ing at large into a discussion of the measure. It was then debated from day to day. On the 15th an attempt was made to force a vote, and the session was protracted until after six o'clock the next morning; but the Senate adjourned without any action on the bill. The debate was continued throughout that week.

On the 23d of March Mr. Crittenden submitted his amendment, subsequently known as the "Crittenden Montgomery" amendment. This proposition substantially provided that Kansas should be admitted as a state into the Union with the Lecompton Constitution; but, as the fact whether the Constitution was fairly made was disputed, the admission of the state was conditional upon that instrument being first submitted to a vote of the people, and assented to by a majority of them. In case the Constitution should be approved, the President was to declare Kansas a state of the Union; in case the Constitution was rejected, the bill authorized the people to elect delegates to a new convention, etc., etc. This amendment was rejected yeas 24, nays 34. After some amendments in the phraseology of the bill, it was read a third time and passed. The following was the vote on the passage:

Yeas-Allen of Rhode Island, Bayard of Delaware, Benjamin of Louisiana, Biggs of North Carolina, Bigler of Pennsylvania, Bright of Indiana, Brown of Mississippi, Clay of Alabama, Evans of South Carolina, Fitch of Indiana, Fitzpatrick of Alabama, Green of Missouri, Gwin of California, Hammond of South Carolina, Henderson of Texas, Houston of Texas, Hunter of Virginia, Iverson of Georgia, Johnson of Arkansas, Johnson of Tennessee, Jones of Iowa, Kennedy of Maryland, Mallory of Florida, Mason of Virginia, Pearce of Maryland, Polk of Missouri, Sebastian of Arkansas, Slidell of Louisiana, Thompson of Kentucky, Thomson of New Jersey, Toombs of Georgia, Wright of New Jersey, Yulee of Florida-33.

Nays-Bell of Tennessee, Broderick of California, Chandler of Michigan, Clark of New Hampshire, Collamer of Vermont, Crittenden of Kentucky, Dixon of Connecticut, Doolittle of Wisconsin, Douglas of Illinois, Durkee of Wisconsin, Fessenden of Maine, Foot of Vermont, Foster of Connecticut, Hale of New Hampshire, Hamlin of Maine, Harlan of Iowa, King of New York, Pugh of Ohio, Seward of New York, Simmons of Rhode Island, Stuart of Michigan, Sumner of Massachusetts, Trumbull of Illinois, Wade of Ohio, Wilson of Massachusetts-25.

The whole number of senators was 62. Of these, 58 voted as above. Mr. Cameron, of Pennsylvania, had paired off with Mr. Davis, of Mississippi. Mr. Bates, of Delaware, and Mr. Reid, of North Carolina, were both detained from the Senate by illness.

Mr. Douglas had been for some ten days or more confined

to his house and to his bed by severe illness. It was understood that, as the vote would take place on Monday or Tuesday, he would address the Senate upon the bill.

recess.

On Monday, March 22d, the Senate met at ten o'clock. From an early hour the galleries and every part of the hall had been crowded. During the forenoon, the antechamber, as well as the passages leading to the Senate or north wing of the Capitol, had been thronged. The Kansas Bill having been taken up, Mr. Stuart, of Michigan, addressed the Senate for three hours; Mr. Bayard, of Delaware, followed; and Mr. Broderick, of California, continued the debate until the hour for taking a Mr. Green then stated that Mr. Douglas would speak at night, and that no vote would be taken till next day. The Senate then adjourned till 7 P.M. During the recess of three hours the crowd held possession of the galleries; many of the ladies present had been there during the entire day. No one who had a seat or even standing-room moved, because to do so was to lose the opportunity so earnestly sought to hear Mr. Douglas. The Senate reassembled at 7 o'clock. At that time it was impossible to approach the entrances to the Senate. When Mr. Douglas entered the chamber he was greeted with a burst of applause from the crowded auditory.

Mr. Gwin at once rose and moved that ladies be admitted to the floor of the Senate, and, no objection being made, the motion was agreed to. Ladies then entered the hall, and occupied such positions, standing or sitting, as they could attain. The members of the House of Representatives were present in large numbers, and filled the aisles. Thus the chamber was filled to its utmost capacity. The pressure in the galleries and upon the stairs was very great, leading several times to great confusion.

Mr. Douglas then addressed the Senate as follows:

Mr. President, I know not that my strength is sufficient to enable me to present to-night the views which I should like to submit upon the question now under consideration. My sickness for the last two weeks has deprived me of the pleasure of listening to the debates, and of an opportunity of reading the speeches that have been made; hence I shall not be able to perform the duty which might naturally have been expected of me, of replying to any criticisms that may have been presented upon my course, or upon my speeches, or upon my report. I must content myself with presenting my views upon the questions that are naturally brought up by the bill under consideration. I trust, however, that I may be pardoned for referring briefly, in the first instance, to my course upon the Slavery question during the period that I have had a seat in the two houses of Congress.

