MR. CLAY'S PLAN OF SLAVERY COMPROMISE: MR. BENTON'S SPEECH AGAINST
IT: EXTRACTS.
MR. BENTON. It is a bill of thirty-nine sections--forty, save
one--an ominous number; and which, with the two little bills which
attend it, is called a compromise, and is pressed upon us as a
remedy for the national calamities. Now, all this labor of the
committee, and all this remedy, proceed upon the assumption that
the people of the United States are in a miserable, distracted
condition; that it is their mission to relieve this national
distress, and that these bills are the sovereign remedy for that
purpose. Now, in my opinion, all this is a mistake, both as to
the condition of the country, the mission of the committee, and
the efficacy of their remedy. I do not believe in this misery
and distraction, and distress, and strife, of the people. On the
contrary, I believe them to be very quiet at home, attending to
their crops, such of them as do not mean to feed out of the public
crib; and that they would be perfectly happy if the politicians
would only permit them to think so. I know of no distress in the
country, no misery, no strife, no distraction, none of those five
gaping wounds of which the senator from Kentucky made enumeration
on the five fingers of his left hand, and for the healing of which,
all together, and all at once, and not one at a time, like the
little Doctor Taylor, he has provided this capacious plaster in the
shape of five old bills tacked together. I believe the senator and
myself are alike, in this, that each of us has but five fingers
on the left hand; and that may account for the limitation of the
wounds. When the fingers gave out, they gave out; and if there had
been five more fingers, there might have been more wounds--as many
as fingers--and, toes also. I know nothing of all these "gaping
wounds," nor of any distress in the country since we got rid of the
Bank of the United States, and since we got possession of the gold
currency. Since that time I have heard of no pecuniary or business
distress, no rotten currency, no expansions and contractions, no
deranged exchanges, no decline of public stocks, no laborers begging
employment, no produce rotting upon the hands of the farmer, no
property sacrificed at forced sales, no loss of confidence, no three
per centum a month interest, no call for a bankrupt act. Never
were the people--the business-doing and the working people--as
well off as they are to-day. As for political distress, "_it is
all in my eye_." It is all among the politicians. Never were the
political blessings of the country greater than at present: civil
and religious liberty eminently enjoyed; life, liberty, and property
protected; the North and the South returning to the old belief
that they were made for each other; and peace and plenty reigning
throughout the land. This is the condition of the country--happy in
the extreme; and I listen with amazement to the recitals which I
have heard on this floor of strife and contention, gaping wounds and
streaming blood, distress and misery. I feel mystified. The senator
from Kentucky (Mr. Clay), chairman of the committee, and reporter of
the bill, and its pathetic advocate, formerly delivered us many such
recitals, about the times that the tariff was to be increased, the
national bank charter to be renewed, the deposits to be restored,
or a bankrupt act to be passed. He has been absent for some years;
and, on returning among us, seems to begin where he left off. He
treats us to the old dish of distress! Sir, it is a mistake. There
is none of it; and if there was, the remedy would be in the hands of
the people--in the hearts of the people--who love their country, and
mean to take care of it--and not in the contrivances of politicians,
who mistake their own for their country's distresses. It is all
a mistake. It looks to me like a joke. But when I recollect the
imposing number of the committee, and how "distinguished" they all
were, and how they voted themselves free from instructions, and
allowed the Senate to talk, but not to vote, while they were out,
and how long they were deliberating: when I recollect all these
things, I am constrained to believe the committee are in earnest.
And as for the senator himself, the chairman of the committee, the
perfect gravity with which he brought forward his remedy--these
bills and the report--the pathos with which he enforced them, and
the hearty congratulations which he addressed to the Senate, to the
United States, and all mankind on the appointment of his committee,
preclude the idea of an intentional joke on his part. In view of
all this, I find myself compelled to consider this proceeding as
serious, and bound to treat it parliamentarily; which I now proceed
to do. And, in the first place, let us see what it is the committee
has done, and what it is that it has presented to us as the
sovereign remedy for the national distempers, and which we are to
swallow whole--in the lump--all or none--under the penalty of being
treated by the organs as enemies to the country.
Here are a parcel of old bills, which have been lying upon our
tables for some months, and which might have been passed, each by
itself, in some good form, long ago; and which have been carried
out by the committee, and brought back again, bundled into one,
and altered just enough to make each one worse; and then called a
compromise--where there is nothing to compromise--and supported by
a report which cannot support itself. Here are the California State
admission bill, reported by the committee on territories three
months ago--the two territorial government bills reported by the
same committee at the same time--the Texas compact bill, originated
by me six years ago, and reproduced at the present session--the
fugitive slave recovery bill, reported from the judiciary committee
at the commencement of the session--and the slave trade suppression
bill for this District of Columbia, which is nothing but a revival
of an old Maryland law, in force before the District was created,
and repealed by an old act of Congress. These are the batch--five
bills taken from our files, altered just enough to spoil each, then
tacked together, and christened a compromise, and pressed upon the
Senate as a sovereign remedy for calamities which have no existence.
This is the presentation of the case: and now for the case itself.
The committee has brought in five old bills, bundled into one, and
requires us to pass them. Now, how did this committee get possession
of these bills? I do not ask for the manual operation. I know that
each senator had a copy on his table, and might carry his copy where
he pleased; but these bills were in the possession of the Senate,
on its calendar--for discussion, but not for decision, while the
committee was out. Two sets of resolutions were referred to the
committee--but not these bills. And I now ask for the law--the
parliamentary law--which enables a committee to consider bills
not referred to it? to alter bills not in their legal power or
possession? to tack bills together which the Senate held separate
on its calendar? to reverse the order of bills on the calendar?
to put the hindmost before, and the foremost behind? to conjoin
incongruities, and to conglomerate individualities? This is what I
ask--for this is what the committee has done; and which, if a point
of order was raised, might subject their bundle of bills to be ruled
off the docket. Sir, there is a custom--a good-natured one--in
some of our State legislatures, to convert the last day of the
session into a sort of legislative saturnalia--a frolic--something
like barring out the master--in which all officers are displaced,
all authorities disregarded, all rules overturned, all license
tolerated, and all business turned topsy-turvy. But then this is
only done on the last day of the session, as a prelude to a general
break-up. And the sport is harmless, for nothing is done; and it is
relieved by adjournment, which immediately follows. Such license
as this may be tolerated; for it is, at least, innocent sport--the
mere play of those "children of a larger growth" which some poet,
or philosopher, has supposed men to be. And it seems to me that
our committee has imitated this play without its reason--taken the
license of the saturnalia without its innocence--made grave work of
their gay sport--produced a monster instead of a merry-andrew--and
required us to worship what it is our duty to kill.
I proceed to the destruction of this monster. The California bill
is made the scape-goat of all the sins of slavery in the United
States--that California which is innocent of all these sins. It
is made the scape-goat; and as this is the first instance of an
American attempt to imitate that ancient Jewish mode of expiating
national sins, I will read how it was done in Jerusalem, to show how
exactly our committee have imitated that ancient expiatory custom. I
read from an approved volume of Jewish antiquities:
"The goat being tied in the north-east corner of the court of
the temple, and his head bound with scarlet cloth to signify
sin; the high-priest went to him, and laid his hands on his
head, and confessed over it all the iniquities of the children
of Israel, and all their transgressions in all their sins,
putting them all on the head of the goat. After which, he was
given to the person appointed to lead him away, who, in the
early ages of the custom, led him into the desert, and turned
him loose to die; but as the goat sometimes escaped from the
desert, the expiation, in such cases, was not considered
complete; and, to make sure of his death, the after-custom was
to lead him to a high rock, about twelve miles from Jerusalem,
and push him off of it backwards, to prevent his jumping, the
scarlet cloth being first torn from his head, in token that the
sins of the people were taken away."
