REMARKS
OF
ISAAC PARISH, OF OHIO,
ON
THREE MILLION BILL,
DELIVERED
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES OF THE U. S., FEBRUARY 10, 1847.
WASHINGTON:
PRINTED BY RITCHIE & HEISS.
1847.
SPEECH.
The House being in Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union on
the "three million bill"—
Mr. PARISH addressed the committee as follows :
Mr. CHAIRMAN: My colleague, (Mr. BRINKERHOFF,) who has just taken his
seat, has announced himself the unqualified advocate of the condition known
as the " Wilmot proviso," which is attempted to be attached to the bill under
consideration. He acquitted himself well. I give my support to the bill because
I believe it necessary. The President is charged by the Constitution with conducting war, and is clothed with the power of treating for peace. We are now
engaged in war. For its conducting and honorable termination the Executive
has submitted to us his recommendations ; and the money contemplated by this
bill is asked for. I am willing to vote it without restriction ; and in my place
here, as I have ever done elsewhere, in public and in private, and as I shall
continue to do, I avow my opposition to the principle and spirit of the proviso
attempted to be attached ; and if it prevails, I will vote against the bill. I cannot
but regret the course my colleague has felt constrained to take, as deeply as he
can mine. I have listened with interest to him, and those who with him advocated this proviso, and have been forced to the belief that he and they find
themselves on ground that is dangerous to the Administration, the democracy,
and the country. It seems to me that the arguments which they have brought
to their aid are but so many appeals to the worst passions and the strongest prejudices. They ,array the north against the south ; this is sectional. They oppose one institution to another ; this is bigotry. They scramble for political superiority ; this is ambition. They desire patronage ; this is avarice. They
would confine slavery to its present limits, to punish its advocates; this is revenge. They refuse to extend the area of freedom alike to all our citizens ;
this is selfishness. All that has been advanced resolves into one or the other
of these things. Not many gentlemen would openly avow such sentiments in
direct terms on this floor, but they are frequently urged to the popular ear.
Here, however, if not expressed, they are clearly implied by the gentleman from
New York, (Mr. RATHBUN,) and my colleague, (Mr. BRINKERHOFF.) I disavow
such means to obtain place or power, and would resign my seat before I would
resort to them to retain it.
I object to my colleague (Mr. BRINKERHOFF) committing me or my constituents on this question, and uniting us to the north, as he and his coadjutors are
pleased to designate the free States. On this question at present the interest of
the free States west are distinct from those to the northeast. This is a question between two extremes ; the fanaticism of the north against the fanaticism
of the south. The west has no interest in the question, to induce her to take
sides with either ; and if ever the time should come when a division of the
Union takes place, the western free States cannot be allied to a confederacy including either the northeastern or southeastern portions of the Union, to the exclusion of the other. She has no greater affinity to Boston than to Charleston—
to New York than to New Orleans ; and her geographical position must continue to develop and govern her future course. The west must, and will by
4
destiny, become an empire of herself. Nature has rendered it inevitable. FFrom
the same cause her interests oppose her being united to either of the parties in ,
thisqueon.Twadvctehisproyamelopsing
the extension of slavery. Why do they not say they are opposed to increasing
slavery ? The reason is obvious. The whole people of this country are united ;
and our government has exerted, and continues to exert its legislative and moral
influences against the slave trade. Slaves cannot be brought into this country,
and no one proposes any such thing ; therefore, slavery cannot be increased
but by procreation of those who are already here. This increase these gentlemen cannot prevent—(Pharaoh's barbarous device for the Israelites failed ;) but t
extension, they avoid meeting that just moral sense which recoils at bythepras
its antagonist, until, confining slavery within its present limits, it shall punish
the white population where it exists. I say just moral sense, because retaliation
is forbidden by all sound ethics, and should be despised as a rule or motive of
