Newspaper Page Text
THE SOUTHERN SENTINEL
Is published every Thursday Morning,
IX COLUMBUS, G.V.
BY WILLIAM H. CHAMBERS,
EDITOR AND PROPRIETOR.
To whom all communications must be directed, post paid
Office on Randolph Street.
Terms of Subscription.
One copy twelve months, in advance, - - £2 50
“ “ ‘ “ “ Not in advance, -3 00
•• “ Six “ “ “ - 150
Where the subscription is not paid during the
year. 15 cents will be charged for every month’s delay.
No subscription will be received lor less than six
months, and none discontinued until all arrearages are
paid, except at the option of the proprietor.
To Clubs.
l ive copies twelve months, - - - 810 00
Ten “ “ 1G 00
ZW The money from Clubs must in all eases ac
company the names, or the price ot a single subscription
will be charged.
Rates of Advertising.
One Square, first insertion, - - SI 00
“ Each subsequent insertion, - 50
A liberal deduction on these terms will be made in favor
of those who advertise by the year.
Advertisements not specified as to time, will be pub
lished till forbid, and charged accordingly.
Monthly Advertisements will be charged as new Ad
vertisements at each insertion.
I/Ogal Advertisements.
N B.—Sales of Lands, by Administrators, Ex
ecutors, or Guardians, are required by law to be held on
the first Tuesday in the month, between the hours of 10
in the forenoon, and 3 in the afternoon, at the Court
House in the county in which the land is situated. No
tices of these sales must be given in a public gazette
sixty days previous to the day of sale.
Sales of Nf.or>f.s must be made at a public auction
vni the first Tuesday of the month, between the usual
hours of sale, at the place of public sales in the county
where, the Letters Testamentary, of Administration or
Guardianship, may have been granted, first giving sixty
days notice thereof in oneot the public gazettes of this
Mtute, and at the door ol the Court House, where such
sales are to be held.
Notice for the sale of Personal property must be given
in like manner forty days previous to the day of sale.
Notice to the Debtors and Creditors of an estate must
be published forty days.
Notice that application will be made to the Court of
Ordinary for leave to sell Land, must be published for
FOUR MONTHS.
Notice for leave to sell Negroes must be published tor
four months, before any order absolute shall be made
thereon by the Court.
Citations for Letters of Administration, must lie pub
lished thirty days—for dismission from administration,
monthly six months —for dismission lioin Guardianship,
Rules for the foreclosure, ol a Mortgage must be pub
lished MONTHLY for FOUR months—for establishing In<t
papers, for the full space ot three months—tor com
pelling titles from Executors or Administrators, where a
Bond has been given by the deceased, the full space ot
THREE MONTHS. . , ..
Publications will always Ire continued according to
these legal requirements, unless otherwise ordered.
SOUTHERN SENTINEL
Job Office.
HAYING received anew and extensive assortment
of Jok Material, we are prepared to execute at
this office, all orders for JOB WORK,in a manner which
can not be excelled in the State, on very liberal terms,
and at the shortest notice. .
We leel confident of our ability to give, entire satisfac
tion in every variety of Job Printing, including
Hooks, Business Cards,
Pamphlets, Bill Heads,
Circulars , Blanks of every description,
Hand Bills, Bills of Lading,
Posters, <s-c. <Spc.
In short, all descriptions of Printing which can be ex
ecuted at any office in the country, will be turned out
with elegance and despatch.
Marble Works,
East side Broad St. near the Market House,
COLUMBUS, GA.
HAVE constantly on hand all kinds of Grave Stone';
Monuments, Tombs and Tablets, ot American,
Italian and Irish Marble. Engraving and carving
done on stone in the best possible manner ; and all kinds
of Work a, ,1,0 c „ MADWtN .
l\ S. I’laister of Paris and Cement, always on hand
for sale. __
Columbus, March 7, 1850. If*
NORTH CAROLINA
Mutual Life Insurance Company.
LOCATED AT RAT.HIGH, N. C.
r pul’, Charter of this v.ompany gjyes important advan-
L ta‘ T o** to tha a-sSftWsd* over most other companies.
The husband dn insure bis own life for the sole use and
benefit of his wife and children, free from any other
claims Persons who insure for Me participate in the
Mpbtus which are declared annually,and when the pre
mium exceeds S3O, may pay one-hall in a note.
Slaves are insured at two-thirds their value ior one or
for Risks may be madeto
Agent, Columbus, Ga.
f rs” Office at Greenwood Co.’s Warehouse.
Nov. 15,1849. U
TO KENT,
rjx[LL the first day of January next. The old printing
.L office room ol the “Muscogee Democrat
Apply at this office. “•
Coimtv Surveyor.
