lowing statement, and attempt to gain credit for were contained in the New Mexico bill. They its truth by suppressing material facts which ap-say my bill annuls the Missouri compromise. If pear upon the face of the same statute, and which, it does, it had already been done before by the if produced, would conclusively disprove the act of 1850; for these words were copied from the act of 1850.

statement:

"It is solemnly declared in the very compromise acts, that nothing herein contained shall be construed to impair or qualify the prohibition of slavery north of thirty-six degrees thirty minutes; and yet, in the face of this declaration, that sacred prohibition is said to be overthrown. Can presumption further go

I will now proceed to show that presumption could not go further than is exhibited in this declaration.

Mr. WADE. Why did you do it over again? Mr. DOUGLAS. I will come to that point presently. I am now dealing with the truth and veracity of a combination of men who have assembled in secret caucus upon the Sabbath day to arraign my conduct and belie my motives. I say, therefore, that their manifesto is a slander either way; for it says that the Missouri compromise was not superseded by the measures of 1850, and then it says that the same words in my bill do repeal and annul it. They must be adjudged guilty of one falsehood in order to sustain the other assertion.

They suppress the following material facts, which, if produced, would have disproved their statement. They first suppress the fact that the same section of the act cuts off from Texas, and cedes to the United States, all that part of TexNow, sir, I propose to go a little further, and as which lies north of 36° 30'. They then sup- show what was the real meaning of the amendpress the further fact that the same section of the ment of the senator from Virginia, out of which law cuts off from Texas a large tract of country these gentlemen have manufactured so much caon the west, more than three degrees of longi- pital in the newspaper press, and have succeeded tude, and adds it to the territory of the United by that misrepresentation, in procuring an exStates. They then suppress the further fact that pression of opinion from the State of Rhode Island this territory thus cut off from Texas, and to in opposition to this bill. I will state what its which the Missouri compromise line applied, was incorporated into the territory of New Mexico. And then what was done? It was incorporated into that territory with this clause:

"That, when admitted as a State, the said territory, or any portion of the same, shall be received into the Union with or without slavery, as their constitution may prescribe at the time of its adoption."

Yes, sir, the very bill and section from which they quote, cuts off all that part of Texas which was to be free by the Missouri compromise, together with some on the south side of the line; incorporates it into the territory of New Mexico; and then says that the territory, and every portion of the same, shall come into the Union with or without slavery, as it sees proper.

meaning is.

Did it mean that the States north of 36° 30, should have a clause in their constitutions prohibiting slavery? I have shown that it did not mean that, because the same act says that they might come in with slavery, if they saw proper. I say it could not mean that for another reason: The same section containing that proviso cut off all that part of Texas north of 36° 30', and hence there was nothing for it to operate upon. It did not, therefore, relate to the country cut off. What did it relate to? Why, it meant simply this: By the joint resolution of 1845, Texas was annexed, with the right to form four additional States out of her territory; and such States as were south of 36° 30' were to come in with or without slavery, as they saw proper; and in such State or States as were north of that line slavery should be prohibited. When we had cut off all north of 36° 30′, and thus circumscribed the boundary and diminished the Territory of Texas, the question arose, how many States will Texas be entitled to under this circumscribed boundary. Certainly not four, it will be argued. Why? Because the original resolution of annexation provided that one of the States, if not more, should be north of 36° 30'. It would leave it, then, doubtful whether Texas was entitled to two or three additional States under

What else does it do? The sixth section of the same act provides that the legislative power and authority of this said Territory of New Mexico shall extend to all rightful subjects of legislation consistent with the Constitution of the United States and the provisions of the act, not excepting slavery. Thus the New Mexican bill, from which they make that quotation, contains the provision that New Mexico, including that part of Texas which was cut off, should come into the Union with or without slavery, as it saw proper; and in the mean time that the territorial legislalature should have all the authority over the sub-the circumscribed boundary. ject of slavery that they had over any other subject, restricted only by the limitation of the Constitution of the United States and the provisions of the act. Now, I ask those Senators, do not those provisions repeal the Missouri compromise, so far as it applied to the country cut off from Texas? Do they not annul it? Do they not supersede it? If they do, then the address which has been put forth to the world by these confederates is an atrocious falsehood. If they do not, then what do they mean when they charge me with having, in the substitute first reported from the committee, repealed it, with having annulled it, with having violated it, when I only copied those precise words? I copied the precise words into my bill, as reported from the committee, which