This was the expiation of the scape-goat in ancient Jerusalem: an
innocent and helpless animal, loaded with sins which were not his
own, and made to die for offences which he had never committed. So
of California. She is innocent of all the evils of slavery in the
United States, yet they are all to be packed upon her back, and
herself sacrificed under the heavy load. First, Utah and New Mexico
are piled upon her, each pregnant with all the transgressions of the
Wilmot Proviso--a double load in itself--and enough, without further
weight, to bear down California. Utah and New Mexico are first piled
on; and the reason given for it by the committee is thus stated in
their authentic report:
"The committee recommend to the Senate the establishment of
those territorial governments; and, in order more effectually
to secure that desirable object, they also recommend that the
bill for their establishment be incorporated in the bill for the
admission of California, and that, united together, they both be
passed."
This is the reason given in the report: and the first thing that
strikes me, on reading it, is its entire incompatibility with the
reasons previously given for the same act. In his speech in favor
of raising the committee, the senator from Kentucky [Mr. Clay] was
in favor of putting the territories upon California for her own
good, for the good of California herself--as the speedy way to
get her into the Union, and the safe way to do it, by preventing
an opposition to her admission which might otherwise defeat it
altogether. This was his reason then, and he thus delivered it to
the Senate:
"He would say now to those who desired the speedy admission of
California, the shortest and most expeditious way of attaining
the desired object was to include her admission in a bill giving
governments to the territories. He made this statement because
he was impelled to do so from what had come to his knowledge.
If her admission as a separate measure be urged, an opposition
is created which may result in the defeat of any bill for her
admission."
These are the reasons which the senator then gave for urging
the conjunction of the State and the territories--quickest and
safest for California: her admission the supreme object, and
the conjunction of the territories only a means of helping her
along and saving her. And, unfounded as I deemed these reasons at
the time, and now know them to be, they still had the merit of
giving preference where it was due--to the superior object--to
California herself, a State, without being a State of the Union,
and suffering all the ills of that anomalous condition. California
was then the superior object: the territories were incidental
figures and subordinate considerations, to be made subservient
to her salvation. Now all this is reversed. The territories
take the superior place. They become the object: the State the
incident. They take the first--she the second place! And to make
sure of their welfare--make more certain of giving governments to
them--_innuendo_, such governments as the committee prescribe--the
conjunction is now proposed and enforced. This is a change of
position, with a corresponding change of reasons. Doubtless the
senator from Kentucky has a right to change his own position, and
to change his reasons at the same time; but he has no right to ask
other senators to change with him, or to require them to believe
in two sets of reasons, each contradictory to the other. It is my
fortune to believe in neither. I did not believe in the first set
when they were delivered; and time has shown that I was right. Time
has disposed of the argument of speed. That reason has expired
under the lapse of time. Instead of more speedy, we all now know
that California has been delayed three months, waiting for this
conjunction: instead of defeat if she remained single, we all know
now that she might have been passed singly before the committee was
raised, if the senator from Kentucky had remained on his original
ground, on my side; and every one knows that the only danger to
California now comes from the companionship into which she has been
forced. I do not believe in either set of reasons. I do not admit
the territorial governments to be objects of superior interest to
the admission of California. I admit them to be objects of interest,
demanding our attention, and that at this session; but not at the
expense of California, nor in precedence of her, nor in conjunction
with her, nor as a condition for her admission. She has been delayed
long, and is now endangered by this attempt to couple with her the
territories, with which she has no connection, and to involve her
in the Wilmot Proviso question, from which she is free. The senator
from Kentucky has done me the favor to blame me for this delay. He
may blame me again when he beholds the catastrophe of his attempted
conjunctions; but all mankind will see that the delay is the result
of his own abandonment of the position which he originally took with
me. The other reason which the senator gave in his speech for the
conjunction is not repeated in the report--the one which addressed
itself to our nervous system, and menaced total defeat to California
if urged in a bill by herself. He has not renewed that argument to
our fears, so portentously exhibited three months ago; and it may be
supposed that that danger has passed by, and that Congress is now
free. But California is not bettered by it, but worsted. Then it was
only necessary to her salvation that she should be joined to the
territories; so said the speech. Now she is joined to Texas also;
and must be damned if not strong enough to save Texas, and Utah, and
New Mexico, and herself into the bargain!
United together, the report says, the bills will be passed together.
That is very well for the report. It was natural for it to say so.
But, suppose they are rejected together, and in consequence of
being together: what is, then, the condition of California? First,
she has been delayed three months, at great damage to herself,
waiting the intrusive companionship of this incongruous company.
Then she is sunk under its weight. Who, then, is to blame--the
senator from Kentucky or the senator from Missouri? And if
opposition to this indefinite postponement shall make still further
delay to California, and involve her defeat in the end, who then
is to be blamed again? I do not ask these questions of the senator
from Kentucky. It might be unlawful to do so: for, by the law of the
land, no man is bound to criminate himself.
Mr. CLAY (from his seat). I do not claim the benefit of the law.
Mr. BENTON. No; a high-spirited man will not claim it. But the law
gives him the privilege; and, as a law-abiding and generous man, I
give him the benefit of the law whether he claims it or not. But I
think it is time for him to begin to consider the responsibility
he has incurred in quitting his position at my side for California
single, and first, to jumble her up in this crowd, where she is sure
to meet death, come the vote when it will. I think it is time for
him to begin to think about submitting to a mis-trial! withdraw a
juror, and let a _venire facias de novo_ be issued.
But I have another objection to this new argument. The territorial
government bills are now the object; and to make more certain of
these bills they are put into the California bill, to be carried
safe through by it. This is the argument of the report; and it is
a plain declaration that one measure is to be forced to carry the
other. This is a breach of parliamentary law--that law upon the
existence of which the senator from Kentucky took an issue with
me, and failed to maintain his side of it. True, he made a show of
maintaining it--ostentatiously borrowing a couple of my books from
me, in open Senate, to prove his side of the case; and taking good
care not to open them, because he knew they would prove my side of
it. Then he quoted that bill for the "relief of John Thompson, and
for other purposes," the reading of which had such an effect upon
the risible susceptibilities of that part of our spectators which
Shakspeare measures by the quantity, and qualifies as barren! Sir,
if the senator from Kentucky had only read us Dr. Franklin's story
of John Thompson and his hat-sign, it would have been something--a
thing equally pertinent as argument, and still more amusing as
anecdote. The senator, by doing that much, admitted his obligation
to maintain his side of the issue: by doing no more, he confessed
he could not. And now the illegality of this conjunction stands
confessed, with the superaddition of an avowed condemnable motive
for it. The motive is--so declared in the report--to force one
measure to carry the other--the identical thing mentioned in all the
books as the very reason why subjects of different natures should
not be tacked together. I do not repeat what I have heretofore
said on this point: it will be remembered by the Senate: and its
validity is now admitted by the attempt, and the failure, to
contest it. It is compulsory legislation, and a flagrant breach of
parliamentary law, and of safe legislation. It is also a compliment
of no equivocal character to a portion of the members of this
Chamber. To put two measures together for the avowed purpose of
forcing one to carry the other, is to propose to force the friends
of the stronger measure to take the weak one, under the penalty of
losing the stronger. It implies both that these members cannot be
trusted to vote fairly upon one of the measures, or that an unfair
vote is wanted from them; and that they are coercible, and ought
to be coerced. This is the compliment which the compulsory process
implies, and which is as good as declared in this case. It is a
rough compliment, but such a one as "distinguished senators"--such
as composed this committee--may have the prerogative to offer to
the undistinguished ones: but then these undistinguished may have
the privilege to refuse to receive it--may refuse to sanction the
implication, by refusing to vote as required--may take the high
ground that they are not coercible, that they owe allegiance, not
to the committee, but to honor and duty; and that they can trust
themselves for an honest vote, in a bill by itself, although the
committee cannot trust them! But, stop! Is it _a_ government or
_the_ government which the committee propose to secure by coercion?
