SPEECH OF THE HON. S. A. DOUGLAS, OF ILL.

IN THE SENATE, JAN. 30, 1854.

The Senate, as in Committee of the Whole, while, in other parts, it was otherwise construed. proceeded to the consideration of the bill to or- As the object of the committee was to conform to ganize the Territory of Nebraska. the principles established by the compromise

Mr. DOUGLAS. Mr. President, when I pro-measures of 1850, and to carry these principles posed, on Tuesday last, that the Senate should into effect in the territories, we thought it was proceed to the consideration of the bill to organ- better to recite in the bill precisely what we underize the territories of Nebraska and Kansas, it stood to have been accomplished by those measwas my purpose only to occupy ten or fifteen ures, viz.: that the Missouri compromise, having minutes in explanation of its provisions. I de- been superseded by the legislation of 1850, has sired to refer to two points; first to those pro- become and ought to be declared inoperative; and visions relating to the Indians, and second to hence we propose to leave the question to the those which might be supposed to bear upon the people of the States and territories, subject only question of slavery. to the limitations and provisions of the Constitu

The Committee, in drafting the bill, had in view tion. the great anxiety which had been expressed by Sir, this is all that I intended to say, if the quessome members of the Senate to protect the rights tion had been taken up for consideration on Tuesof the Indians, and to prevent infringement upon day last; but since that time occurrences have them. By the provisions of the bill, I think we transpired which compel me to go more fully into have so clearly succeeded, in that respect, as to the discussion. It will be borne in mind that the obviate all possible objection upon that score. senator from Ohio [Mr. CHASE] then objected to The bill itself provides that it shall not operate the consideration of the bill, and asked for its upon any of the rights or lands of the Indians, postponement until this day, on the ground that nor shall they be included within the limits of there had not been time to understand and conthose territories until they shall by treaty with sider its provisions; and the senator from Massathe United States expressly consent to come chusetts [Mr. SUMNER] suggested that the postunder the operations of the act, and be incorpo- ponement should be for one week for that rated within the limits of the territories. This purpose. These suggestions seeming to be reaprovision certainly is broad enough and clear sonable, in the opinions of senators around me, I enough, explicit enough, to protect all the rights yielded to their request, and consented to the of the Indians as to their persons and their prop- postponement of the bill until this day. erty. Sir, little did I suppose, at the time that I Upon the other point, that pertaining to the granted that act of courtesy to those two senators, question of slavery in the territories, it was the that they had drafted and published to the world intention of the committee to be equally explicit. a document, over their own signatures, in which We took the principles established by the compro- they arraigned me as having been guilty of a mise acts of 1850 as our guide, and intended to criminal betrayal of my trust, as having been Inake each and every provision of the bill accord guilty of an act of bad faith, and been engaged in with those principles. Those measures estab-an atrocious plot against the cause of free governlished and rest upon the great principles of self-ment. Little did I suppose that those two Senagovernment, that the people should be allowed to tors had been guilty of such conduct, when they decide the questions of their domestic institutions called upon me to grant that courtesy, to give for themselves, subject only to such limitations them an opportunity of investigating the substiand restrictions as are imposed by the Constitu- tute reported, the committee. I have since distion of the United States, instead of having covered that on that very morning the National them determined by an arbitrary or geographical Era, the abolition organ in this city, contained an line. address, signed by certain abolition confederates, The original bill reported by the committee as to the people, in which the bill is grossly misrepa substitute for the bill introduced by the Senator resented, in which the action of the committee is from Iowa, [Mr. DODGE,] was believed to have grossly perverted, in which our motives are araccomplished this object. The amendment which raigned and our characters calumniated. And, was subsequently reported by us was only de- sir, what is more, I find that there was a postsigned to render that clear and specific, which script added to the address, published that very seemed, in the minds of some, to admit of doubt morning, in which the principal amendment reand misconstruction. In some parts of the coun- ported by the committee was set out, and then try the original substitute was deemed and con- coarse epithets applied to me by name. Sir, had strued to be an amendment or a repeal of what I known those facts at the time I granted that act has been known as the Missouri compromise, lof indulgence, I should have responded to the re