In order to put that matter to rest, in order to make a final settlement, in order to have it explicitly understood what was the meaning of Congress, the senator from Virginia offered the amendment that nothing therein contained should impair that provision, either as to the number of States or otherwise, that is, that Texas should be entitled to the same number of States with her reduced boundaries as she would have been entitled to under her larger boundaries; and those States shall come in with or without slavery, as they might prefer, being all south of 36° 30′, and nothing to impair that right shall be inferred from the passage of the act. Such, sir, was the meaning of that proposition. Any other construction of it would stultify the very character and purpose of its

quired or new territorial organizations were to be | agitation for ever, if you observe good faith to the made? provisions of these enactments, and the principles established by them.

Mr. President, I repeat that, so far as the question of slavery is concerned, there is nothing in the bill under consideration which does not carry out the principle of the compromise measures of 1850, by leaving the people to do as they please, of the United States. If that principle is wrong, the bill is wrong. If that principle is right, the bill is right. It is unnecessary to quibble about phraseology or words; it is not the mere words, the mere phraseology, that our constituents wish to judge by. They wish to know the legal effect of our legislation.

Was that the object for which the eminent and venerable senator from Kentucky [Mr. Clay] came here and sacrificed even his last energies upon the altar of his country? Was that the object for which Webster, Clay, Cass, and all the patriots of that day, struggled so long and so strenuously? Was it merely the application of a temporary ex-subject only to the provisions of the Constitution pedient, in agreeing to stand by past and dead legislation, that the Baltimore platform pledged us to sustain the compromise of 1850? Was it the understanding of the whig party, when they adopted the compromise measures of 1850 as an article of political faith, that they were only agreeing to that which was past, and had no reference to the future? If that was their meaning; if that The legal effect of this bill, if it be passed as rewas their object, they palmed off an atrocious ported by the Committee on Territories, is neither fraud upon the American people. Was it the to legislate slavery into these territories nor out meaning of the democratic party when we pledged ourselves to stand by the compromise of 1850, that we spoke only of the past, and had no reference to the future? If so, it was a gross deception. When we pledged our President to stand by the compromise measures, did we not understand that we pledged him as to his future action? Was it as to his past conduct? If it had been in relation to past conduct only, the pledge would have been untrue as to a very large portion of the democratic party. Men went into that convention who had been opposed to the compromise measures-men who abhorred those measures when they were pending-men who never would have voted affirmatively on them. But, inasmuch as those measures had been passed and the country had acquiesced in them, and it was important to preserve the principle in order to avoid agitation in the future, these men said, we waive our past objections, and we will stand by you and with you in carrying out these principles in the future.

Such I understand to be the meaning of the two great parties in Baltimore. Such I understand to have been the effect of their pledges. If they did not mean this, they meant merely to adopt resolutions which were never to be carried out, and which were designed to mislead and deceive the people for the mere purpose of carrying an election.

of them, but to leave the people to do as they please, under the provisions and subject to the limitations of the Constitution of the United States. Why should not this principle prevail? Why should any man, north or south, object to it? I will especially address the argument to my own section of country, and ask why should any northern man object to this principle? If you will review the history of the slavery question in the United States, you will see that all the great results in behalf of free institutions which have been worked out, have been accomplished by the operation of this principle, and by it alone.

When these States were colonies of Great Britain, every one of them was a slaveholding province. When the Constitution of the United States was formed, twelve out of the thirteen were slave-holding States. Since that time six of those States have become free. How has this been effected. Was it by virtue of abolition agitation in Congress? Was it in obedience to the dictates of the federal government? Not at all; but they have become free States under the silent but sure and irresistible working of that great principle of self-government which teaches every people to do that which the interests of themselves and their posterity morally and peculiarly may require.