Is it _a_ government, such as a majority of the Senate may agree
upon? or is it _the_ government, such as a majority of the committee
have prescribed? If the former, why not leave the Senate to free
voting in a separate bill? if the latter, will the Senate be
coerced? will it allow a majority of the committee to govern the
Senate?--seven to govern sixty? Sir! it is the latter--so avowed;
and being the first instance of such an avowal, it should meet a
reception which would make it the last.
Mr. President: all the evils of incongruous conjunctions are
exemplified in this conjunction of the territorial government bills
with the California State admission bill. They are subjects not
only foreign to each other, but involving different questions,
and resting upon principles of different natures. One involves
the slavery and anti-slavery questions: the other is free from
them. One involves constitutional questions: the other does not.
One is a question of right, resting upon the constitution of the
United States and the treaty with Mexico: the other is a question
of expediency, resting in the discretion of Congress. One is the
case of a State, asking for an equality of rights with the other
States: the other is a question of territories, asking protection
from States. One is a sovereignty--the other a property. So that,
at all points, and under every aspect, the subjects differ; and it
is well known that there are senators here who can unite in a vote
for the admission of California, who cannot unite in any vote for
the territorial governments; and that, because these governments
involve the slavery questions, from all which the California bill
is free. That is the rock on which men and parties split here. Some
deny the power of Congress _in toto_ over the subject of slavery in
territories: such as these can support no bill which touches that
question one way or the other. Others admit the power, but deny the
expediency of its exercise. Others again claim both the power and
the exercise. Others again are under legislative instructions--some
to vote one way, some the other. Finally, there are some opposed to
giving any governments at all to these territories, and in favor
of leaving them to grow up of themselves into future States. Now,
what are the senators, so circumstanced, to do with these bills
conjoined? Vote for all--and call it a compromise! as if oaths,
duty, constitutional obligation, and legislative instructions, were
subjects of compromise. No! rejection of the whole is the only
course; and to begin anew, each bill by itself, the only remedy.
The conjunction of these bills illustrates all the evils of joining
incoherent subjects together. It presents a revolting enormity,
of which all the evils go to an innocent party, which has done
all in its power to avoid them. But, not to do the Committee of
Thirteen injustice, I must tell that they have looked somewhat to
the interest of California in this conjunction, and proposed a
compensating advantage to her; of which kind consideration they are
entitled to the credit in their own words. This, then, is what they
propose for her:
"As for California--far from feeling her sensibility affected
by her being associated with other kindred measures--she ought
to rejoice and be highly gratified that, in entering into
the Union, she may have contributed to the tranquillity and
happiness of the great family of States, of which it is to be
hoped she may one day be a distinguished member."
This is the compensation proposed to California. She is to rejoice,
and be highly gratified. She is to contribute to the tranquillity
and happiness of the great family of States, and thereby become
tranquil and happy herself. And she is one day, it is hoped, to
become a distinguished member of this confederacy. This is to
be her compensation--felicity and glory! Prospective felicity,
and contingent glory. The felicity rural--rural felicity--from
the geographical position of California--the most innocent and
invigorating kind of felicity. The glory and distinction yet to be
achieved. Whether California will consider these anticipations ample
compensation for all the injuries of this conjunction--the long
delay, and eventual danger, and all her sufferings at home in the
mean time--will remain for herself to say. For my part, I would not
give one hour's duration of actual existence in this Union for a
whole eternity of such compensation; and such, I think, will be the
opinion of California herself. Life, and present relief from actual
ills, is what she wants. Existence and relief, is her cry! And for
these she can find no compensation in the illusions of contributing
to the tranquillity of States which are already tranquil, the
happiness of people who are already happy, the settlement of
questions in which she has no concern, and the formation of
compromises which breed new quarrels in assuming to settle old ones.
With these fine reasons for tacking Utah and New Mexico to
California, the committee proceed to pile a new load upon her
back. Texas next appears in the committee's plan, crammed into
the California bill, with all her questions of debt and boundary,
dispute with New Mexico, division into future States, cession of
territory to the United States, amount of compensation to be given
her, thrust in along with her! A compact with one State put into
a law for the life of another! And a veto upon the admission of
California given to Texas! This is a monstrosity of which there is
no example in the history of our legislation, and for the production
of which it is fair to permit the committee to speak for themselves.
These are the reasons of the committee, and they present grave
errors in law, both constitutional and municipal, and of geography
and history. They assume a controversy between New Mexico and Texas.
No such thing. New Mexico belongs to the United States, and the
controversy is with the United States. They assume there is no way
to settle this controversy but by a compact with Texas. This is
another great mistake. There are three ways to settle it: first,
and best, by a compact; secondly, by a suit in the Supreme Court of
the United States; thirdly, by giving a government to New Mexico
according to her actual extent when the United States acquired her,
and holding on to that until the question of title is decided,
either amicably by compact, or legally by the Supreme Court. The
fundamental error of the committee is in supposing that New Mexico
is party to this controversy with Texas. No such thing. New Mexico
is only the _John Doe_ of the concern. That error corrected, and
all the reasoning of the committee falls to the ground. For the
judicial power of the United States extends to all controversies to
which the United States are party; and the original jurisdiction of
the Supreme Court extends to all cases to which a State is a party.
This brings the case bang up at once within the jurisdiction of the
Supreme Court, without waiting for the consent of Texas, or waiting
for New Mexico to grow up into a State, so as to have a suit between
two States; and so there is no danger of collision, as the committee
suppose, and make an argument for their bill, in the danger there is
to New Mexico from this apprehended collision. If any takes place it
will be a collision with the United States, to whom the territory
of New Mexico belongs; and she will know how to prevent this
collision, first, by offering what is not only just, but generous to
Texas; and next, in defending her territory from invasion, and her
people from violence.
These are the reasons for thrusting Texas, with all her multifarious
questions, into the California bill; and, reduced to their essence,
they argue thus: Utah must go in, because she binds upon California;
New Mexico must go in, because she binds upon Utah; and Texas must
go in, because she binds upon New Mexico. And thus poor California
is crammed and gorged until she is about in the condition that
Jonah would have been in, if he had swallowed the whale, instead of
the whale swallowing him. This opens a new chapter in legislative
ratiocination. It substitutes contiguity of territory for congruity
of matter, and makes geographical affinities the rule of legislative
conjunctions. Upon that principle the committee might have gone
on, cramming other bills into the California bill, all over the
United States; for all our territory is binding in some one part
upon another. Upon that principle, the District of Columbia slave
trade suppression bill might have been interjected; for, though not
actually binding upon Texas, yet it binds upon land that binds upon
land that does bind upon her. So of the fugitive slave bill. For,
let the fugacious slave run as far as he may, he must still be on
land; and that being the case, the territorial contiguity may be
established which justifies the legislative conjunction.