quest of those senators in such terms as their" signed by the senators and a majority of the repConduct deserved, so far as the rules of the Sen- resentatives from the State of Ohio"-a statement ate and a respect for my own character would which I have every reason to believe was utterly have permitted me to do. In order to show the false, and known to be so at the time that these character of this document, of which I shall have confederates appended it to the address. It was much to say in the course of my argument, I will necessary, in order to carry out this work of deread certain passages: ception, and to hasten the action of the Ohio "We arraign this bill as a gross violation of a sacred legislature, under a misapprehension of the real pledge: as a criminal betrayal of precious rights; as facts, to state that it was signed, not only by the part and parcel of an atrocious plot to exclude from a abolition confederates, but by the whole whig vast unoccupied region emigrants from the Old World, and free laborers from our own States, and convert it into representation, and a portion of the democratic a dreary region of despotism, inhabited by masters and representation in the other House from the State af Ohio.

slaves."

A SENATOR: By whom is this address signed?

Mr. CHASE. Mr. President

Mr. DOUGLAS. Mr. President, I do not yield

Mr. DOUGLAS. It is signed "S. P. Chase, sena- the floor. A senator who has violated all the rules tor from Ohio; Charles Sumner, senator from of courtesy and propriety, who showed a conMassachusetts; J. R. Giddings and Edward sciousness of the character of the act he was Wade, representatives from Ohio; Gerrit Smith, doing by concealing from me all knowledge of representative from New York; Alexander De the fact-who came to me with a smiling face, Witt, representative from Massachusetts;" in- and the appearance of friendship, even after cluding, as I understand, all the abolition party in that document had been uttered-who could get Congress.

Then, speaking of the Committee on Territories, these confederates use this language:

"The pretences, therefore, that the territory, covered by the positive prohibition of 1820, sustains a similar relation to slavery with that acquired from Mexico, covered by no prohibition except that of disputed constitutional or Mexican law, and that the compromise of 1850 requires the incorporation of the pro-slavery clauses of the Utah and New Mexico bill in the Nebraska act, are mere inventions, designed to cover up from public reprehension meditated bad faith."

"Mere inventions to cover up bad faith." Again:

up in the Senate and appeal to my courtesy in order to get time to give the document a wider circulation before its infamy could be exposed; such a senator has no right to my courtesy upon this floor.

Mr. CHASE. Mr. President, the senator misstates the facts

Mr. DOUGLAS. Mr. President, I decline to yield the floor.

Mr. CHASE. And I shall make my denial pertinent when the time comes.

The PRESIDENT. Order.

Mr. DOUGLAS. Sir, if the Senator does inter"Servile demagogues may tell you that the Union can pose, in violation of the rules of the Senate, a be maintained only by submitting to the demands of denial of the fact, it may that I shall be able to slavery."

nail that denial, as I shall the statements in this
address which are over his own signature, as a
wicked fabrication, and prove it by the solemn
legislation of this country.

Mr. CHASE. I call the Senator to order.
The PRESIDENT. The Senator from Illinois

Then there is a postscript added, equally offensive to myself, in which I am mentioned by name. The address goes on to make an appeal to the legislatures of the different States, to public meetings, and to ministers of the Gospel in their pulpits, to interpose and arrest the vile proceeding is certainly out of order. which is about to be consummated by the senators Mr. DOUGLAS. Then I will only say that I shall who are thus denounced. That address, sir, confine myself to this document, and prove its bears date Sunday, January 22, 1854. Thus it statements to be false by the legislation of the appears, that on the holy Sabbath, while other country. Certainly that is in order. senators were engaged in divine worship, these Mr. CHASE. You cannot do it. abolition confederates were assembled in secret Mr. DOUGLAS. The argument of this maniconclave, plotting by what means they should festo is predicated upon the assumption that the deceive the people of the United States, and policy of the fathers of the republic was to proprostrate the character of brother senators. This hibit slavery in all the territory ceded by the old was done on the Sabbath day, and by a set States to the Union, and made United States terof politicians, to advance their own political ritory for the purpose of being organized into new and ambitious purposes, in the name of our holy States. I take issue upon that statement. Such religion. was not the practice in the early history of the

