclusion at the time was a
wonder to me. Now I say to the gentleman
lrom Mississippi, that neither in the
canvass, nor in this House, belore or since,
nor before my constituents or the people of
Georgia, before nor since these acquisitions
have I countenanced any imposition upon
this subject, North or South. I have been
for fair, open dealing. I did not desire to
deceive or cheat anybody, and I did not intend
to be deceived or cheated by anybody.
I do not say that General Cass intended any
such thing. 1 think his letter was clear and
explicit; and it amounted to this, that the Wilmot
Proviso was already over the country,
both by the laws of the land and the laws of
nature, and that it was not within the powet
of Congress to remove it. Of course, according
to his views and policy, the South
would be excluded from any participation Hi
the territories acquired from Mexico. Hence,
I could not endorse him and his policy upon
this subje:t, if I had agreed with him upon
all other questions. I have from the beginning
been, as the gentleman from Mississippi
says he is, in favor of tne extension o( the
Missouri Compromise line, or some other
fair and just division of the Territory. But I
want no division which will not give as ample
protection and security to the South in
the enjoyment of her portion as it does to
the North. The extension of the Missouri
Compiomise without the recognition of slavery
south of that line, and all necessary protection,
would, in my opinion^be a perfect
morlffirv nf rioht?iust ail much to as the
doctrine of "non-int? rvention." This was
iny position two years ago upon this floor,
and upon which i then declared I should
stand or fall. I hold that upon the acquisition
of these territories, their government
devolved upon Congress, and that it was the
duty of Congress to pass all necessary laws
for the fair and equal enjoyment of them by
all the people of the United States, or such
ol them as might go there with their property
of every description.
As a difference of opinion exists between
the North and South upon the subject of
slavery, I thought, and still think, that for
the purpose of such equal and just enjoyment
a division >of the territory would be
best. That Congress had power to pass such
laws I never doubted; indeed 1 was amazed
at the position of those who claimed the
constitutional right to carry and hold slavery
there and yet denied to Congress the power
to pass lawsforthe protection of their rights.
The doctrine of " non-intervention" denied
that power. I understand the gentleman
from Mississippi now to be in favor of the
extension of the Missouri line, with a recognition
and" protection of our rights south of
the line. And yet he will al ow me to tsll
him, that according to the doctrines of General
Cass, and the whole paity to which he
belonged two years ago, such a compromise
or settlement would be an unconstitutional
act, for they denied the power Congress to
pass any sucn law. jpor myself,. 1 nave always
maintained that the South had an undoubted
right to an equal participation in
these Territories, and that it was the duty of
Congress to see to it that that right was properly
secured and protected. It is true these
opinions of mine were held by many, two
years ago, to be hetrodoxical and even dangerous.
But I have the grat!6cation now of
seeing them fast becoming the common sentiments
of men of all paities at the South.
Conscious of the right then, 1 was willing foi
tin e to vindicate the truth. So much for
the remarks of the gentleman from Mississippi.
And in conclusion 1 repeat to him, 1
am opposed to the continuance of military
governments in these territories; they are
anti-republican, and incontistent with the
first principles upon which our Government
rests. 1 am for a settlement of all these
sectional questions if they can be settled consistently
with the rights and interests of the
people of my State. It has been said that
I opposed the settlement two years ago. I
did?and if I were to judge fiom the debates
in this and the other end of the Capitol, 1
should find abundance of evidence to justify
me in that opposition, even out of the
mouths of some of the very men who were
disposed to censure me for the course I then
i is v/iv*
Some further conversation followed.
The amendment was withdrawn.
Mr. McL^NE, of Maryland, renewed
the amendment, and made some remarks of
which a report was prepared.
Mr. McL. then withdrew the amendment.