political action. The removal of one or two thousand slaves from Virginia, or
any other slave State, to Ohio, or any other State or Territory where slavery does
not now exist, would no more increase slavery in the United States, than the
removal of the same number of white persons from Pennsylvania to Ohio, or
any other State or Territory, would increase the white population of the United
States ; nor any more than the farmer who marries two or three of his sons, and,
purchasing farms for each in the same or adjoining neighborhoods, starts them
in the world, thus increases the number of his children. Colored population
increases, whether free or bond, as fast or faster than the whites, and there exists now in the slave States a large portion that are free. If you confine slavery
to its present limits, do you not increase the necessity and inducement of the
free colored population to find some other asylum? The free States do not want
them ; and in the northeastern States the prejudice is stronger than elsewhere—
so strong, as entirely to preclude their admission there. Even New York, the
genetleman .(Mr
RATHBUN) owns, would send back the free negroes from the slave
States. Emigration is never from the new or thinly settled regions, to the older
and more populous districts ; and hence, by fixed principles, emigration of the
black as well white population is, and must continue to be, westward. No effort of human legislation can prevent it. The States of Delaware, Maryland,
Virginia, Kentucky, and Missouri, are all north of thirty-six degrees and thirty
minutes north latitude, or the line of the Missouri compromise. In all these
States, where the same physical causes that abolished slavery in New York and
other northern States are constantly operating, the free negroes, instead of
moving towards New York or Maine, will inevitably be westward and into the
free States of Ohio, Indiana, Michigan, Illinois, Iowa, and Wisconsin. How it
would injuriously affect the labor of those States, or the population, I need not
now examine ; but I hope I have shown that our position and interests are different from some of the free States, and that my colleague has no grounds to
make a common cause, and unite us to the northern extreme in this question.
If time permitted, I could show that this retaliatory plan of keeping slavery
within its present limits increases the necessity for emigration, and its evils
upon our people, by preventing not only the free colored man, but the white
laborer, from obtaining that employment, reward, and comfort in the slave States
which he otherwise would, in equal degree, if a portion of the slave labor were
removed to another section ; but I cannot suppress my surprise at that pretended
philosophy which adopts the anti-Christian spirit of retaliation to keep slavery
within a fixed limit, and, by inflicting punishment on the slave owner, includes
within its consequences free labor, whether white or black, in the free as well
as in the slave State.
But my colleague, (Mr. BRINKERHOFF,) and others who are with him, would
not interfere with slavery. And why ? The Constitution protects it in the
5
States where it exists, and they would not violate the Constitution. This implies that it is wrong ; but it is fenced around by the Constitution. Now, when
the hideousness of an institution is depicted as by my colleague, (Mr. BRINK-.
ERHOFF,) and it is tamely proposed to barter it off, for political advantage, as by
the gentleman from New York, (Mr. RATHBUN,) I ask, what is the Constitution to men entertaining such sentiments ? Infuse them into the popular mind
until they enlist the majority, as these gentlemen trust they will, and, with a
numerical and physical majority influenced by the sentiment, and actuated by
the motive of these gentlemen, what would be the Constitution ? Mere straw.
It would be powerless. It could stay no innovation which fanaticism, bigotry,
or interest should dictate. I have an abiding confidence in the intelligence and
integrity of my countrymen, but I would entreat them to remember that such
men as these, who desire such an object, from which they are only deterred by
the Constitution, if they could ever attain the power, would soon find the pretext to set aside or trample on the Constitution ; and if for one, for any and all
purposes.
Who is it that introduces this question here ? Last year it was moved by a
member from Pennsylvania. This session, as if desirous to outstrip the
comitefrwhblsoudemant,brfoNewYkcms
forward with the bill for the purpose and to have the credit of raising this question in advance from the-free States.