But this is not all. It was understood from the government. It is true that in the territory northnewspapers that resolutions were pending before west of the Ohio river slavery was prohibited by the legislature of Ohio, proposing to express their the ordinance of 1787; but it is also true that in opinions upon this subject. It was necessary for the territory south of the Ohio river, slavery was these confederates to get up some exposition of permitted and protected; and it is also true that the question by which they might facilitate the in the organization of the territory of Mississippi, passage of the resolutions through that legislature. in 1798, the provisions of the ordinance of 1787 Hence you find that on the same morning that this were applied to it, with the exception of the sixth document appears over the names of these con- article, which prohibited slavery. Then, sir, you federates in the abolition organ of this city, the find upon the statute books under Washington same document appears in the New York papers and the early Presidents, provisions of law showcertainly in the Tribune, Times, and Evening ing that in the southwestern territories the right Post-in which it is stated, by authority, that it is to hold slaves was clearly implied or recognized,

while in the northwest territories it was prohibited. [souri, that territory was allowed to legislate upon The only conclusion that can be fairly and honest- the subject of slavery as it saw proper, subject ly drawn from that legislation is, that it was the only to the limitations which I have stated; and policy of the fathers of the republic to prescribe a the country not inhabited or thrown open to setline of demarkation betweeen free territories and tlement was set apart as Indian country, and renslaveholding territories by a natural or geograph- dered subject to Indian laws. Hence, the local ical line, being sure to make that line correspond, legislation of the State of Missouri did not reach as near as might be, to the laws of climate, of into that Indian country, but was excluded from production, and all those other causes that would it by the Indian code and Indian laws. The mucontrol the institution and make it either desirable nicipal regulations of Missouri could not go there or undesirable to the people inhabiting the re- until the Indian title had been extinguished, and spective territories. the country thrown open to settlement. Such

Sir, I wish you to bear in mind, too, that this being the case, the only legislation in existence in geographical line, established by the founders of Nebraska Territory at the time that the Missouri the republic between free territories and slave act passed, namely, the 6th of March, 1820, was a territories, extended as far westward as our terri- provision, in effect, that the people should be tory then reached; the object being to avoid all allowed to do as they pleased upon the subject of agitation on the slavery question by settling that slavery.

question forever, as far as our territory extended, The Territory of Missouri having been left in which was then to the Mississippi river. that legal condition, positive opposition was made

When, in 1803, we acquired from France the to the bill to organize a State government, with a territory known as Louisiana, it became necessary view to its admission into the Union; and a Senato legislate for the protection of the inhabitants tor from my State, Mr. Jesse B. Thomas, introresiding therein. It will be seen, by looking into duced an amendment known as the eighth secthe bill establishing the territorial government in tion of the bill, in which it was provided that 1805 for the territory of New Orleans, embracing slavery should be prohibited north of 36° 30' north the same country now known as the State of latitude, in all that country which we had acquired Louisiana, that the ordinance of 1787 was ex-from France. What was the object of the enactpressly extended to that territory, excepting the ment of that eighth section? Was it not to go sixth section, which prohibited slavery. That back to the original policy of prescribing boundaact implied that the territory of New Orleans ries to the limitation of free institutions, and of was to be a slaveholding territory by making that slave institutions, by a geographical line, in order exception in the law. But, sir, when they came to avoid all controversy in Congress upon the subto form what was then called the Territory of ject? Hence they extended that geographical Louisiana, subsequently known as the Territory of line through all the territory purchased from Missouri, north of the thirty-third parallel, they France, which was as far as our possessions then used different language. They did not extend to reached. It was not simply to settle the question it any of the provisions of the ordinance of 1787. on that piece of country, but it was to carry out They first provided that it should be governed by a great principle, by extending that dividing line laws made by the Governor and the judges; and as far west as our territory went, and running it when in 1812 Congress gave to that territory, onward on each new acquisition of territory. under the name of the Territory of Missouri, a True, the express enactment of the eighth section territorial government, the people were allowed of the Missouri act, now called the Missouri comto do as they pleased upon the subject of slavery, promise, only covered the territory acquired from subject only to the limitations of the Constitution France; but the principles of the act, the objects of the United States. Now what is the inference of its adoption, the reasons in its support, required from that legislation? That slavery was, by that it should be extended indefinitely westward, implication, recognized south of the thirty-third so far as our territory might go, whenever new parallel; and north of that the people were left purchases should be made.