Mr. BOCOCK renewed it. He said that
the amendment brought up the question of
the propriety of the adoption of the Missouri
compromise line, and why, he asked, shall it
not be adopted? The line of 36Q 30', when
first established, was not suggested by any
thing peculiar to the territory acquired from
France, called Louisiana Territory. It was
an arbitrary line, adopted by the legislators
of that day, because they desired to agree
upon a line across the continent which should
forever divide the opponents of slavery and
those who defend that institution as it exists
in the State. That purpose should apply to
the territory now under consideration, as
much as to the territory acquired from Franee.
By the adoption of that line the South lost
much territory. Notwithstanding that fact,
she has faithfully lived up to it. Under that
compromise, as she understood it, she gave
up a pait of Texas, and was willing to give
up the whole of Oregon. She is willing to
its continuance now; and why shall it not be
continued ? Simply because the South
might get a poor pittance under it, and the
North would not get all. That is the whole
matter.
The gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. Gentry]
said a few days ago, and the gentle
c ri f~ t* _ j ;
man J rum jjreurjjia ^mr. orci'iiK.inj sum un
yesterday, that, they had foretold the present
state of tilings several years ago, : nd that i
the Democratic party alone is responsible fur
it. Mr. Chairman, I was paired to hear such i
remarks from those gentlemen. Do they i
not know that there are some prophecies, the <
bare annuncmtion of which tends to bring
about their fulfillment?
When the Whig party predicted that
Mexico would make war for the annexation
of Texas, they did not mean surely to say ;
that Mexico would do what, in their judg- <
ment, was wrong. They said in effect then, i
if not in words, that Mexico ought to make i
war for the annexation of Texas. And i
surely, Mex co was not to be expected to be
less tenacious of her honor than these gen- <
tlemen.
When the gentlemen from Tennessee and
Georgia said that the North would appro- t
priate to herself all the Territory that might |
be acquired from Mexico, they had n? right I
to predict in advance that the North would i
do what they thought wrong. And surely I
we were not bound to act upon the fear that i
the North would wrongfully violate our
rights.
When they made this prediction, they in j
effect said that the North ought to claim this
Territory, and the mentipn of it now encourr
m
ages that section in its course, I know that
these gentlemen have do such intention.
The gentleman from Georgia said, during
the last Congress, that he would never agree
to any arrangement which would not give to
his constituents their share of this Territory.
Such remarks are further objectionable,
because they tend to revive the spirit of party.
Sir, the country is in danger. If we must
have pattT contests on this floor, let them be
delayed till that danger is over. Then we
shall not shrink from them. Till then let us
have a generous emulation who shall do
most to save the Constitution and to save
the country. Let no man col(|jy-stand ofl,
and says, you are responsible, get out as you
can. His all is involved as well.as ours.
Mr. B. withdrew the aiQefedMent.
Mr. FEJlTHERSTON renewed it. He
said: Mr. Chairman, the principal reason
assigned by the friends of California for hejr,
immediate admission is, that the] will andi
wishes of the people there in forming a State
government should be carried oilt. If wc
act on this principle, we must necessarily
confine her southern boundary to the line of
36 deg. 30 min. South of that line the people
do not ask for a State government, but
or the contrary protest solemnly against it,
and desire a territorial government. This
fact is clearly demonstrated by the proceedings
of the convention. The delegates south
of 36 deg. 30 min. voted against it all. Why
do you force a form of government upon
them contrary to their will, one for whichthey
do not ask, and which they reject ?
Your declaration is, therefore, unfounded in
fact, and a solemn mockery of the very principle
that you profess to hold so dear, to wit,
that the people should determine for themselves
what form of government they would
adopt.
This territory, too, south of 36 degrees
30 minutes, is a nart, if not all, included
within the boundariesof the State of Deseret.
If your position be correct, that the people
of California had the right to form a State
government without the consent of Congress,
then you must admit that Deseret had the
same right. If she had the same right, her
title to the territory south of this line of 36
degrees 30 minutes istiest. She first formed
her constitution, first exercised this right.
Why do you reject her title, and recognize
that of California ? Because California excluded
slavery and Deseret did not. The
question of boundary is a question within the
control and juiisdiction of Congress.