Mr. President, the moralist informs us that there are some subjects
too light for reason--too grave for ridicule; and in such cases the
mere moralist may laugh or cry, as he deems best. But not so with
the legislator--his business is not laughing or crying. Whimpering,
or simpering, is not his mission. Work is his vocation, and gravity
his vein; and in that vein I proceed to consider this interjection
of Texas, with all her multifarious questions, into the bowels of
the California bill.
In the first place, this Texas bill is a compact, depending for its
validity on the consent of Texas, and is put into the California
bill as part of a compromise and general settlement of all the
slavery questions; and, of course, the whole must stand together,
or fall together. This gives Texas a veto upon the admission of
California. This is unconstitutional, as well as unjust; for by
the constitution, new States are to be admitted by Congress, and
not by another State; and, therefore, Texas should not have a veto
upon the admission of California. In the next place, Texas presents
a great many serious questions of her own--some of them depending
upon a compact already existing with the United States, many of them
concerning the United States, one concerning New Mexico, but no one
reaching to California. She has a question of boundary nominally
with New Mexico, in reality with the United States, as the owner of
New Mexico; and that might be a reason for joining her in a bill,
so far as that boundary is concerned, with New Mexico; but it can
be no reason for joining her to California. The western boundary of
Texas is the point of collision with New Mexico; and this plan of
the committee, instead of proposing a suitable boundary between them
adapted to localities, or leaving to each its actual possessions,
disturbing no interest, until the decision of title upon the
universal principle of _uti possidetis_; instead of these obvious
and natural remedies, the plan of the committee cuts deep into the
actual possessions of the United States in New Mexico--rousing the
question which the committee professes to avoid, the question of
extending slavery, and so disturbing the whole United States.
And here I must insist on the error of the committee in
constitutional and municipal law, before I point out their mistakes
in geography and history. They treat New Mexico as having a
controversy with Texas--as being in danger of a collision with
her--and that a compact with Texas to settle the boundary between
them is the only way to settle that controversy and prevent that
collision. Now, all this is a mistake. The controversy is not with
New Mexico, but with the United States, and the judicial power
of the United States has jurisdiction of it. Again, possession
is title until the right is tried; and the United States having
the possession, may give a government at once according to the
possession; and then wait the decision of title.
I avoid all argument about right--the eventual right of Texas to any
part of what was New Mexico before the existence of Texas. I avoid
that question. Amicable settlement of contested claim, and not
adjudication of title, is now my object. I need no argument from any
quarter to satisfy me that the Texas questions ought to be settled.
I happened to know that before Texas was annexed, and brought in
bills and made speeches for that purpose at that time. I brought
in such bills six years ago, and again at the present session; and
whenever presented single, either by myself or any other person, I
shall be ready to give it a generous consideration; but, as part of
the California bill, I wash my hands of it.
I am against disturbing actual possession, either that of New
Mexico or of Texas; and, therefore, am in favor of leaving to each
all its population, and an ample amount of compact and homogeneous
territory. With this view, all my bills and plans for a divisional
line between New Mexico and Texas--whether of 1844 or 1850--left
to each all its settlements, all its actual possessions, all its
uncontested claim; and divided the remainder by a line adapted
to the geography and natural divisions of the country, as well
as suitable to the political and social condition of the people
themselves. This gave a longitudinal line between them; and the
longitude of 100 degrees in my bill of 1844, and 102 degrees in
my bill of 1850--and both upon the same principle of leaving
possessions intact, Texas having extended her settlements in the
mean time. The proposed line of the committee violates all these
conditions. It cuts deep and arbitrarily into the actual possessions
of New Mexico, such as she held them before Texas had existence;
and so conforms to no principle of public policy, private right,
territorial affinity, or local propriety. It begins on the Rio del
Norte, twenty miles in a straight line above El Paso, and thence,
diagonally and northeastwardly, to the point where the Red River
crosses the longitude of 100°. Now this beginning, twenty miles
above El Paso, is about three hundred miles in a straight line
(near six hundred by the windings of the river) above the ancient
line of New Mexico; and this diagonal line to the Red River cuts
about four hundred miles in a straight line through the ancient
New Mexican possessions, cutting off about seventy thousand square
miles of territory from New Mexico, where there is no slavery, and
giving it to Texas where there is. This constitutes a more serious
case of _tacking_ than even that of sticking incongruous bills
together, and calls for a most considerate examination of all the
circumstances it involves. I will examine these circumstances, first
making a statement, and then sustaining it by proof.
El Paso, above which the Texas boundary is now proposed to be
placed by the committee, is one of the most ancient of the New
Mexican towns, and to which the Spaniards of New Mexico retreated
in the great Indian revolt in 1680, and made their stand, and
thence recovered the whole province. It was the residence of the
lieutenant-governor of New Mexico, and the most southern town of the
province, as Taos was the most northern. Being on the right bank
of the river, the dividing line between the United States and the
Republic of Mexico leaves it out of our limits, and consequently out
of the present limits of New Mexico; but New Mexico still extends
to the Rio del Norte at the Paso; and therefore this beginning line
proposed by the committee cuts into the ancient possession of New
Mexico--a possession dating from the year 1595. That line in its
course to the Red River, cuts the river and valley of the Puerco
(called Pecos in the upper part) into two parts, leaving the lower
and larger part to Texas; the said Rio Puerco and its valley, from
head to mouth, having always been a part of New Mexico, and now
in its actual possession. Putting together what is cut from the
Puerco, and from the Del Norte above and below El Paso, and it
would amount to about seventy thousand square miles, to be taken
by the committee's line from its present and ancient possessor,
and transferred to a new claimant. This is what the new line would
do, and in doing it would raise the question of the extension of
slavery, and of its existence at this time, by law, in New Mexico as
a part of Texas.
To avoid all misconception, I repeat what I have already declared,
that I am not occupying myself with the question of title as it may
exist and be eventually determined between New Mexico and Texas;
nor am I questioning the power of Congress to establish any line it
pleases in that quarter for the State of Texas, with the consent of
the State, and any one it pleases for the territory of New Mexico
without her consent. I am not occupying myself with the questions of
title or power, but with the question of possession only--and how
far the possession of New Mexico is to be disturbed, if disturbed
at all, by the committee's line; and the effect of that disturbance
in rousing the slavery question in that quarter. In that point of
view the fact of possession is every thing: for the possessor has a
right to what he holds until the question of title is decided--by
law, in a question between individuals or communities in a land
of law and order--or by negotiation or arms between independent
Powers. I use the phrase, possession by New Mexico; but it is only
for brevity, and to give locality to the term possession. New Mexico
possesses no territory; she is a territory, and belongs to the
United States; and the United States own her as she stood on the
day of the treaty of peace and cession between the United States
and the Republic of Mexico; and it is into that possession that I
inquire, and all which I assert that the United States have a right
to hold until the question of title is decided. And to save inquiry
or doubt, and to show that the committee are totally mistaken in
law in assuming the consent of Texas to be indispensable to the
settlement of the title, I say there are three ways to settle it;
the first and best by compact, as I proposed before Texas was
annexed, and again by a bill of this year: next, by a suit in the
Supreme Court, under that clause in the constitution which extends
the judicial power of the United States to all controversies to
which the United States is a party, and that other clause which
gives the Supreme Court original jurisdiction of all cases to which
a State is a party: the third way is for the United States to give
a government to New Mexico according to the territory she possessed
when she was ceded to the United States. These are the three ways to
settle the question--one of them totally dependent on the will of
Texas--one totally independent of her will--and one independent of
her will until she chooses to go into court. As to any thing that
Texas or New Mexico may do in taking or relinquishing possession, it
is all moonshine. New Mexico is a territory of the United States.