When I entered Congress in 1843, I found upon the statute-book the evidence of a policy to adjust the Slavery question and avoid sectional agitation by a geographical line drawn across the continent, separating free territory from slave territory. That policy had its origin at the beginning of this government, and had prevailed up to that time. In 1787, while the convention was in session forming the Constitution of the United States, the Congress of the Confederation adopted the ordinance of 1787, prohibiting slavery in all the territory northwest of the Ohio River. The first Congress that assembled under the Constitution extended all the provisions of that ordinance, with the exception of the clause prohibiting slavery, to the territory south of that river, thus making the Ohio River the dividing line between free territory and slave territory, free labor and slave labor.

Subsequently, after the acquisition of Louisiana, when Missouri, a portion of that territory, applied for admission into the Union as a state, the same policy was carried out by adopting the parallel of 36° 30′ north latitude, from the western border of Missouri, as far westward as our territory then extended, as the barrier between free territory upon the one side and slave territory upon the other.

Thus the question stood when I first entered the Congress of the United States. I examined the question when the proposition was made for the annexation of Texas in 1845, and, though I was unable to vindicate the policy of a geographical line upon sound political principles, still, finding that it had been in existence from the beginning of the government, had been acquiesced in up to that time by the North and by the South, and that it had its origin in patriotic motives, I was anxious to abide by and perpetuate that policy rather than open the slavery agitation, and create sectional strife and heart-burning by attempting to restore the government to those great principles which seemed to me to be more consistent with the right of self-government, upon which our institutions rest. For this reason I cordially acquiesced, in 1845, in the insertion into the resolutions for the annexation of Texas of a clause extending the Missouri Compromise line through the Republic of Texas so far westward as the new acquisition might reach. I not only acquiesced in and supported the measure then, but I did it with the avowed purpose of continuing that line to the Pacific Ocean so soon as we should acquire the territory. Accordingly, in 1848, when we had acquired New Mexico, Utah, and California from the Republic of Mexico, and the question arose in this body in regard to the kind of government which should be established therein, the Senate, on my motion, adopted a proposition to extend the Missouri Compromise line to the Pacific Ocean, with the same understanding with which it was originally adopted. The Journal of the Senate contains the following entry of that proposition:

"On motion of Mr. Douglas to amend the bill, section fourteen, line one, by inserting after the word 'enacted:" "That the line of 36° 30′ of north latitude, known as the Missouri Compromise line, as defined by the eighth section of an act entitled "An Act to authorize the People of the Missouri Territory to form a Constitution and State Government, and for the Admission of said State into the Union on an equality with the original States, and to prohibit Slavery in certain Territories," approved March 6, 1820, be, and the same is hereby declared to extend to the Pacific Ocean, and the said eighth section, together with the compromise therein effected, is hereby revived, and declared to be in full force and binding for the future organization of the Territories of the United States, in the same sense and with the same understanding with which it was originally adopted.'

"It was determined in the affirmative-yeas 32, nays 21.

"On motion of Mr. Baldwin, the yeas and nays being desired by one fifth of the senators present,

"Those who voted in the affirmative are Messrs. Atchison, Badger, Bell, Benton, Berrien, Borland, Bright, Butler, Calhoun, Cameron, Davis of Mississippi, Dickinson, Douglas, Downs, Fitzgerald, Foote, Hannegan, Houston, Hunter, Johnson of Maryland, Johnson of Louisiana, Johnson of Georgia, King, Lewis, Mangum, Mason, Metcalfe, Pearce, Sebastian, Spruance, Sturgeon, Turney, and Underwood.

"Those who voted in the negative are Messrs. Allen, Atherton, Baldwin, Bradbury, Breese, Clarke, Corwin, Davis of Massachusetts, Dayton, Dix, Dodge, Felch, Green, Hale, Hamlin, Miller, Niles, Phelps, Upham, Walker, and Webster.

66

So the proposed amendment was agreed to."