Five minutes expired.
Mr. S. withdrew the amendment.
Mr. MEADE renewed the amendment.
He desired to make a few remarks in reply
to an argument of the gentleman Irom Ohio,
[Mr. Carter,] who spoke, yesterday.
That gentleman had thrown out the idea that
this territory is held in trust by the United
States for the benefit of the people inhabiting
the territory. According to this view,
then, the moment the treaty with Mexico
was ratified, eoinslante we became trustees
for the benefit of the people of Mexico inhabiting
the territories. This would present
this anomalous state of things: The United
States complained of injuries received from
the Republic of Mexico and her dependencies,
and for the purpose of obtaining indemnity
for these injuries, we waged war
witu her. When
we demanded indemnity for these
outrages, were we demanding it for those
who perpetrated them, or for those who suffered
from them? Was there ever such a preposterous
proposition submitted ? Who
committed these outrages? Were they not
committed by Mexico, of which this territory
formed a part ? Of whom did we demand
indemnity ? Of those ver3r people f?r
whose benefit the gentleman says we hold
the territory. Are we, then, to be regarded
as trustees for those who committed the outrages,
or for those who demanded reparation?
If anything more preposterous than this had
ever been submitted, he would like to hear
it. The people of the United States had
received injury from Mexico, and had de
manded indemnity for an injury done all the
States of the Union, and to all the people of
the Slates. And if any of the States are
excluded from their portion of it, injury and
injustice are done to the portion of the States
so excluded. If the North appropriates the
whole of it to herself, the Sonth has a right
to complain of this as an act of injustice.
Had it been an indeu.ity in money instead
of territory, does any doubt that the South
would have been entitled to the millions
which would have been her share ? The people
of the South had to pay their proportion
of the expenses of the wary and their share of
the fifteen millions paid for this territory.
After having thus contributed her proportion
of the costs, can it be permitted that the
North, relying on her numerical strength,
should come here and pass laws for the purpose
of excluding the South from all participation
? They offer the Wilmct Proviso.
The South can never submit to that proviso
without a sense of her inferiority that must
ultimately degrade and humiliate her people.
No, sir, the Federal Government is agent
and trustee for all those who suffered from
the outrage to repair which the territories
were acquired.
Mr. M. withdrew the amendment.
Mr. HILLIARD renewed it and said :
This amendment brings up a great question.
It proposes to allow such States as may hereafter
be formed out of territory lying south
-?f flip nnrnllpl nf dpcr fit) min . tn rnme
into the Union either with or without slavery
as their people may happen to prefer when
they form their constitution.
This brihgs up the question of the power !
af Congress over the institutions of a State :
when a State applies to be admitted into the >
Union, formed out of territory belonging to i
the,States of this Confederacy, ought Congress
to attempt to compel its people' to establish
or abolish slavery within its limits, or i
ihould we confine ourselves to an examination
of the republican character of the Constitution
which is presented to us ? Now,
sir, this is, I have said, a great question?a
very great question. To maintain that Congress
may compel the people of a State applying
for admittance into the Union, to alter
their organic law, it being republican, to
modify their institutions and shape their internal
policy so as locale* it acceptacle to
what may happen to be the .prevailing sen-timent
of that body> is to assert a doctrine
which ?verturns every principle which supports
the popular Govemmeut under which
we live. Great considerations may weigh
with Congress in admitting or excluding a
State?tl.e condition of the country at the
moment of the application, the fitness of the
inhabitants of the new State to participate in
the deliberations or the action of the Government?these
and other considerations, mi*y
well be regarded as bearing upon the ques->
tion. But I trust never to see this House
deliberately reject a proposition like that now
before us, and thus to deny to the people of
any part of this country the right to form
the institutions which may seem to them best
suited to promote their prosperity as a State.