She is the property of the United States; and she cannot dispose
of herself, or any part of herself; nor can Texas take her or any
part of her. She is to stand as she did the day the United States
acquired her; and to that point all my examinations are directed.
And in that point of view it is immaterial what are the boundaries
of New Mexico. The whole of the territory obtained from Mexico, and
not rightfully belonging to a State, belongs to the United States;
and, as such, is the property of the United States, and to be
attended to accordingly. But I proceed with the possession of New
Mexico, and show that it has been actual and continuous from the
conquest of the country by Don Juan de Onate, in 1595 to the present
time. That ancient actual possession has already been shown at the
starting point of the line--at El Paso del Norte. I will now show it
to be the same throughout the continuation of the line across the
Puerco and its valley, and at some points on the left bank of the
Del Norte below El Paso. And first, of the Puerco River. It rises
in the latitude of Santa Fé, and in its immediate neighborhood,
only ten miles from it, and running south, falls into the Rio del
Norte, about three hundred miles on a straight line below El Paso,
and has a valley of its own between the mountain range on the west,
which divides it from the valley of the Del Norte, to which it is
parallel, and the high arid table land on the east called El Llano
Estacado--the Staked Plain--which divides it from the head waters of
the Red River, the Colorado, the Brasos, and other Texian streams.
It is a long river, its head being in the latitude of Nashville--its
mouth a degree and a half south of New Orleans. It washes the base
of the high table land, and receives no affluents, and has no valley
on that side; on the west it has a valley, and many bold affluents,
coming down from the mountain range (the Sierra Obscura, the Sierra
Blanca, and the Sierra de los Organos), which divides it from the
valley of the upper Del Norte. It is valuable for its length, being
a thousand miles, following its windings--from its course, which
is north and south--from the quality of its water, derived from
high mountains--from its valley, timbered and grassy, part prairie,
good for cultivation, for pasturage, and salt. It has two climates,
cold in the north from its altitude (seven thousand feet)--mild
in the south from its great descent, not less than five thousand
feet, and with a general amelioration of climate over the valley of
the Del Norte from its openness on the east, and mountain shelter
on the west. It is a river of New Mexico, and is so classified in
geography. It is an old possession of New Mexico and the most
valuable part of it, and has many of her towns and villages upon
it. Las Vegas, Gallinas, Tecolote Abajo, Cuesta, Pecos, San Miguel,
Anton Chico, Salinas, Gran Quivira, are all upon it. Some of these
towns date their origin as far back as the first conquest of the
Taos Indians, about the year 1600, and some have an historical
interest, and a special relation to the question of title between
New Mexico and Texas. Pecos is the old village of the Indians of
that name, famous for the sacred fire so long kept burning there for
the return of Montezuma. Gran Quivira was a considerable mining town
under the Spaniards before the year 1680, when it was broken up in
the great Indian revolt of that year.
San Miguel, twenty miles from Santa Fé, is the place where the
Texian expedition, under Colonel Cooke, were taken prisoners in 1841.
To all these evidences of New Mexican possession of the Rio Puerco
and its valley, is to be added the further evidence resulting from
acts of ownership in grants of land made upon its upper part, as
in New Mexico, by the superior Spanish authorities before the
revolution, and by the Mexican local authorities since. The lower
half was ungranted, and leaves much vacant land, and the best in the
country, to the United States.
The great pastoral lands of New Mexico are in the valley of the
Puerco, where millions of sheep were formerly pastured, now reduced
to about two hundred thousand by the depredation of the Indians. The
New Mexican inhabitants of the Del Norte send their flocks there to
be herded by shepherds, on shares; and in this way, and by taking
their salt there, and in addition to their towns and settlements,
and grants of lands, the New Mexicans have had possession of the
Puerco and its valley since the year 1600--that is to say, for about
one hundred years before the shipwreck of La Salle, in the bay of
San Bernardo, revealed the name of Texas to Europe and America.
These are the actual possessions of New Mexico on the Rio Puerco.
On the Rio del Norte, as cut off by the committee's bill, there
are, the little town of Frontera, ten miles above El Paso, a town
begun opposite El Paso, San Eleazario, twenty miles below, and some
houses lower down opposite El Presidio del Norte. Of all these, San
Eleazario is the most considerable, having a population of some
four thousand souls, once a town of New Biscay, now of New Mexico,
and now the property of the United States by avulsion. It is an
island; and the main river, formerly on the north and now on the
south of the island, leaves it in New Mexico. When Pike went through
it, it was the most northern town, and the frontier garrison of New
Biscay; and there the then lieutenant-governor of New Mexico, who
had escorted him from El Paso, turned him over to the authorities
of a new province. It is now the most southern town of New Mexico,
without having changed its place, but the river which disappeared
from its channel in that place, in 1752, has now changed it to the
south of the island.
I reiterate: I am not arguing title; I am only showing possession,
which is a right to remain in possession until title is decided.
The argument of title has often been introduced into this question;
and a letter from President Polk, through Secretary Buchanan, has
often been read on the Texian side. Now, what I have to say of that
letter, so frequently referred to, and considered so conclusive, is
this: that, however potent it may have been in inducing annexation,
or how much soever it may be entitled to consideration in fixing the
amount to be paid to Texas for her Mexican claim, yet as an evidence
of title, I should pay no more regard to it than to a chapter
from the life and adventures of Robinson Crusoe. Congress and the
judiciary are the authorities to decide such claims to titles, and
not Presidents and secretaries.
I rest upon the position, then, that the Rio Puerco, and its valley,
is and was a New Mexican possession, as well as the left bank of the
Del Norte, from above El Paso to below the mouth of the Puerco; and
that this possession cannot be disturbed without raising the double
question, first, of actual extension of slavery; and, secondly, of
the present legal existence of slavery in all New Mexico east of the
Rio Grande, as a part of Texas. These are the questions which the
proposed line of the committee raise, and force us to face. They are
not questions of my seeking, but I shall not avoid them. It is not a
new question with me, this extension of slavery in that quarter. I
met it in 1844, before the annexation of Texas. On the 10th day of
June, of that year, and as part of a bill for a compact with Texas,
and to settle all questions with her--the very ones which now
perplex us--before she was annexed, I proposed, as article V. in the
projected compact:
ART. V. "The existence of slavery to be for ever prohibited
in that part of the annexed territory which lies west of
the hundredth degree of longitude west from the meridian of
Greenwich."
This is what I proposed six years ago, and as one in a series of
propositions to be offered to Texas and Mexico for settling all
questions growing out of the projected annexation beforehand.
They were not adopted. Immediate annexation, without regard to
consequences, was the cry; and all temperate counsels were set
down to British traitors, abolitionists, and whigs. Well! we have
to regard consequences now--several consequences: one of which is
this large extension of slavery, which the report and conglomerate
bills of the Committee of Thirteen force us to face. I did so six
years ago, and heard no outbreak against my opinions then. But my
opposition to the extension of slavery dates further back than
1844--forty years further back; and as this is a suitable time for
a general declaration, and a sort of general conscience delivery,
I will say that my opposition to it dates from 1804, when I was a
student at law in the State of Tennessee, and studied the subject
of African slavery in an American book--a Virginia book--Tucker's
edition of Blackstone's Commentaries. And here it is (holding
up a volume and reading from the title-page): "_Blackstone's
Commentaries, with notes of reference to the Constitution and
laws of the Federal Government of the United States, and of the
Commonwealth of Virginia, in five volumes, with an appendix to each
volume containing short tracts, as appeared necessary to form a
connected view of the laws of Virginia as a member of the Federal
Union. By St. George Tucker, Professor of Law in the University
of William and Mary, and one of the Judges of the General Court
in Virginia._" In this American book--this Virginia edition of an
English work--I found my principles on the subject of slavery.