What necessity existed for bringing this question of slavery and slave territory
before Congress and the country, and incorporating it with the present bill, at
this time ? None whatever; and it is shown to be unnecessary by those .who
introduce and support it. They argue that slavery is a positive institution, and
can only exist where human laws authorize it ; and that slavery does not now
exist in the Mexican provinces, and therefore not in any territory that may be
at this time acquired from Mexico to this government, either by conquest or
treaty. This I believe to be true. They further argue that the general a
ment has power to legislate over all territory belonging to the United States,
and that no territorial law is valid without the sanction of Congress. Though
this last hypothesis is questionable, and certainly needs qualification, yet it is
assumed, to justify action by Congress on this question before territory is acquired, and maintain its supremacy over the subject afterwards. Now, in connexion with their premises, I maintain it to be a well settled rule of international law, that when territory passes from one State or government to another,
either by conquest or by treaty, there being no stipulations to the contrary, the
territory passes to the acquiring government with its existing laws and institutions, and so remains until changed by subsequent legislation. Hence, if
slavery does not exist now, and if territory is acquired, it can only exist there
when it shall be hereafter authorized by Congress. Therefore there is no necessity, at this time, for redeclaring what is and must be the rule until changed.
By the arguments of those who support this proviso, it is clear that slavery can
only be introduced into the territory by those who would advocate it coming
into this House and asking and obtaining the aid of Congress to anction it.
When that period arrives, if it ever should, this question will be an affirmative
one, and legitimately here ; not a negative and uncalled for one, as in the present instance.
This proviso is not only unnecessary, but improper, for another reason. Congress has no right to dictate to the treaty-making power the terms of negotiation. Her Senate may, as an advisory body to the Executive, when called upon
e the power to
to give its opinion; but neither the Senate nor the House hav
dictate or impose terms on the treaty-making department in advance. The
precedent will be a bad one, when it shall succeed on the one hand, or be submitted to on the other. Neither can the adoption of this proviso any more con-
6
trol or bind the power within the territory that might be acquired to alter its
laws and institutions, or the future action of Congress, than it can the treatymaking power, or any State formed of that territory after it should have been
admitted into the Union.
The provinces, States, or departments of the republic of Mexico, like the
States of the American Union, are supreme in matters relating to persons and
property, and that supremacy would not be lost by any of those States, provinces, or departments being transferred by the Mexican government to the
United States. If it were otherwise, in their present form, so soon as any of
those States, provinces, or departments should be transferred to this government, all supremacy of the Mexican government would be at an end ; and
any such State, province, or department, before a territorial organization was
formed by Congress, could alter, create, or abolish any and all regulations of persons and property, not affecting the property of the United States, at the pleasure of the inhabitants. This right belongs to communities in their most primitive state ; and when they should receive an organized form by Congress, the
territorial government could alter, adopt, or reject any or all such regulations, over which Congress could not interfere, except in cases affecting the
property of the United States, and perhaps negatively laws which conflicted
with the republican principles of the federal Constitution. But to maintain that
Congress has the power to ratify or affirm any act of territorial legislation, and
especially those affecting domestic, religious, or political rights, is to maintain the monarchical principle that Great Britain asserted over the American
colonies, which led to the Revolution. If any such State, province, or department should, out of its territory, form a republican Constitution, embracing
within it slavery, it is entitled to be admitted into the Union, and you cannot
reject it, because the federal Constitution imposes no other terms than republican form ; and slavery, by the Constitution, is not anti-republican. From this, I
think it clear that the principle of this proviso, however solemnly enacted by
Congress, can have no binding obligation. Again : if, in any territory that may
be acquired from Mexico, physical causes induce slavery, (which I do not believe,) no legislation by this Congress or any other can or will prevent it ; and
if, on the other hand, as I believe, these causes do not exist to induce slavery,
this legislation here is wholly unnecessary.