No one who has any just conception of
popular rights, or any disposition to maintain
the great principles which are essential to
their protection, can allow himself to be
thrown into hostility to this fundamental doctrine,
which all the States of this Union have
recognised, and will, I believe, at all times
uphold. The existence of slavery within the
limits of a new State affords no ground for
the rejection of its application to come into
the Union, nor does the exclusion of slavery
from the limits of a State by its constitution,
afford any just ground. The objection made
to the admittance of California into the Union
as a single and distinct met>sure, (Joes not
rest upon any such ground, but upon the fact
that its admittance, under present circumstances,
with the boundaries claimed for it,
would tend to disturb the harmony which
should reign between the States of this
Union, and, so far from adding to our strength,
would essentially weaken us as a Confederacy.
Let the boundaries be altered, as I
propose they shall be, and I will not hesitate
to vote that the State shall be admitted. I
know that irregularities have marked the
proceedings which resulted in the formation
of the State government, but I will overlook
all these, and welcome the new State into
the Union, with suitable boundaries, even
though its constitution excludes slavery. As
I have heretofore said, the legislation of Congress,
admitting the State, will relate back
to the original proceedings, and legalise them,
and allow me to ask what objection can be
raised to the change ofboundanes which I propose?
Some of the ablest and most influential
members of the convention whichformed the
Constitution of California, were in favor of em
bracing all the territory called by that name
within the limits of the new State. Among
those, I believe was Mr. Gwyn, one of the
Senators chosen to represent that State. He
brought forward a proposition, if I remember
correctly the proceedings of the Convention,
to take all Upper California acquired from
Mexico into the State of California; and
his proposition was maintained with ability
by himself, and, I believe, by others.
Now, sir, 1 desire to take from the projected
State its southern territory below the parellel
of 36 deg. 30 min., and extend its eastern
boundary, so as to embrace the country called
Deseret or Utah. Our right to do this is clear;
the whole Territory belongs to the people of
the United States, and not to the inhabitants
who are now thrown into that remote region,
many of them there temporarily, drawn
thither by the spirit of adventure. The
whole subject of boundary is perfeptly within
our control. //
By what authority have the people of
California formed a State government ?
Not by the authority of Congress. I do not
conriplain of their having done so. Our
neglect compelled them to take care ol
themselves. But I mean to say that California
is not a State; it is a Territory belonging
to the United States, and we might
to-day stretch our authority over the whole
of it. .The question of boundary belongs to
us, and* not to the inhabitants who now
happen to occupy our territory. It is a very
ditlerent state of things from that which
Missouri presented when that State came
forward and applied for admission into the
Union. The people of Missouri had, by the
authority of Congress, organized a State.
It. might be admitted into the Uhion, or it
might be kept out, but still it was a State,
and would have continued to exist as a
State, either within the Union oi out of the
Union. It is not so with California. The
whole subject of its limits belongs to us.
Let us exercise our authority for the good of
the whole coun;ry, so that when we welcome
the new State into the Union, we shall not
hereafter regard it as the apple of discord,
but feel that it adds a new guarantee to the
pun ti j j/i uopu111jr j UHU pr-i ptiuuy Ul uui
glorious political system. Sir, I earnestly
hope that this will be done ; that we shall,
by our votes, recognize the great popular
principle of the right of every State to form
its own institutions, arid that we shall receive
this new accession to our Confederacy in a
way to increase its strength and its glory.
Mr. H. w thdrew the amendment.
Mr. HUBBARD renewed the amendment
and said : Mr. Chairman, it has become
my duty on this amendment to state
what my constituents expect at your hands.
Members from the North have many friends
among us who have, up to this time, contended
" that you would act uprightly and
divide fairly this conquest from Mexico."
The vote you are now about to give will
prove whether they had a right to confide in
you or not.
If your vote should do us justice, the whole
united South will feel safe and secure for the
future, under this assurance that our revolutionary
struggle with power was not in
vain. But if, on the other hand, you refuse
us, it makes no difference under what pretext,
or what object you may have in view,
whether to make presidents or get offices
under them, they never can place further
confidence in this Government. And if,
hereafter, in your greatest need, you should
call on them for men or money, they will
not have that sense of pride and republic
equality which has heretofore animated their
bosoms as equals, and mu <t make all future
sacrifices under a sense of the degradation
of subjugated colonies.