Among the short tracts in the appendices, is one of fifty pages
in the appendix to the first volume, second part, which treats of
the subject of African slavery in the United States, with a total
condemnation of the institution, and a plan for its extinction
in Virginia. In that work--in that school--that old Virginia
school which I was taught to reverence--I found my principles on
slavery: and adhere to them. I concur in the whole essay, except
the remedy--gradual emancipation--and find in that remedy the
danger which the wise men of Virginia then saw and dreaded, but
resolved to encounter, because it was to become worse with time:
the danger to both races from so large an emancipation. The men of
that day were not enthusiasts or fanatics: they were statesmen and
philosophers. They knew that the emancipation of the black slave
was not a mere question between master and slave--not a question
of property merely--but a question of white and black--between
races; and what was to be the consequence to each race from a large
emancipation.[10] And there the wisdom, not the philanthropy,
of Virginia balked fifty years ago; there the wisdom of America
balks now. And here I find the largest objection to the extension
of slavery--to planting it in new regions where it does not now
exist--bestowing it on those who have it not. The incurability of
the evil is the greatest objection to the extension of slavery. It
is wrong for the legislator to inflict an evil which can be cured:
how much more to inflict one that is incurable, and against the
will of the people who are to endure it for ever! I quarrel with no
one for supposing slavery a blessing: I deem it an evil: and would
neither adopt it nor impose it on others. Yet I am a slaveholder,
and among the few members of Congress who hold slaves in this
District. The French proverb tells us that nothing is new but what
has been forgotten. So of this objection to a large emancipation.
Every one sees now that it is a question of races, involving
consequences which go to the destruction of one or the other: it
was seen fifty years ago, and the wisdom of Virginia balked at it
then. It seems to be above human wisdom. But there is a wisdom above
human! and to that we must look. In the mean time, not extend the
evil.
[10] "It may be asked why not retain the blacks among us, and
incorporate them into the State. Deep-rooted prejudices entertained
by the whites; ten thousand recollections of the blacks of
the injuries they have sustained; new provocations; the real
distinctions which nature has made; and many other circumstances,
will divide us into parties, and produce convulsions, which will
probably never end but in the extermination of one or the other
race."--_Jefferson._
In refusing to extend slavery into these seventy thousand square
miles, I act in conformity not only to my own long-established
principles, but also in conformity to the long-established practice
of Congress. Five times in four years did Congress refuse the prayer
of Indiana for a temporary suspension of the anti-slavery clause of
the ordinance of '87. On the 2d of March, 1803, Mr. Randolph, of
Roanoke, as chairman of the committee to which the memorial praying
the suspension was referred, made a report against it, which was
concurred in by the House. This is the report:
"That the rapid population of the State of Ohio, sufficiently
evinces, in the opinion of your committee, that the labor of
slaves is not necessary to promote the growth and settlement
of colonies in that region. That this labor, demonstrably
the dearest of any, can only be employed to advantage in the
cultivation of products more valuable than any known to that
quarter of the United States: that the committee deem it
highly dangerous and inexpedient to impair a provision wisely
calculated to promote the happiness and prosperity of the
north-western country, and to give strength and security to that
extensive frontier. In the salutary operation of this sagacious
and benevolent restraint, it is believed that the inhabitants of
Indiana will, at no very distant day, find ample remuneration
for a temporary privation of labor and of emigration."
This report of Mr. Randolph was in 1803: the next year, March, 1804,
a different report, on the same prayer, was made by a committee
of which Mr. Rodney, of Delaware, was chairman. It recommended a
suspension of the anti-slavery clause for ten years: it was not
concurred in by the House. Two years afterwards, February, 1806, a
similar report, recommending suspension for ten years, was made by
a committee of which Mr. Garnett, of Virginia, was chairman: it met
the same fate--non-concurrence. The next year, 1807, both Houses
were tried. In February of that year, a committee of the House, of
which Mr. Parke was chairman, reported in favor of the indefinite
suspension of the clause: the report was not concurred in. And in
November of that year, Mr. Franklin, of North Carolina, as chairman
of a committee of the Senate, made a report against the suspension,
which was concurred in by the Senate, and unanimously, as it would
seem from the journal, there being no division called for. Thus,
five times in four years, the respective Houses of Congress refused
to admit even a temporary extension, or rather re-extension of
slavery into Indiana territory, which had been before the ordinance
of '87 a slave territory, holding many slaves at Vincennes. These
five refusals to suspend the ordinance of '87, were so many
confirmations of it. All the rest of the action of Congress on the
subject, was to the same effect or stronger. The Missouri compromise
line was a curtailment of slave territory; the Texas annexation
resolutions were the same; the ordinance of '87 itself, so often
confirmed by Congress, was a curtailment of slave territory--in
fact, its actual abolition; for it is certain that slavery existed
in fact in the French settlements of the Illinois at that time; and
that the ordinance terminated it. I acted then in conformity to
the long, uniformly established policy of Congress, as well as in
conformity to my own principles, in refusing to vote the extension
of slavery, which the committee's line would involve.
And here, it does seem to me that we, of the present day, mistake
the point of the true objection to the extension of slavery. We look
at it as it concerns the rights, or interests, of the inhabitants of
the States! and not as it may concern the people to whom it is to
be given! and to whom it is to be an irrevocable gift--to them, and
posterity! Mr. Randolph's report, in the case of Indiana, took the
true ground. It looked to the interests of the people to whom the
slavery was to go, and refused them an evil, although they begged
for it.
This is a consequence which the committee's bill involves, and from
which there is no escape but in the total rejection of their plan,
and the adoption of the line which I propose--the longitudinal
line of 102--which, corresponding with ancient title and actual
possession, avoids the question of slavery in either country: which,
leaving the population of each untouched, disturbs no interest,
and which, in splitting the high sterile table land of the Staked
Plain, conforms to the natural division of the country, and leaves
to each a natural frontier, and an ample extent of compact and
homogeneous territory. To Texas is left all the territory drained by
all the rivers which have their mouths within her limits, whether
those mouths are in the Gulf of Mexico, the Mississippi, or the Rio
Grande: to New Mexico is left the whole course of the Rio Puerco
and all its valley: and which, added to the valley of the Del
Norte, will make a State of the first class in point of territory,
susceptible of large population and wealth, and in a compact form,
capable of defence against Indians. The Staked Plain is the natural
frontier of both countries. It is a dividing wall between systems
of waters and systems of countries. It is a high, sterile plain,
some sixty miles wide upon some five hundred long, running north and
south, its western declivity abrupt, and washed by the Puerco at its
base: its eastern broken into chasms--cañones--from which issue the
myriad of little streams which, flowing towards the rising sun, form
the great rivers--Red River, Brasos, Colorado, Nueces, which find
their outlet in the Mississippi or in the Gulf of Mexico. It is a
salient feature in North American geography--a table of land sixty
miles wide, five hundred long, and some thousands of feet above the
level of the sea--and sterile, level, without a shrub, a plant, or
grass, and presenting to the traveller a horizon of its own like
the ocean. Without a landmark to guide the steps of the traveller
across it, the early hunters and herdsmen of New Mexico staked their
course across it, and hence its name, _El Llano Estacado_--the
Staked Plain. It is a natural frontier between New Mexico and Texas;
and for such a line, quieting all questions between them, all with
the United States, yielding near two hundred thousand square miles
of territory to the United States and putting into her hands the
means of populating and defending New Mexico by giving lands to
settlers and defenders--I am ready to vote the fifteen millions
which my bill fairly and openly proposes. For the line in this bill
I would not give a copper. But it would be a great error to suppose
I would give fifteen millions for the territory in dispute between
New Mexico and Texas. That disputed territory is only a small part
of what the Texian cession would be. It would embrace four degrees
of latitude on the north of Texas, and a front of a thousand miles
on the Arkansas, and would give to the United States territory
indispensable to her--to the population and defence both of New
Mexico and Utah, in front of both which this part of Texas lies.