to exercise their own judgment and do as they Thus stood the question up to 1845, when the pleased upon the subject, without any implication joint resolution for the annexation of Texas passed. for or against the existence of the institution. There was inserted in that joint resolution a proThis continued to be the condition of the coun- vision, suggested in the first instance and brought try in the Missouri Territory up to 1820, when before the House of Representatives by myself, the celebrated act which is now called the Missouri extending the Missouri compromise line indefiCompromise was passed. Slavery did not exist nitely westward through the territory of Texas. in, nor was it excluded from the country now Why did I bring forward that proposition? Why known as Nebraska. There was no code of laws did the Congress of the United States adopt it? upon the subject of slavery either way: First, for Not because it was of the least practical importance, the reason that slavery had never been introduced so far as the question of slavery within the limits into Louisiana, and established by positive enact- of Texas was concerned; for no man ever dreamed ment. It had grown up there by a sort of that it had any practical effect there. Then why common law, and been supported and protected. was it brought forward? It was for the purpose When a common law grows up, when an institu- of preserving the principle, in order that it might tion becomes established under a usage, it carries be extended still farther westward, even to the it so far as that usage actually goes, and no far- Pacific ocean, whenever we should acquire the ther. If it had been established by direct enact- country that far. I will here read that clause. It ment, it might have carried it so far as the politi- is the third article, second section, and is in these cal jurisdiction' extended; but, be that as it may, words:

by the act of 1812, creating the Territory of Mis- "New States, of convenient size, not exceeding four in

number, in addition to said State of Texas, having suffi- take to say it was the very men who now insist cient population, may hereafter, by the consent of said that the Missouri Compromise was a solemn comState, be formed out of the territory thereof, which shall

be entitled to admission under the provisions of the federal pact, and should never be violated or departed Constitution. And such States as may be formed out from. Every man who is now assailing the prinof that portion of said territory lying south of 36 degrees ciple of the bill under consideration, so far as I 30 minutes north latitude, commonly known as the Mis

souri compromise line, shall be admitted into the Union, am advised, was opposed to the Missouri Comprowith or without slavery, as the people of each State ask mise in 1848. The very men who now arraign ing admission may desire. And in such State or States as me for a departure from the Missouri Compromise shall be formed out of said territory north of said Mis- are the men who successfully violated it, repudisouri conpromise line, slavery or involuntary servitude ated it, and caused it to be superseded by the (except for crime) shall be prohibited. compromise measures of 1850. Sir, it is with It will be seen that it contains a very remark- rather bad grace that the men who proved able provision, which is, that when States lying faithless themselves should charge upon me and north of 36° 30' apply for admission, slavery shall others, who were ever faithful, the responsibilities be prohibited in their constitutions. I presume and consequences of their own treachery. no one pretends that Congress could have power Then, sir, as I before remarked, the defeat of thus to fetter a State applying for admission into the Missouri Compromise in 1848 having created this Union; but it was necessary to preserve the the necessity for the establishment of a new one principle of the Missouri compromise line, in order in 1850, let us see what that compromise was. that it might afterwards be extended, and it was The leading feature of the compromise of 1850 supposed that while Congress had no power to was congressional non-intervention as to slavery impose any such limitation, yet, as that was a in the Territories; that the people of the Terricompact with the State of Texas, that State could tories, and of all the States, were to be allowed to consent for herself that, when any portion of her do as they pleased upon the subject of slavery, own territory, subject to her own jurisdiction and subject only to the provisions of the Constitution control, applied for admission, her constitution of the United States.