He withdrew the amendment.
Mr. MARSHALL said: Under the regulations
of representation provided by the
Constitution, not merely power, but responsibility,
T^sides with the members from the
Free States?I mean the responsibility of
effecting or defeating a suitable and proper
adjustment of the controversy which now
distracts this country. All eyes are turned
upon us. I have arisen to say, that I hope
we will proceed to the vote-?the most important
vote of the session.
For two days we have heard speeches on
on this amendment, and nearly every remark
that has been made, has fallen from
members from the alaveholding States. The
representation from the free States is silent,
still, ready for action. Why appeal again
and again? Why crave as a boon that which
may he demanded as a right? Look at the
proposition under consideration ! It merely
asserts that should the line 36 degrees 30
minutes be adopted as the southern boundary
of California, no objection will exist to the
ad nission of the territory south of that line,
should slavery be recognized by the people
of said territory in the formation of that constitution.
Who gainsays such a proposition?
It does not involve the question of boundary.
It does not declare that California ahull be
divided. It does not establish through California
the line of the Missouri compromise.
No. It is an amendment or addition which
merely presents another isolated question,
thus: If California is divided, the people
South may admit slavery if they choose,
and, should it be admitted, that shall constitute
no just ground for the rejection ot the
new State. 1 hope the argument will cease;
for I cannot fancy the North will reject this
principle.
A Voice. We will show by the vote
what we will do.
Mr. M. continued. It is said the vote
will prove opinions. The slaveholding country
will scarcely realize the adoption of any
principle so adverse to their interests and to
justice, to say nothing of constitutional right,
as the adoption of the views declared just
now. What! Make a practical, legislative
assertion that the recognition of sla
o
very in a State constitution shall henceforth
be a bar to admission into the Union ?
I cannot believe it. I cannot realize the
fact that sentiment at the North has descended
to such gross fanaticism. It presents
a question which, under our form of
government, with our Constitution- and our
elements of republican sovereignty, ought
not to be debated in a council of freemen
and equals. The practical assertion of any
suck dogma will not be tolerated. I am
temperate, calm, and, I hope, considerate in
the contest which is going on. My chief
aim is to reach a result which shall preserve
harmony and union. But I call the attention
of this committee to my declaration, that
if the North has in fact concluded to assert
in this Hall, in the form of?^ law, the proposition
that no State shall henceforth be admitted
which adopts a constitution recognizing
slavery, the States in which slavery is
now recognized will not, cannot, and ought
not to submit to it. But at all events I hope
we, the Representatives of the people, will
stop these appeals, and terminate this spectacle,
especially as the members from the
Free States lend us unwilling ears and seem
to be anxious to make a legislative declaration
of their intentions. I move we proceed
to the voti.
Calls for the question.
Mr. STANTON, of Tennessee asked
for tellers.
Mr. CROWELL called for the reading
of the amendment; which was read as
' follows:
"ttf'JtrrfetlTed. however, That it shall be no obstacleto
the admission into the Union of any State
which may hereafter be formed out of the territory
lying south of the parallel of latitude of 36 deg.
30 min., that the constitution of said State may
authorize or establish African slavery therein."
Tellers were ordered, and Messrs. Mason
and Calvin were appointed.
The question was taken, and (he tellers
reported, ayes 78, nays 89.
So the amendment was rejected.
Mr. SEDDON proposed as an amendment,
after the word "twenty," in the 12th
line, to insert, "and, at the time of its adoption,
intended and understood as a partition
for the future, between the slaveholding
and non-slaveholding States, of the territory
of the United States, to the uttermost extent
of its western limits, and as such was enacted
mainly by the votes of Representatives
from the non-slaveholding States.