The committee, in their report, and the senator from Kentucky [Mr.
Clay], in his speech, are impressive in their representations in
favor of giving governments to New Mexico and the remaining part of
California. I join them in all they say in favor of the necessity
of these governments, and the duty of Congress to give them. But
this bill is not the way to give it. These governments are balked
by being put into this bill. They not only impede California, but
themselves. The conjunction is an injury to both. They mutually
delay and endanger each other. And it is no argument in favor of
the conjunction to say that the establishment of a government for
New Mexico requires the previous settlement of her eastern boundary
with Texas. That is no argument for tacking Texas, with all her
multifarious questions, even to New Mexico, much less to California.
It is indeed very desirable to settle that boundary, and to settle
it at once, and for ever; but it is not an indispensability to
the creation of a government for New Mexico. We have a right to
a government according to her possession; and that we can give
her, to continue till the question of title is decided. The _uti
possidetis_--as you possess--is the principle to govern our
legislation--the principle which gives the possessor a right to the
possession until the question of title is decided. This principle
is the same both in national and municipal law--both in the case
of citizens or communities of the same government and between
independent nations. The mode of decision only is different. Between
independent nations it is done by negotiation or by arms: between
citizens or communities of the same government, it is done by law.
Independent nations may invade and fight each other for a boundary:
citizens or communities of the same government cannot. And the party
that shall attempt it commits a violation of law and order; and the
government which permits such violation is derelict of its duty.
I have now examined, so far as I propose to do it on a motion for
indefinite postponement, the three bills which the committee have
tacked together--the California, Utah, New Mexico and Texas bills.
There are two other bills which I have not mentioned, because they
are not tacked, but only hung on; but which belong to the system,
as it is called, and without some mention of which, injustice would
be done to the committee in the presentation of their scheme. The
fugitive slave recovery bill, and the District of Columbia slave
trade suppression bill, are parts of the system of measures which
the committee propose, and which, taken together, are to constitute
a compromise, and to terminate for ever and most fraternally all
the dissensions of the slavery agitation in the United States. They
apply to two out of the five gaping wounds which the senator from
Kentucky enumerated on the five fingers of his left hand, and for
healing up all which at once he had provided one large plaster,
big enough to cover all, and efficacious enough to cure all; while
the President only proposed to cure one, and that with a little
plaster, and it of no efficacy. I do not propose to examine these
two attendant or sequacious bills, which dangle at the tail of the
other three.
This is the end of the committee's labor--five old bills gathered
up from our table, tacked together, and christened a compromise!
Now compromise is a pretty phrase at all times, and is a good
thing in itself, when there happens to be any parties to make it,
any authority to enforce it, any penalties for breaking it, or
any thing to be compromised. The compromises of the constitution
are of that kind; and they stand. Compromises made in court, and
entered of record, are of that kind; and they stand. Compromises
made by individuals on claims to property are likewise of that
character; and they stand. I respect all such compromises. But
where there happens to be nothing to be compromised, no parties
to make a compromise, no power to enforce it, no penalty for its
breach, no obligation on any one--not even its makers--to observe
it, and when no two human beings can agree about its meaning, then a
compromise becomes ridiculous and pestiferous. I have no respect for
it, and eschew it. It cannot stand, and will fall; and in its fall
will raise up more ills than it was intended to cure. And of this
character I deem this farrago of incongruous matter to be, which
has been gathered up and stuck together, and offered to us "all or
none," like "fifty-four forty." It has none of the requisites of a
compromise, and the name cannot make it so.
In the first place, there are no parties to make a compromise.
We are not in convention, but in Congress; and I do not admit a
geographical division of parties in this chamber, although the
Committee of Thirteen was formed upon that principle--six from the
South, half a dozen from the North, and one from the borders of
both--sitting on a ridge-pole, to keep the balance even. The senator
from Kentucky chairman of this committee of a baker's dozen and the
illustrious progenitor of that committee, sits on that ridge-pole.
It is a most critical position, and requires a most nice adjustment
of balance to preserve the equilibrium--to keep the weight from
falling on one side or the other--something like that of the Roman
emperor, in his apotheosis, who was required to fix himself exactly
in the middle of the heavens when he went up among the gods, lest,
by leaning on one side or the other, he might overset the universe:
"Press not too much on any part the sphere,
Hard were the task thy weight divine to bear!
O'er the mid orb more equal shalt thou rise,
And with a juster balance fix the skies."--LUCAN.
I recognize no such parties--no two halves in this Union, separated
by a ridge-pole, with a man, or a god, sitting upon it, to keep
the balance even. I know no North, and I know no South; and I
repulse and repudiate, as a thing to be for ever condemned, this
first attempt to establish geographical parties in this chamber,
by creating a committee formed upon that principle. In the next
place, there is no sanction for any such compromise--no authority
to enforce it--none to punish its violation. In the third place,
there is nothing to be compromised. A compromise is a concession, a
mutual concession of contested claims between two parties. I know
of nothing to be conceded on the part of the slaveholding States
in regard to their slave property. Their rights are independent of
the federal government, and admitted in the constitution--a right
to hold their slaves _as property_, a right to pursue and recover
them _as property_, a right to it as a _political element_ in the
weight of these States, by making five count three in the national
representation. These are our rights by an instrument which we are
bound to respect, and I will concede none of them, nor purchase any
of them. I never purchase as a concession what I hold as a right,
nor accept an inferior title when I already hold the highest. Even
if this congeries of bills was a compromise, in fact, I should be
opposed to it for the reasons stated. But the fact itself is to me
apocryphal. What is it but the case of five old bills introduced
by different members as common legislative measures--caught up by
the senator from Kentucky, and his committee, bundled together,
and then called a compromise! Now, this mystifies me. The same
bills were ordinary legislation in the hands of their authors; they
become a sacred compromise in the hands of their new possessors.
They seemed to be of no account as laws: they become a national
panacea as a compromise. The difference seems to be in the change
of name. The poet tells us that a rose will smell as sweet by any
other name. That may be true of roses, but not of compromises. In
the case of the compromise, the whole smell is in the name; and
here is the proof. The senator from Illinois (Mr. Douglass) brought
in three of these bills: they emitted no smell. The senator from
Virginia (Mr. Mason) brought in another of them--no smell in that.
The senator from Missouri, who now speaks to the Senate, brought
in the fifth--_ditto_, no smell about it. The olfactory nerve of
the nation never scented their existence. But no sooner are they
jumbled together, and called a compromise, than the nation is
filled with their perfume. People smell it all over the land, and,
like the inhalers of certain drugs, become frantic for the thing.