If there was no necessity for introducing this question into the present bill,
what causes have induced it ? and who are among the foremost to advocate
it ? In the election of the present Executive, a majority of the democracy
of the country united cordially ; and his annual messages have been received as
cordially and with as much favor by a majority of the American people, as
those of any of his predecessors ; and they now approve his measures and his
course in relation to the present war, and are ready to stand by him. But the
political contest was scarcely ended by which the President was elected, before
the scramble for the succession commenced ; and with this Congress it entered these halls. In Congress and out of it, the friends of those who may be
supposed to be candidates seem to have desired to mould every thing to promote
the interests and strengthen the hands of their respective favorites, and to render the Executive as powerless as possible without wholly jeoparding the
party that elected him. Hence his recommendations have received the most
dogged support, and on almost every question some portion of the party who
are supposed to be in the majority are found with the known political opposition, to defeat or paralyze the measure. If we look to the source from which
this question was introduced at the present session, and consider those and
their arguments who are its most forward supporters on this floor, it seems to
me a doubt cannot be entertained that President-making and political advantage
are involved in the subject. There also rests in the minds of some persons on
7
this floor, and elsewhere in the free States, a jealousy of the south, and they
attribute a unity of sentiment and purpose, which they charge to exist with the
Representatives of the southern States in Congress, to be the result of slave
representation. This, they argue, is to the prejudice of the north ; and as slavery is at the root of it, they strike there to prevent an increase of such representation to the south, whilst the northern representation will necessarily extend, until that very superiority which is complained of in the south shall exist in the north—unity and strength on this floor. Without stopping to inquire
whether it is not the desire and ambition for office and power that induce the
almost constant changes and successions in representation from the northern
States, whilst the southern portions appreciate experience and continue their Representatives, and thus secure greater weight in opinion and action, or whether if
what gentlemen seem to think the root of all evil—any five colored persons,
who in their representation are equal to three white ones—were abolished,
the places of those five colored persons would not be filled by at least three
white ones, and thus secure the same amount of representation as at present,
and that representation be continued and united as at present, still this proviso,
if now enforced, is narrow, selfish, and sectional ; is pushed in here to influence
the present question, and for political effect. There are those here who are
chagrined at not receiving at the hands of the Executive place for themselves
or some favorite, and avail themselves of any occasion to frustrate the recommendations of the Executive ; and when a subject is afforded, they attempt to
connect the President with a particular institution and geographical influence,
and avail themselves of their sectional prejudices, which they foster, for their
justification. Such I believe to be among the most prominent causes that
have induced the present question. In its discussion a wide range has been
taken ; new aids have been called in, and false views attempted.
The gentleman from New York (Mr. RATHBUN) would make Mr. Jefferson
the author of the proviso of 1787, and therefore the advocate of the principle
proposed to be incorporated in this bill. My colleague (Mr. BRINKERHOFF)
comes to his aid with proof in hand, and, as I understand him, endorses his
friend from New York throughout. But I ask gentlemen to remember, that whilst
Mr. Jefferson may have been willing to exclude slavery in the northwest, yet
he was willing to extend it in the southwest ; and that it was during his administration, and by his influence, that Louisiana was acquired, and slavery extended
through the southwestern States that have been created of that territory. These
gentlemen go a step further, and, as if anxious to redeem the names of Washington and Jefferson from the infamy of that fanaticism which consigns all slaveholders to eternal punishment, seek to prove them opponents to slavery, whilst
the world knows that both these great men lived and died slave-holders. True,
they saw and wrote of the political and moral consequences of that fanatical
and reckless political conduct, which might agitate this question and distract
the country. I wish my colleague, (Mr. BRINKERHOFF,) and those who harmonize in sentiment with him, whilst he looked at the canvass on the right of the
Speaker, and made his solemn appeals to the Father of our country,. had remembered and practised what that good man inculcated in his valedictory address
to his countrymen. Hear what he taught of the value of union, the means by
which it would be disturbed, and how he characterised the agitators :
" The unity of government, which constitutes you one people, is also now
dear to you. It is justly so, for it is a main pillar in the edifice of your real
independence ; the support of your tranquillity at home, your peace abroad—of
your safety, of your prosperity, of that very liberty which you so highly prize.