Mr. S. said, the amendment Mr. Chairman,
recalls a tact of great moment, in considering
the obligation of the Missouri Compromise
line. That fact history has recorded
and attested. It is, that at the time of its adoption,
and when understood as a partition to the
extreme ofour western limits ot the territory of
the United States between the North and the
South, its enactment was effected mainly
by the representatives of the non-slaveholding
States. The majority of the Sbuthern
Representatives were earnestly r.nd decisively
opposed to it, and their resistance to
its passage was ardent and protracted. Sir,
it was forced upon the South, in despite of
opposition and remonstrance. With great
reluctance the South received and acquiesced
in it. And why, sir ? Her power was then
relatively mnch greater than now. The
mere retirement of her members would have
left no sufficient body for legislation, and
would have abrogated the Government.
Persistance in determined opposition?refusal
on her part to acquiesce would have resulted
either in the allowance of her equal right
of settlement in all the territories of thi$
Union, or in the dissolution of the Confederacy.
Her power would have sufficed -easily
to have shattered this Union into fragments.
Rut, sir, for the pacification of the country,
>n a spirit of enlarged patriotism and
liberality, the South acquiesced in the denial
of fier just rights, and submitted to be
cramped and confined to a small portion of
Aie joint domain, although the whole of it
was then covered by laws recognizing and
sustaining her institutions. Fraternity with
the non-slaveholding States was cherished
by her. The glorious memories of joint
struggles and triumphs?the sympathies.of a
kin red lineage and a common language?
?
" The Southern Preaa.'?Tri-weekly,
I* published oa iaaedayt, Thursdays em} Saturday*
of each week.
"The Southern Pieea,?Weekly,
Is published every JtYedeeeday.
ADVERTISING RATBS.
For one square of 10 lines, three insertions, $1 00
? every subsequent insertion, 25
l.iberal deductions made on pearly advertising.
f> Individuals may forward1 the amount of their
suhacriptioM at our risk. Address, (poet-paid)
EL1AVOOD FlSHKR,
. v W*e|?in|ton Citjr,
' ! * mm
the association* of interest br4 intercourse,
and all the halloaing influences that had
cemented our fathers into confederation end
unity, had consecrated the, Union in her
affections. For the sake of tint Union, and
to maintain the cherished relations of amity
and peace with their sister States, the
States of the South acquiesced in the terms
of settlement forced upon her, and in perfect
faith have ever since adhered to and maintained
tliern. But, sir, surely they are not
now to be abandoned, and their spirit repudiate!
by the Representatives of that section
who adopted and put them upon the South.
Representatives of the North, I appeal to
you. Does not the fact, that your section
forced this measure originally on the adverse
South, impose the most potent obligation on
your honor, your consciences and good faith,
now to adhere to and re-enact it in its fullest
sense and spirit?
Mr. Chairman, the attitude of the two
sections at th:s time and on this floor, presents
a striking contrast with the past, full of
solemn admonition to both. Sir, the measure
which, some thirty years since, the Representatives
of the North mainly forced
upon the opposing Representatives of the
South?that measure, the Representatives
of the South?even the most violent?almost
unitedly proffer and press upon your
acceptance, and even that scant measure of
right you refuse and deny us. If this he a
sad and striking illustration of the waning
power and influence of the South, with what
force to every liberal and just mind ought
it to come, in aid of the appeal we make to
the North. Youean entertain no visionary
apprehensions of the encroachments of tbb
weakened section. You cannot fear for
your institutions or your interests, nor even
dread the loss of northern ascendency and
power. You can be just without dangerliberal
without even the impairment of future
power. And, sirs, if you are wise,
you will be so. It is the noblest prerogative
of conscious power that it can atford to be
both just and liberi I, and in the ordinations
of Providence, it is wisely arranged, that by
the exercise of such ennobling sentiments,
power is made most secure and harmonized
with its true and most enlarged interests.