Under the operation of this principle, New Hampshire became free, while South Carolina I hold, then, that, as to the territory covered by continued to hold slaves; Connecticut abolished the Utah and New Mexico bills, there was an ex- slavery, while Georgia held on to it; Rhode press annulment of the Missouri compromise; Island abandoned the institution, while Maryland and as to all the other unorganized territories, it preserved it; New York, New Jersey, and Pennwas superseded by the principles of that legisla-sylvania abolished slavery, while Virginia, North tion, and we are bound to apply those principles Carolina, and Kentucky retained it. Did they do to the organization of all new territories, to all it at your bidding? Did they do it at the dictawhich we now own, or which we may hereafter tion of the federal government? Did they do it acquire. If this construction be given, it makes in obedience to any of your Wilmot provisos or that compromise a final adjustment. No other ordinances of '87 ? Not at all: they did it by construction can possibly impart finality to it. By virtue of their rights as freemen under the Constiany other construction, the question is to be re- tution of the United States, to establish and abolopened the moment you ratify a new treaty ac-ish such institutions as they thought their own quiring an inch of country from Mexico. By any good required.

other construction you re-open the issue every Let me ask you, where have you succeeded in time you make a new territorial government. But, sir, if you treat the compromise measures of 1850 in the light of great principles, sufficient to remedy temporary evils, at the same time that they prescribe rules of action applicable everywhere in all time to come, then you avoid the

excluding slavery by an act of Congress from one inch of the American soil? You may tell me that you did it in the Northwest Territory by the ordinance of 1787. I will show you by the history of the country that you did not accomplish any such thing. You prohibited slavery there by law,

but you did not exclude it in fact. Illinois was a consin to Iowa, and makes them of force therein, part of the northwest territory. With the ex- also provides that those laws are subject to be ception of a few French and white settlements, it altered, modified, or repealed by the territorial was a vast wilderness, filled with hostile savages, legislature of Iowa. Iowa, therefore, was left to when the ordinance of 1787 was adopted. Yet, do as she pleased. Iowa, when she came to form. sir, when Illinois was organized with a territorial a constitution and State government, preparatory government, it established and protected slavery, to admission into the Union, considered the suband maintained it in spite of your ordinance and ject of free and slave institutions calmly, dispasin defiance of its express prohibition. It is a cu- sionately, without any restraint or dictation, and rious fact, that, so long as Congress said the ter-determined that it would be to the interest of her ritory of Illinois should not have slavery, she act-people in their climate, and with their productions, ually had it; and on the very day when you with- to prohibit slavery; and hence Iowa became a free drew your Congressional prohibition the people of State by virtue of this great principle of allowing Illinois, of their own free will and accord, pro- the people to do as they please, and not in obedivided for a system of emancipation. ence to any federal command.

Thus you did not succeed in Illinois Territory with your ordinance or your Wilmot Proviso, because the people there regarded it as an invasion of their rights; they regarded it as an usurpation on the part of the federal government. They regarded it as violative of the great principles of self-government, and they determined that they would never submit even to have freedom so long as you forced it upon them.

The abolitionists are also in the habit of referring to Oregon as another instance of the triumph of their abolition policy. There again they have overlooked or misrepresented the history of the country. Sir, it is well known, or if it is not, it ought to be, that for about twelve years you forgot to give Oregon any government or any protection; and during that period the inhabitants of that country established a government of their own, and, by virtue of their own laws, passed by their own representatives before you extended your jurisdiction over them, prohibited slavery by a unanimous vote. Slavery was prohibited there by the action of the people themselves, and not by virtue of any legislation of Congress.