This mystifies me; and the nearest that I can come to a solution
of the mystery is in the case of the two Dr. Townsends and their
sarsaparilla root. They both extract from the same root, but the
extract is a totally different article in the hands of the two
doctors. Produced by one it is the universal panacea: by the other,
it is of no account, and little less than poison. Here is what the
old doctor says of this strange difference:
"We wish it understood, because it is the _absolute truth_,
that S. P. Townsend's article and Old Dr. Jacob Townsend's
sarsaparilla are _heaven-wide apart, and infinitely dissimilar_;
that they are unlike in every particular, having not one single
thing in common."
And accounts for the difference thus:
"The sarsaparilla root, it is well known to medical men,
contains many medicinal properties, and some properties which
are inert or useless, and others which, if retained in preparing
it for use, produce _fermentation and acid_, which is injurious
to the system. Some of the properties of sarsaparilla are
so _volatile_ that they entirely evaporate, and are lost in
the preparation, if they are not preserved by a _scientific
process_, known only to the experienced in its manufacture.
Moreover, those _volatile principles_, which fly off in vapor,
or as an exhalation, under heat, are the very _essential medical
properties_ of the root, which give to it all its value."
Now, all this is perfectly intelligible to me. I understand it
exactly. It shows me precisely how the same root is either to be
a poison or a medicine, as it happens to be in the hands of the
old or the young doctor. This may be the case with these bills. To
me it looks like a clue to the mystery; but I decide nothing, and
wait patiently for the solution which the senator from Kentucky may
give when he comes to answer this part of my speech. The old doctor
winds up in requiring particular attention to his name labelled
on the bottle, to wit, "Old Doctor Jacob Townsend," and not Young
Doctor Samuel Townsend. This shows that there is virtue in a name
when applied to the extract of sarsaparilla root; and there may be
equal virtue in it when applied to a compromise bill. If so, it
may show how these self-same bills are of no force or virtue in
the hands of the young senator from Illinois (Mr. Douglass), and
become omnipotently efficacious in the hands of the old senator from
Kentucky.
This is the end of the grand committee's work--five old bills
tacked together, and presented as a remedy for evils which have no
existence, and required to be accepted under a penalty--the penalty
of being gazetted as enemies of compromise, and played at by the
organs! The old one, to be sure, is dreadfully out of tune--the
strings all broken, and the screws all loose, and discoursing
most woful music, and still requiring us to dance to it! And such
dancing it would be!--nothing but turn round, cross over, set-to,
and back out! Sir, there was once a musician--we have all read of
him--who had power with his lyre (but his instrument was spelt
_l y r e_)--not only over men, but over wild beasts also, and
even over stones, which he could make dance into their places when
the walls of Ilion were built. But our old organist was none of that
sort, even in his best day; and since the injury to his instrument
in playing the grand national symphony of the four F's--the
fifty-four forty or fight--it is so out of tune that its music will
be much more apt to scare off tame men than to charm wild beasts or
stones.
No, sir! no more slavery compromises. Stick to those we have in
the constitution, and they will be stuck to! Look at the four
votes--those four on the propositions which I submitted. No
abolition of slavery in the States: none in the forts, arsenals,
navy-yards, and dock-yards: none in the District of Columbia: no
interference with the slave trade between the States. These are
the votes given on this floor, and which are above all Congress
compromises, because they abide the compromises of the constitution.
The committee, besides the ordinary purpose of legislation, that
of making laws for the government of the people, propose another
object of a different kind, that of acting the part of national
benefactors, and giving peace and happiness to a miserable and
distracted people--_innuendo_, the people of the United States.
They propose this object as the grand result and crowning mercy of
their multifarious labors. The gravity with which the chairman of
the committee has brought forward this object in his report, and
the pathetic manner in which he has enforced it in his speech, and
the exact enumeration he has made of the public calamities upon his
fingers' ends, preclude the idea, as I have heretofore intimated, of
any intentional joke to be practised upon us by that distinguished
senator; otherwise I might have been tempted to believe that the
eminent senator, unbending from his serious occupations, had
condescended to amuse himself at our expense. Certain it is that
the conception of this restoration of peace and happiness is most
jocose. In the first place, there is no contention to be reconciled,
no distraction to be composed, no misery to be assuaged, no lost
harmony to be restored, no lost happiness to be recovered! And,
if there was, the committee is not the party to give us these
blessings. Their example and precept do not agree. They preach
concord, and practise discord. They recommend harmony to others,
and disagree among themselves. They propose the fraternal kiss to
us, and give themselves rude rebuffs. They set us a sad example.
Scarcely is the healing report read, and the anodyne bills, or
pills, laid on our tables, than fierce contention breaks out in the
ranks of the committee itself. They attack each other. They give and
take fierce licks. The great peacemaker himself fares badly--stuck
all over with arrows, like the man on the first leaf of the almanac.
Here, in our presence, in the very act of consummating the marriage
of California with Utah, New Mexico, Texas, the fugacious slaves
of the States, and the marketable slaves of this District--in this
very act of consummation, as in a certain wedding feast of old, the
feast becomes a fight--the festival a combat--and the amiable guests
pummel each other.
When his committee was formed, and himself safely installed at the
head of it, conqueror and pacificator, the senator from Kentucky
appeared to be the happiest of mankind. We all remember that night.
He seemed to ache with pleasure. It was too great for continence. It
burst forth. In the fulness of his joy, and the overflowing of his
heart, he entered upon that series of congratulations which we all
remember so well, and which seemed to me to be rather premature, and
in disregard of the sage maxim which admonishes the traveller never
to halloo till he is out of the woods. I thought so then. I was
forcibly reminded of it on Saturday last, when I saw that senator,
after vain efforts to compose his friends, and even reminding them
of what they were "threatened" with this day--_innuendo_, this poor
speech of mine--gather up his beaver and quit the chamber, in a
way that seemed to say, the Lord have mercy upon you all, for I am
done with you! But the senator was happy that night--supremely so.
All his plans had succeeded--Committee of Thirteen appointed--he
himself its chairman--all power put into their hands--their own
hands untied, and the hands of the Senate tied--and the parties
just ready to be bound together for ever. It was an ecstatic moment
for the senator, something like that of the heroic Pirithous
when he surveyed the preparations for the nuptial feast--saw the
company all present, the lapithæ on couches, the centaurs on their
haunches--heard the _Io hymen_ beginning to resound, and saw the
beauteous Hippodamia, about as beauteous I suppose as California,
come "glittering like a star," and take her stand on his left hand.
It was a happy moment for Pirithous! and in the fulness of his
feelings he might have given vent to his joy in congratulations to
all the company present, to all the lapithæ and to all the centaurs,
to all mankind, and to all horsekind, on the auspicious event.
But, oh! the deceitfulness of human felicity. In an instant the
scene was changed! the feast a fight--the wedding festival a mortal
combat--the table itself supplying the implements of war!
"At first a medley flight,
Of bowls and jars supply the fight;
Once implements of feasts, but now of fate."
You know how it ended. The fight broke up the feast. The wedding
was postponed. And so may it be with this attempted conjunction of
California with the many ill-suited spouses which the Committee of
Thirteen have provided for her.
Mr. President, it is time to be done with this comedy of errors.
California is suffering for want of admission. New Mexico is
suffering for want of protection. The public business is suffering
for want of attention. The character of Congress is suffering for
want of progress in business. It is time to put an end to so many
evils; and I have made the motion intended to terminate them, by
moving the indefinite postponement of this unmanageable mass of
incongruous bills, each an impediment to the other, that they may be
taken up one by one, in their proper order, to receive the decision
which their respective merits require.