But it is easy to foresee that from different causes and from different quarters
much pains will be taken, many artifices employed, to weaken in your minds
the conviction of this truth. As this is the point in your political fortress against
which the batteries of internal and external enemies will be most constantly and
actively (though often covertly and insidiously) directed, it is of infinite moment
that you should properly estimate the immense value of your national Union to
your collective and individual happiness ; that you should cherish a cordial,
habitual, an immovable attachment to it ; accustoming yourselves to think and
speak of it as the palladium of your political safety and prosperity ; watching for
its preservation with jealous anxiety ; discountenancing whatever may suggest
even a suspicion that it can, in any event, be abandoned ; and indignantly
frowning upon the first dawning of every attempt to alienate any portion of our
country from the rest, or to enfeeble the sacred ties which now link together the
various parts."
" In contemplating the causes which may disturb our Union, it occurs as
matter of serious concern that any ground should have been furnished for characterizing parties by geographical discriminations—Northern and Southern,
Atlantic and Western—whence designing men may endeavor to excite a belief
that there is a real difference of local interests and views. One of the expedients
of party to acquire influence within particular districts is, to misrepresent the
opinions and views of other districts. You cannot shield yourselves too much
against the jealousies and heart-burnings which spring from these misrepresentations ; they tend to render alien to each other those who ought to be bound
together by fraternal affection."
I look upon the use of these names as an attempt of the gentleman from New
York, (Mr. RATFIBUN,) and my colleague, (Mr. BRINKERHOFF,) to prove themselves not only true, but, at the present time, the best Jeffersonian Democrats.
This is the miserable subterfuge of all apostates, in religion or in politics. When
they find their new relations untenable, by either reason or justice, they resort
to the common text book of their original faith to prove themselves orthodox,
and all others heterodox. These gentlemen assume this a sectional question.
They seek to array the northern or free States against the southern, and, when
appeal, entreaty, and invocations are exhausted, to bring the whole representation of the free States to support their fanatical views ; they resort to epithets,
and denounce those who oppose them as traitors. Not only this, but the gentleman from New York, (Mr. RATHBUN,) sustained by my colleague, (Mr.
BRINKERHOFF,) charge, substantially, that the price of this treason is the patronage
of the President—some office received or expected. To say nothing of the
modesty of these gentlemen, whose known hostility to the administration carries
them to oppose in almost every thing, so far as they can do it without the record
showing their opposition too palpable; and even whilst they desire to be re' corded war advocates, are moving and aiding in this Wilmot proviso, with the
moral certainty, if their views can be sustained in the country, that they defeat
the very end of the war, and lead to disgraceful and precipitate peace. And
when the cause which has influenced the conduct of these gentlemen is so well
known on this floor, do not such denunciations, and such charges, come with
a poor grace from such a source ? Their lips should remain forever sealed on
such subjects. But when gentlemen come forward and exhibit a great moral
and political evil, and then tamely propose to tolerate and sanction that evil for
political power and advantage, such men do not, in their appeals to the Supreme
Being, evince that high moral sense which is to become the standard of my
conscience. With me their threats have no terrors, and their appeals create no
compunctions. If this subject is so hideous as these gentlemen exhibit it, the
Divinity (and I speak it with reverence) will work out its correction in his own
good time and pleasure, without such instruments, and will not suffer his Apostles to barter it, as in the shambles, for Presidential or political advantage.