’ PHE undersigned informs his friends and the Planters
I „f Muscogee county, that he is prepared to make
official surveys in Muscogee county. loiters addressed
to Po t Office,Columbus, will meet w **h prompt atten
,lon WM. F. SERRELL,
County Surveyor.
Office over E. Barnard & Co.’s store, Broad St.
Columbus, Jan. 31,1850. o ly
MRS. BARDWELL,
WOULD inform the Ladies of Columbus and its
vicinity, that she has just returnedl from New V ork
with a handsome stock ot MILLINLKA , I.Af E
CAPES, Ac., and trusts the Ladies will give her an
x.irlv call. She opened on Wednesday.
April 11, 1850. ”
TEAS! TEAS!
| XIRKCT from the “Canton Tea Company,” just re
-1 ’ i REDD,
Feb. 7,1850. 6 “
NOTICE.
rPHE firm name of “M .11. Dessau. Agent A is ebanged,
1 from this date, to _ M. H. - •
Columbus, Feb. 7, 1S;>0.
Williams, Flev/ellen & Williams,
ATTORNEYS AT LAW,
COLUMBUS, GEORGIA.
May 23, 1850. 21
- J. JOHNSON,
ATTORNEY AT LA IV,
RANDOM!! STREET, COLUMBUS, GEORGIA.
■tx TILL practice in the Chattahoochee Circuit and
> V the adjacent counties in Alabama.
Columbus, June 13, 1850. -4 4t
■ x Globe Hotel,
-A- 8. BUENA VISTA, MARION CO., GA.
BY J. WILLIAMS.
March 11,1850. 11
Williams & Howard,
ATTORNEYS AT LAW,
COLUMBUS, GEORGIA.
ROBT. K. HOWARD. CHAS. J. WILLIAMS.
April 4, 1850. 14 ts
J. D. LENNAKD,
ATTORNEY AT LAW,
TALBOTTON, GA.
WILL attend to business in Talbot and the adjacent
i aunties. All business entrusted to his care will meet
with prompt attention.
•April 4, 1850. 14 ly
KING &. VVINNEMORE,
Commission Merchants,
MOBILE, ALABAMA.
Dec. 20,1849. [Mob, Trib ] 15 ts
THIS PA PER
IS MANUFACTURED BY THE
Hock Island Factory,
NEAR THIS CITY
Columbus, Feb. 23,1959. J ts
VOL. I.
SPEECH OF MR. M. J. WELLBORN,
OF GEORGIA,
Iu the House of Representatives,
Monday, June 10, 1850,
In Committee of the Whole on the state of
the Union, on the President’s Message
transmitting the Constitution of Cali
fornia.
Mr. WELLBORN said:
Mr. Chairman: It may be remembered
that at an early stage of this debate I sub
mitted to the committee, as a mode of set
tling the issues in hand, the revival and ex
tension to the Pacific ocean, of the Missouri
compromise line, with such a modification of
its terms as would have brought it to bear
the same relation in effect to the subject of
slavery in our present territories as it bore to
it in the territories of Louisiana and Texas
on the several occasions of its application to
them, with the exception of that portion of
California which lies north of 3(5 deg. 30 min.
In respect to the latter section, my proposi
tion was to leave it subject to the lately adop
ted constitution of California, with a view to
her admission into the Union. The leading
idea was, the prohibition of African slavery,
north, and the express recognition of it,
south, of the parallel indicated, to the Pacific.
I propose to offer now some arguments ad
ditional to those hitherto urged in behalf of
that scheme of adjustment.
It is to me, sir, a matter of regret, that the
plan under notice has not been kept more
distinctly in view during the protracted strug
gles of the session. That it has not been
more generally urged by representatives from
the slaveholding States, has been owing, as 1
think, to the hope entertained by them that
some other mode might he substituted for it
which would meet with less opposition, and
at the same time prove acceptable to the na
tion at large. This motive, then, 1 submit,
but (lie more strongly recommends the plan,
now that all other methods proposed have
failed to give the desired satisfaction.
As the constitutional authority of this Gov
ernment to prohibit slavery in the public ter
ritories, involved in the passage of the Mis
souri compromise line, has been generally
denied by the slaveholding States, and that
denial is now made the foundation of actual
opposition to some extent, a brief reference to
that subject would seem to be demanded. In
alluding to it, however, I propose, rather to
bring forward those aspects of the question
oi jurisdiction in which opposing opinions
have been, ott former occasions, blended in
legislation founded on the affirmative of it,
than to extend the vast train of argumenta
tion which has been drawn out in the effort
to reach a satisfactory solution of it.