Thus it will be seen that the proposition offered by me to extend the Missouri Compromise line to the Pacific Ocean in the same sense and with the same understanding with which it was originally adopted, was agreed to by the Senate by a majority of twelve. When the bill was sent to the House of Representatives, that provision was stricken out, I think, by thirty-nine majority. By that vote the policy of separating free territory from slave territory by a geographical line was abandoned by the Congress of the United States. It is not my purpose on this occasion to inquire whether the policy was right or wrong; whether its abandonment at that time was wise or unwise; that is a question long since consigned to history, and I leave it to that tribunal to determine. I only refer to it now for the purpose of showing the view which I then took of the question. It will be seen, by reference to the votes in the Senate and House of Representatives, that Southern men in a body voted for the extension of the Missouri Compromise line, and a very large majority of the Northern men voted against it. The argument then made against the policy of a geographical line was one which upon principle it was difficult to answer. It was urged that if slavery was wrong north of the line, it could not be right south of the line; that if it was unwise, impolitic, and injurious on the one side, it could not be wise, politic, and judicious upon the other; that if the people should be left to decide the question for themselves on the one side, they should be entitled to the same privilege on the other. I thought these arguments were difficult to answer upon principle. The only answer urged was, that the policy had its origin in patriotic motives, in fraternal feeling, in that brotherly affection which ought to animate all the citizens of a common country; and that, for the sake of peace, and harmony, and concord, we ought to adhere to and preserve that policy. Under these considerations, I not only voted for it, but moved it, and lamented as much as any man in the country its failure, because that failure precipitated us into a sectional strife and agitation, the like of which had never before been witnessed in the United States, and which alarmed the wisest, the purest, and the best patriots in the land for the safety of the republic.

You all recollect the agitation which raged through this land from 1848 to 1850, and which was only quieted by the compromise measures of the latter year. You all remember how the venerable sage and patriot of Ashland was called forth from his retirement for the sole purpose of being able to contribute, by his wisdom, by his patriotism, by his experience, by the weight of his authority, something to calm the troubled waters and restore peace and harmony to a distracted country. That contest waged fiercely, almost savagely, threatening the peace and existence of the Union, until at last, by the wise counsels of a Clay, a Webster, and a Cass, and the other leading spirits of the country, a new plan of conciliation and settlement was agreed upon, which again restored peace to the Union. The policy of a geographical line separating free territory from slave territory was abandoned by its friends only because they found themselves without the power to adhere to

it, and carry it into effect in good faith. If that policy had been continued, if the Missouri line had been extended to the Pacific Ocean, there would have been an end to the slavery agitation forever-for on one side, as far west as the Continent extended, slavery would have been prohibited, while on the other, by legal implication, it would have been taken for granted that the institution of slavery would have existed and continued, and emigration would have sought the one side of the line or the other, as it preferred the one or the other class of domestic and social institutions. I confess, sir, that it was my opinion then, and is my opinion now, that the extension of that line would have been favorable to the South, so far as any sectional advantage would have been obtained, if it be an advantage to any section to extend its peculiar institutions. Southern men seemed so to consider it, for they voted almost unanimously in favor of that policy prohibiting slavery on one side, contented with a silent implication in its favor on the other. Northern representatives and senators seemed to take the same view of the subject, for a large majority of them voted against this geographical policy, and in lieu of it insisted upon a law prohibiting slavery every where within the Territories of the United States, north as well as south of the line; and not only in the Territories, but in the dock-yards, the navy-yards, and all other public places over which the Congress of the United States had exclusive jurisdiction.

Such, sir, was the state of public opinion, as evidenced by the acts of representatives and senators on the question of a geographical line by the extension of the Missouri Compromise, as it is called, from 1848 to 1850, which caused it to be abandoned, and the compromise measures of 1850 to be substituted in its place. Those measures are familiar to the Senate and to the country. They are predicated upon the abandonment of a geographical line, and upon the great principle of self-government in the Territories, and the sovereignty of the states over the question of slavery, as well as over all other matters of local and domestic concern. Inasmuch as the time-honored and venerated policy of a geographical line had been abandoned, the great leaders of the Senate, and the great commoners in the other House of Congress, saw no other remedy but to return to the true principles of the Constitution to those great principles of self-government and popular sovereignty upon which all free institutions rest, and to leave the people of the Territories and of the states free to decide the Slavery question, as well as all other questions, for themselves.

Mr. President, I am one of those who concurred cheerfully and heartily in this new line of policy marked out by the compromise measures of 1850. Having been compelled to abandon the former policy of a geographical line, for want of ability to carry it out, I joined with the great patriots to whom I have alluded to calm and quiet the country by the adoption of a policy more congenial to my views of free institutions, not only for the purpose of healing and harmonizing the strife and controversy which then existed, but for the farther purpose of providing a rule of action in all time to come which would avoid sectional strife and sectional controversy in the future. It was one of the great merits of the compromise measures of 1850-indeed, it was their chief merit-that they furnished a principle, a rule of action which should apply every where-north and south of 36° 30'-not only to the territory which we then had, but to all that we might afterward acquire, and thus, if that principle was adhered to, prevent any strife, any controversy, any sectional agitation in the future. The object was to localize, not to nationalize, the controversy in regard to slavery; to make it a question for each state and each Territory to decide for itself, without any other state, or any other Territory, or the federal government, or any outside power interfering, directly or indirectly, to influence or control the result.

My course upon those measures created at first great excitement, and I