should be in a particular form; but that provision That, sir, was the leading feature of the comThose measures, would not be binding on the new State one day promise measures of 1850. after it was admitted into the Union. The other therefore, abandoned the idea of a geographical provision was, that such States as should lie south line as the boundary between free States and of 36° 30' should come into the Union with or slave States; abandoned it because compelled to without slavery as each should decide in its con- do it from an inability to maintain it; and, in lieu stitution. Then, by that act, the Missouri com- of that, substituted a great principle of self-govpromise was extended indefinitely westward, so ernment, which would allow the people to do as far as the State of Texas went, that is, to the Rio they thought proper. Now the question is, when del Norte; for our government at the time recog- that new compromise, resting upon that great nized the Rio del Norte as its boundary. We fundamental principle of freedom, was established, recognized in many ways, and among them, by was it not an abandonment of the old one-the even paying Texas for it ten millions of dollars, geographical line? Was it not a supersedure of in order that it might be included in and form a the old one within the very language of the substitute for the bill which is now under consideraportion of the territory of New Mexico.

Then, sir, in 1848 we acquired from Mexico tion? I say it did supersede it, because it applied the country between the Rio del Norte and the its provisions as well to the north as to the south Pacific Ocean. Immediately after that acquisition, of 36° 30'. It established a principle which was the Senate, on my own motion, voted into a bill a equally applicable to the country north as well provision to extend the Missouri compromise in- as south of the parallel of 36° 30'-a principle definitely westward to the Pacific ocean, in the of universal application. The authors of this same sense and with the same understanding abolition manifesto attempted to refute this with which it was originally adopted. That pro- presumption, and maintained that the compromise vision passed this body by a decided majority, I of 1850 did not supersede that of 1820, by quoting think by ten at least, and went to the House of the proviso to the first section of the act to estab Representatives, and was defeated there by north-lish the Texan boundary and create the Territory of New Mexico. That proviso was added, by way Now, sir, let us pause and onsider for a mo- of amendment, on motion of Mr. Mason, of Virment. The first time that the principles of the ginia.

ern votes.

Missouri compromise were ever abandoned, the I repeat, that in order to rebut the presump first time they were ever rejected by Congress, tion, as I before stated, that the Missouri comprowas by the defeat of that provision in the House mise was abandoned and superseded by the of Representatives in 1848. By whom was that principles of the compromise of 1850, these condefeat effected? By northern votes with freesoil federates cite the following amendment, offered proclivities. It was the defeat of that Missouri to the Bill to establish the boundary of Texas and compromise that reöpened the slavery agitation create the Territory of New Mexico in 1850: with all its fury. It was the defeat of that

Missouri compromise that created the tremendous "Provided, That nothing herein contained shall be construggle of 1850. It was the defeat of that Mis- strued to impair or qualify any thing contained in the third souri compromise that created the necessity for article of the second section of the joint resolution for annexing Texas to the United States, approved March 1, making a new compromise in 1850. Had we been 1845, either as regards the number of States that may herefaithful to the principles of the Missouri compro-after be formed out of the States of Texas or otherwise." mise in 1848, this question would not have

arisen. Who was it that was faithless? I under- After quoting this proviso, they make the fol

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 statement: the act of 1850. "It is solemnly declared in the very compromise acts, Mr. WADE. Why did you do it over again? 'that nothing herein contained shall be construed to impair or Mr. DOUGLAS. I will come to that point prequalify the prohibition of slavery north of thirty-six de-sently. I am now dealing with the truth and vegrees thirty minutes; and yet, in the face of this decla racity of a combination of men who have assembled in secret caucus upon the Sabbath day to

ration, that sacred prohibition is said to be overthrown. Can presumption further go?"