Nor must it be said that slavery was abolished in the constitution of Illinois in order to be admitted into the Union as a State, in compliance with the ordinance of 1787; for they did no such thing. In the constitution with which the people of Illinois were admitted into the Union, they absolutely violated, disregarded, and repudiated It is true that, in the midst of the tornado which your ordinance. The ordinance said that slavery swept over the country in 1848, 1849, and 1850, a should be forever prohibited in that country. The provision was forced into the Oregon bill prohibitconstitution with which you received them into ing slavery in that territory; but that only goes the Union as a State provided that all slaves then to show that the object of those who pressed it in the State should remain slaves for life, and that was not so much to establish free institutions as to all persons born of slave parents, after a certain gain a political advantage by giving an ascendancy day, should be free at a certain age, and that all to their peculiar doctrines in the laws of the land; persons born in the State after a certain other day for slavery having been already prohibited there, should be free from the time of their birth. Thus and no man proposing to establish it, what was their State constitution, as well as their territorial the necessity for insulting the people of Oregon by legislation, repudiated your ordinance. Illinois, saying in your law that they should not do that therefore, is a case in point to prove that when-which they had unanimously said they did not ever you have attempted to dictate institutions to any part of the United States, you have failed. The same is true, though not to the same extent, with reference to the Territory of Indiana, where there were many slaves during the time of its territorial existence, and I believe also there were a few in the Territory of Ohio.

wish to do? That was the only effect of your legislation so far as the Territory of Oregon was concerned.

How was it in regard to California? Every one of these abolition confederates, who have thus arraigned me and the Committee on Territories before the country, and have misrepresented our position, predicted that unless Congress interposed by law, and prohibited slavery in California, it would inevitably become a slave-holding State. Congress did not interfere; Congress did not prohibit slavery. There was no enactment upon the subject; but the people formed a State constitution, and therein prohibited slavery.

Mr. WELLER. The vote was unanimous in the convention of California for prohibition.

But, sir, these abolition confederates, in their manifesto, have also referred to the wonderful results of their policy in the State of Iowa and the Territory of Minnesota. Here, again, they happen to be in fault as to the laws of the land. The act to organize the Territory of Iowa did not prohibit slavery, but the people of Iowa were allowed to do as they pleased under the territorial government; for the sixth section of that act provided that the legislative authority should extend to all Mr. DOUGLAS. So it was in regard to Utah rightful subjects of legislation except as to the dis- and New Mexico. In 1850, we who resisted any position of the public lands, and taxes in certain attempt to force institutions upon the people of cases, but not excepting slavery. It may, how- those territories inconsistent with their wishes ever, be said by some that slavery was prohibited and their right to decide for themselves, were in Iowa by virtue of that clause in the Iowa act denounced as slavery propagandists. Every one which declared the laws of Wisconsin to be in of us who was in favor of the compromise force therein, inasmuch as the ordinance of 1787 measures of 1850 was arraigned for having advowas one of the laws of Wisconsin. If, however, cated a principle purposing to introduce slavery they say this, they defeat their object, because into those territories, and the people were told, the very clause which transfers the laws of Wis- and made to believe, that, unless we prohibited it

by act of Congress, slavery would necessarily and inevitably be introduced into these territories.

mate, and soil, and of the laws of God, should be run to establish institutions for a people contrary Well, sir, we did establish the territorial gov- to their wishes; yet, out of a regard for the peace ernments of Utah and New Mexico without any and quiet of the country, out of respect for past prohibition. We gave to these abolitionists a full pledges, and out of a desire to adhere faithfully opportunity of proving whether their predictions to all compromises, I sustained the Missouri comwould prove true or false. Years have rolled promise so long as it was in force, and advocated round, and the result is before us. The people its extension to the Pacific ocean. Now, when there have not passed any law recognising, or that has been abandoned, when it has been superestablishing, or introducing, or protecting slavery seded, when a great principle of self-government in the territories has been substituted for it, I choose to cling to that principle, and abide in good faith, not only by the letter, but by the spirit of the last compromise.