What is to be the effect of this question, and how shall it be disposed of? I
answer for myself. To see the councils of a great and growing nation like ours,
9
in the midst of war, instead of uniting their wisdom in the common cause, wasting their time in tedious debate about the disposition of territory that may never
be acquired, is matter of wonder ; and whilst it renders us ridiculous in the
eyes of the civilized world, is humiliating to every proud, patriotic, and generous
American heart. How supremely ridiculous and how humiliating ! and how
must Mexico view this matter ? Our enemy is taught to believe that in this are
the seeds of discord, that prevents unity of sentiment and of action, and takes
encouragement to resist and withstand the valor of our arms. She also perceives, what the world is ready to attribute to us, that the commencement and
prosecution of this war against her is for the inglorious and sordid purpose of
despoiling her of her dominions, and acquiring her territory to add to -our own
wealth and greatness. This influences her resentment, and adds strength to the
patriotism which sanctifies the course of her arms, and forbids terms of peace
that might otherwise be deemed honorable and just. It gives a moral' force to
her cause that arms her thrice. The agitation of this question, in connexion
with the present bill, defeats the recommendation of the Executive ; for, whatever may be the result in this House, with this condition attached it cannot
pass the Senate. It generates and strengthens local prejudices and sectional
feelings, and arrays one portion of the country and its institutions and interests
against another, which every sincere friend of the Union should deprecate. It
not only delays the war, but it especially defeats its termination in the way that
a majority of our people are prepared to expect. The gentleman from Pennsylvania, (Mr. WILMOT,) who introduces this proviso, says he goes for the war,
and for the acquisition of territory when a treaty of peace shall be formed.
This may be honestly his opinion ; and yet, whilst he advocates war to obtain
territory, he may be found advocating in this a measure that will eventually defeat that end, and hasten this war to an inglorious termination. There has ever
been in this country a strong element, which was designated by its partisan denomination in the days when to be a Federalist was no reproach, who consistently oppose the acquisition of territory, or the extension of its limits by this
government. There are those acting with the Democratic party, who, afraid
of popular opinion, desire to be placed among the advocates of this war, but
who, secretly opposed to the extension of our territorial limits, avail themselves
of this question to defeat the acquisition of territory without a direct avowal of
their true sentiments. Others are opposed to the acquisition of territory from
prejudice and local considerations, while not a few are so fanatical that, on
a mere sentiment like the present, patriotism, justice, and the extension of the
blessings of freedom are made to yield to this one idea. This question unites
all these elements, and, when combined, moulds opinion, and may constitute a
majority in the country against acquiring territory. I might with propriety ask
gentlemen who support this proviso if they themselves will agree to accept
territory, or if they are not opposed to acquiring any territory, unless with
the condition of this proviso ? and if they are not thrown necessarily with
their political opponents on this floor, against the acquisition of territory ?
In addition, does it not require two-thirds of the Senate to ratify a treaty
acquiring territory ? And when this proviso is adopted by a majority here, and
sustained in the country, and it is fixed that no part of the territory shall become subject to settlement with slaves, will not the whole slaveholding States
in the Senate go against ratifying any treaty acquiring territory ? By that means
no territory can be acquired from Mexico. Then, I ask, will not the popular
expectation be disappointed ; and are not the results of this war uncertain ?
Can you get out of it honorably; or should you not? and will not the country
demand that it be speedily ended, if no indemnity can be obtained? And will
they not hold that party responsible for the acts of the administration, and the
inglorious termination of this war, who have advocated it? These consequen-
2
10
ces flow from the introduction of this proviso ; and I ask gentlemen, who apply
the epithet of treason to those of the free States who do not go with them, to
consider if they are not the very persons who are most instrumental in defeating
the administration, distracting the party with which they profess to act, and inflicting a serious and lasting injury upon the country ! But the gentleman from
Pennsylvania who moves this proviso, and others who advocate it, say they
would not interfere with the question of slavery ; that all that is desired is the
neutrality of the federal government on the subject. This, to me, seems
strange, and more than half admits they are wrong in pressing this question.
Such neutrality, and the injustice of this whole movement, are capable of illustration. Suppose a father and his family, in which there are two sons, by their
joint industry, economy, and prudence, have acquired a farm of five hundred
acres of land, on which they all reside. The eldest son, Cain, is of fair complexion, and Abel, the younger, is dark. At the time the homestead was acquired, it
was understood to be capable of occupancy by a line east and west, assigning the
largest portion north to Cain, and the south to Abel, and their descendants; and
so they and their descendants, without actual division, and in harmony, by their
united wisdom, strength, and perseverance, not only improve the original domain,
but extend the boundary west, on the original plan of occupancy. Actuated by
these just incentives, they add to the northwest one hundred acres, and to the
southwest another hundred, which are occupied, respectively, on the principle that
controlled them originally. Their numbers increase, and they grow in wealth and
greatness, but the descendants of each retain the complexions of their ancestors.