I will now proceed to show that presumption arraign my conduct and belie my motives. I say, could not go further than is exhibited in this de- therefore, that their manifesto is a slander either claration. way; for it says that the Missouri compromise was They suppress the following material facts, not superseded by the measures of 1850, and then which, if produced, would have disproved their it says that the same words in my bill do repeal statement. They first suppress the fact that the and annul it. They must be adjudged guilty of one same section of the act cuts off from Texas, and falsehood in order to sustain the other assertion. cedes to the United States, all that part of Texas Now, sir, I propose to go a little further, and which lies north of 36° 30'. They then suppress show what was the real meaning of the amendthe further fact that the same section of the law ment of the senator from Virginia, out of which cuts off from Texas a large tract of country on these gentlemen have manufactured so much capithe west, more than three degrees of longitude, tal in the newspaper press, and have succeeded and adds it to the territory of the United States, by that misrepresentation, in procuring an exThey then suppress the further fact that this pression of opinion from the State of Rhode Island territory thus cut off from Texas, and to which in opposition to this bill. I will state what its the Missouri compromise line applied, was incor-meaning is. porated into the territory of New Mexico. And then what was done? It was incorporated into should have a clause in their constitutions prothat territory with this clause : hibiting 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 Yes, sir, the very bill and section from which all that part of Texas north of 36° 30', and hence they quote, cuts off all that part of Texas which there was nothing for it to operate upon. It did was to be free by the Missouri compromise, to- not, therefore, relate to the country cut off. What gether with some on the south side of the line; did it relate to? Why, it meant simply this: By incorporates it into the territory of New Mexico; the joint resolution of 1845, Texas was annexed, and then says that the territory, and every portion with the right to form four additional States out of the same, shall come into the Union with or of her territory; and such States as were south of without slavery, as it sees proper. 36° 30' were to come in with or without slavery,

"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."

Did it mean that the States north of 36° 30'

What else does it do? The sixth section of the as they saw proper; and in such State or States same act provides that the legislative power and as were north of that line, slavery should be proauthority of this said Territory of New Mexico hibited. When we had cut off all north of 36° 30' shall extend to all rightful subjects of legislation and thus circumscribed the boundary and diminconsistent with the Constitution of the United ished the Territory of Texas, the question arose, States and the provisions of the act, not except- how many States will Texas be entitled to under ing slavery. Thus the New Mexican bill, from this circumscribed boundary? Certainly not four, which they make that quotation, contains the it will be argued. Why? Because the original provision that New Mexico, including that part of resolution of annexation provided that one of the Texas which was cut off, should come into the States, if not more, should be north of 36° 30'. Union with or without slavery, as it saw proper; It would leave it, then, doubtful whether Texas and in the mean time that the territorial legisla- was entitled to two or three additional States ture should have all the authority over the sub- under the circumscribed boundary. ject of slavery that they had over any other sub- In order to put that matter to rest, in order to ject, restricted only by the limitation of the Con- make a final settlement, in order to have it explistitution of the United States and the provisions citly understood what was the meaning of Conof the act. Now, I ask those Senators, do not gress, the senator from Virginia offered the amendthose provisions repeal the Missouri compromise, ment that nothing therein contained should impair so far as it applied to the country cut off from that provision, either as to the number of States or Texas? Do they not annul it? Do they not super- otherwise; that is, that Texas should be entitled sede it? If they do, then the address which has to the same number of States with her reduced been put forth to the world by these confederates boundaries as she wonld have been entitled to is an atrocious falsehood. If they do not, then under her larger boundaries; and those States what do they mean when they charge me with shall come in with or without slavery, as they might having, in the substitute first reported from the prefer, being all south of 36° 30', and nothing to committee, repealed it, with having annulled it, impair that right shall be inferred from the passage with having violated it, when I only copied those of the act. Such, sir, was the meaning of that precise words? I copied the precise words into proposition. Any other construction of it would my bill, as reported from the committee, which stultify the very character and purpose of its