I know of but one territory of the United States where slavery does exist, and that one is where you have prohibited it by law; and it is this very Nebraska country. In defiance of the eighth section of the act of 1820, in defiance of congressional dictation, there have been, not many, but a few slaves introduced. I heard a minister of the Gospel the other day conversing with a member of the Committee on Territories upon this subject. The preacher was from the country, and a member put this question to him: "Have you any negroes out there ?" He said there were a few held by the Indians. I asked him if there were not some held by white men? He said there were a few under peculiar circumstances, and he gave an instance. An abolition missionary, a very good man, had gone there from Boston, and he took his wife with him.

Sir, I do not recognise the right of the abolitionists of this country to arraign me for being false to secred pledges, as they have done in their proclamations. Let them show when and where I have ever proposed to violate a compact. I have proved that I stood by the compact of 1820 and 1845, and proposed its continuance and ob. servance in 1848. I have proved that the freesoilers and abolitionists were the guilty parties who violated that compromise then. I should like to compare notes with these abolition confederates about adherence to compromises. When did they stand by or approve of any one that was ever made?

Did not every abolitionist and freesoiler in He got out into the country but could not get America denounce the Missouri compromise in any help; hence he, being a kind-hearted man, 1820? Did they not for years hunt down ravenwent down to Missouri and gave $1.000 for a ne- ously, for his blood, every man who assisted in gro, and took him up there as "help." [Laughter]. making that compromise? Did they not in 1845, So, under peculiar circumstances, when these when Texas was annexed, denounce all of us freesoil and abolition preachers and missionaries who went for the annexation of Texas, and for the go into the country, they can buy a negro for their continuation of the Missouri compromise line own use, but they do not like to allow any one through it? Did they not, in 1848, denounce me else to do the same thing. [Renewed laughter.] as a slavery propagandist for standing by the prinI suppose the fact of the matter is simply this ciples of the Missouri compromise, and proposing there the people can get no servants-no "help," to continue it to the Pacific ocean? Did they not as they are called in the section of country where themselves violate and repudiate it then? Is not I was born-and from the necessity of the case, the charge of bad faith true as to every abolitionthey must do the best they can, and for this reason ist in America, instead of being true as to me and a few slaves have been taken there. I have no the committee, and those who advocate this bill? doubt that whether you organize the territory of They talk about the bill being a violation of the Nebraska or not, this will continue for some little compromise measures of 1850. Who can show time to come. It certainly does exist, and it will me a man in either house of Congress who was increase as long as the Missouri compromise ap-in favor of those compromise measures in 1850, and plies to the territory; and I suppose it will continue who is not now in favor of leaving the people of for a little while during their territorial condition. Nebraska and Kansas to do as they please upon whether a prohibition is imposed or not. But the subject of slavery, according to the principle when settlers rush in-when labor becomes plenty, of my bill? Is there one? If so, I have not and therefore cheap, in that climate, with its pro- heard of him. This tornado has been raised by ductions-it is worse than folly to think of its being abolitionists, and abolitionists alone. They have a slaveholding country. I do not believe there is made an impression upon the public mind, in the a man in Congress who thinks it could be perma- way in which I have mentioned, by a falsification nently a slaveholding country. I have no idea of the law and the facts; and this whole organizathat it could. All I have to say on that subject tion against the compromise measures of 1850 is is, that, when you create them into a territory, you an abolition movement. I presume they had some thereby acknowledge that they ought to be consid- hope of getting a few tender-footed democrats ered a distinct political organization. And when into their plot; and, acting on what they supposed you give them in addition a legislature, you there- they might do, they sent forth publicly to the by confess that they are competent to exercise world the falsehood that their address was signed the powers of legislation. If they wish slavery, by the senators and a majority of the representathey have a right to it. If they do not want it, tives from the State of Ohio; but when we come they will not have it, and you should not attempt to examine signatures, we find no one whig there, to force it upon them. no one democrat there; none but pure, unmiti

I do not like, I never did like, the system of gated, unadulterated abolitionists. legislation on our part, by which a geographical Much effect, I know, has been produced by this line, in violation of the laws of nature, and cli- circular, coming as it does with the imposing title