Cain and his descendants, greater in numbers, begin to find fault with the
complexion of Abel and his descendants: still another hundred acres is added to
the northwest, which extends the possessions, wealth, and power of Cain and his
descendants. The same convenience that induced the last acquisition, makes
it necessary to acquire another hundred acres in the southwest. The business
is enlisted in. From the same resources as in the other acquisitions, advances are
made ; and at the moment when the acquisition is about to be consummated,
and title acquired, Cain and his men, notwithstanding its affinity to the possessions of Abel, and the spirit of conciliation, compromise, and justice that had
governed all their former actions and acquisitions, come forward and say : " We
are for this acquisition, but we are opposed to its being occupied by any person
of dark complexion ; if Abel and his descendants will change their complexion,
and become fair like us, there will be no difficulty ; we do not wish to interfere ;
all we want is neutrality ; but we object to your complexion, and therefore to
your occupying any part of this new acquisition." Does not any one see the
injustice and selfishness of such conduct, and can any one fail to perceive its
effects ?
In addition to complexion, suppose Cain and his descendants Protestants,
and Abel and his descendants Catholics, and, instead of complexion, objection
is made by Cain to the religious tenets of Abel ; then, instead of the fanaticism
about complexion, it becomes bigotry, on account of religious opinions. This
is answered by the just sense of all men in this enlightened age. There is no
difference in the cases, and the general government has as much right to interfere in the one instance as the other. Let the spirit which creates this prejudice on account of complexion, or a peculiar institution of one portion of the
people of this republic prevail, and the next step may be to exclude a sect, denomInation, or order, from participating in the future acquisitions of the country.
But, look to the injustice of the matter. Suppose the slave States had the
numerical strength on this floor, as the free States have, and they should be here
insisting that slavery should exist in all the territory to be acquired, and that
none should be obtained unless it was exclusively slave territory, what would be
the course of gentlemen from the free States ? I fearlessly declare for myself, be-
11
fore my country and my God, that the moment that avowal was made, and the
principle fixed in this country, I would withdraw from this House, and appeal
to my constituency and the country, and they would sustain me ; and I believe
this would be the duty of every Representative from the free States. If such a
course would be necessary, and justified by the free States, what less can or
should the slave States do ? Are they not American like us? imbued with
the same just proud and honorable incentives ?
But the advocates of this proviso say there is no serious danger from this
question ; and if serious consequences arise, let them come. What my opinion
on such speculations may be, is immaterial ; but whilst a division of the American people into clubs, lodges, sects, denominations, and political parties, may
invoke, and can only end in, clanishness, theological discussions, and fierce debate, yet, when you array one section of the Union by geographical lines against
another, then comes the verification of that eternal principle, that " a house divided against itself cannot stand." I know the American people love their government, and they are fully impressed with the spirit of compromise which
brought it into existence—has so far conducted it in the career of greatness, and
shed its incalculable blessings upon millions of our race ; and this spirit must be
adhered to, or their greatness is at an end. And if ever the time comes, and
the question is put to them whether this government shall be separated, or the
principle of compromise adhered to, I firmly believe there will be found an overwhelming majority on the side of the government, adhering to the principles of
compromise. Here I firmly plant myself; and, with this principle before me, I go
for acquiring from Mexico in the southwest, as I did for Oregon in the northwest, the greatest amount of territory that can honorably and justly be attained ;
and, in its future regulation, I am willing to extend the principles of the Missouri compromise. And if thereby slavery shall exist in a fourth, a third, or a
half of such territory, it is but just, and sanctioned by the conservative principles
of the Constitution, and the past administration of the government. If the question was presented without prejudice, political or sectional considerations, I
believe a large majority of the American people would feel as I do. There is no
other just, honorable, or safe ground, in my opinion