In your connection with the Southern States,
you realize your greatest progress, prosperity,
and development. From the very institutions'
you now wantonly aim to cramp
and crush, flow, in innumerable rills, the
springs that nourish and fructify your diversified
fields of labor and enterprise. You
cannot be unjust and detrimental to them
without marring all the fair effects of your
present prosperous connection. Cause them,
by wrong, to feel alarm arid adverse to you,
and your interests, and if even the. forms of
| confederation remain, rely upon it, its suhI
stantinl benefits?its rich fruits of emulu
ment and prosperity must soon perish and
be forever lost.
Mr. H. withdrew the amendment.
Mr. BROWN, of Mississippi, renewed
the amendment, pro forma} and said: 1 long
since made up my mind that I would introduce
no proposition of my own, nor vote
for any other man's proposition, which did
not give ample justice to my section. My
determination was not formed without conr
sideration. The whole ground had been
duly examined, and my judgment was based
on a solemn conviction, that no proposition
which did not inflict positive injury on the
South had the least chance of favor in this
House. If 1 had ever been brought to
doubt the correctness of this judgment, the
vote just taken would have convinced me
beyond all dispute that 1 was right.
Day by day our ears are filled with the
cry "compromise!" "adjustment!!" We
have been invoked, time and again, to come
forward and settle this angry dispute, on
teems equitable and just to all sections of
the Confederacy. We have been admonished,
\u high sounding phraseology, that to
the people of the States, when forming
! their constitutions, belonged the duty and
the right of settling for themselves the
question of slavery or no slavery. Some,
we have been told, fanatical and violent,
would repudiate this doctrine; but the great
body of the moderate men of the North, of
all parties, we have been assured, had
planted themselves on this broad, republican
platform. Now, sir, what have we
seen? The question has been taken on a
proposition declaring that it shall hereafter
be no objection to the admission of a State,
lying South of 36 deg. 30 min. that her
constitution tolerated or prohibited slavery,
and this proposition has been voted down?
voted down, sir, by a strictly sectional division?all
the Southern members voting
for it, and all the Northern members, with but
one honorable exception, voting against it.
Mr. HARRIS, of Illinois. Three or forir.
Mr. BROWN. I tmw but one?Mr. McC'iersasd.
There may have been three or four. It
may have been that five or six threw up their ham
and cried " God save the country!"
Mr. B1SSEL. I was not in my sent. 1 should
have voted for it with greet pleasure.
Mr. HARRIS, of Illinois. I voted for it.
Mr. BROWN. It may be that five or six voted
for the proposition. But what of that? Where
iL- i Ivik nnvtkA.M I
WIIB UIC trrni umiy ?uv nwi ?uviu mriiii *ci > v
Whigs and Democrat*? They were just where 1
have always predicted they would be when it came
to voting. 1 hey were found repudiating the very
doctrine on which they ask us to admit California?the
doctrine of self-government in regard to
slavery. a
There could be no mistaking the intention of
thin vote. The gentleman from Kentucky, [Mr.
M ARM!all,] in a speech of marked emphasis, had
called on the Souln to cease debating, and let us
have a vote?a vote which should test the question,
whether northern members were prejwred to
assert the doctrine, that under no circumstances
should any other nlavcholding State enter this
Union. 'I he debate did cease in obedience to that
appeal; the vote was taken, and the result is before
us. And now, sir, in reference to that result
I have a word to say. It explodes at one dash,
the hollow-hearted and hypocritical pretension
that this question was to be Icn to the people, when
they came to form their respective constitutions.
It verifies wlwit I have said here and 'elsewhere,
that this doctrine was a miserable cheat, an infi>nious
imposition, a gross fraud upon the South.
If the people, as in the case of California, make
an anti-slavery constitution, the doctrine is applied
and the State admitted ; but if any other
State shall offer a pro-slavery constitution, we are
given by this vote distinctly to understand, that
such State, her constitution, and this doctrine, will
ail be trampled under foot together.'
I want my constituents and the country to sea
to what end we are to come at last. The bold
stand is taken by this vote that not another sluv<?
[OcmcinrUm on fourth pag*-)
e ^ *4 4-- * r Hp *