Two separate sources have been relied on
by those who affirm that the power in view
exists. It is by many supposed to rest on (he
grant to Congress, of the authority “to make
all needful rules and regulations respecting
the territory, or other public property belong
ing to the United States.” It is sufficient for
our present purpose to remark here, that able
and well informed minds who have stood for
years on this clause as the source of plenipo
tent political authority, on a closer scrutiny
of the context with which the power to pass
“rules and regulations” is connected—a more
cautious study of the probable import of these
somewhat equivocal terms, “rules and regu
lations,” as they are related in the Consti'u
tion, and a more comprehensive survey of tne
relation of the States to the general subject
of public or common territory on the adop
tion of the Constitution, have abandoned it.
Others see in the power to acquire, hold, and
dispose of, the unrestrained power of govern
ing. They see in it that broad authority by
which the Congress may do with their acqui
sitions as they will : and statesmen are not
wanting, who, pursuing, as they suppose, a
process of fair reasoning, reach the conclu
sion that certain limitations on the powers of
Congress usually regarded as universal, such
as the disability to establish a national reli
gion, to give out titles of nobility, etc., have
respect only to the action of Congress within
the States and territory on hand when the
Constitution was adopted, and that in respect
to subsequently accruing territorial acquisi
tions this Government stands in the relation
of a simple despotism. But to recur from
this extreme of opinion: it is alledged by
more moderate reasoners, that the power to
acquire includes those general powers of gov
ernment, of which that to prohibit slavery is
but a particular. The reasoning runs some
what thus.
When this Government became the as
signee bv conquest and purchase of Califor
nia and New Mexico, what, relative to these
provinces it is inquired, was embraced in the
transfer l Did we receive but the title to
the soil, and Mexico retain in the whole or in
part, the right to govern ( Are we not agreed
that we acquired these Territories in all their
attributes and susceptibilities, political as
well as territorial ( Does the power of self
government inhere by the law of nature, or
otherwise, in the provinces themselves ? It
is deemed by many a sufficient answer to
that to sav, that we are discussing political
and not natural rights. We have conquered
and purchased them. But may not certain
of the greater proprietary rights, the authori
ty, for example, to give them the outlines ol
political organization, reside in this Govern
ment, and the right to regulate their more im
mediately municipal affairs including the reg
ulation of labor, remain in them ? 1 his in
terrogatory is replied to by the inquiry, TV ho
divided the attributes of government between
us and them l In what map of political ge
ography shall we trace the boundary line be
tween our power to acquire, hold, and settle
California or New Mexico, and the pow er of
California or New Mexico to dictate to us
the terms and conditions on, and in which,
we can alone acquire, hold, or settle them l
Again: the individual citizens of the several
States cannot, as an aggregate mass, govern
these Territories. The States cannot, sepa
rately, nor in simple convention, govern them.
In someone or the other of the views thus
briefly pointed to in these inquiries, perhaps a
majority of the people of the Union have
been accustomed to claim plenary political
government over the Territories, and on three
several occasions —under protest and by com
promise, however —the precise act ot inter
dieting slavery in portions of them has been
j executed by the concurrence of the different
branches of the General Government.
On the other hand, it has been urged with
a zeal certainly as honest, and I must think
with a stronger display of justice, that a pow
er not expressly granted in the Constitution
to this Government, cannot be rightly implied,
or inferred, by virtue of it, in precise op post-
fflje (Tioutljcni Sentinel.
tion to its principles and spirit, as this is be
lieved to be. Is it allowable to search the
general grants of power in the Constitution
in quest of a latent or incidental faculty,
which, put forth, proves to be at variance alike
with the relations of the parties to the instru
ment, the object of their union, and to observ
ance ol the most common-place ideas of jus
tice and equality among them ( Especially,
is it insisted that- it cannot be said to be, in
any just sen e of the term, “constitutional” for
the Federal Government to hamper or bridge
the enjoyment of right of property of the cit
izens of the States, secured to them by the
laws of their States respectively, and guar
antied by the fundamental law of his own be
ing. Such, it so happens, is slavery as it
stands related to both the laws of the slavehold
ing States and Constitution of the United
States. And must it not be conceded, on all
sides, that if such a power have found way in
to the constitution it can only have been con
veyed thither as an unobserved ingredient of
a main power, having not the remotest design
ed bearing on the point in controversy, and
never resolved in the thoughts of the framers
of the Government in connection with such
an exercise of it ? Could it be, then, satis
factorily shown to be an involved or resulting
power or faculty in our hands, so gross a per
version of it to purposes of injustice as would
be its universal application to our common
territories, would not only justify, but demand,
the sternest resistance.
I have thus but pointed to the leading
sources of the diversity in judgment that has
ever existed on this mooted point. Multipled
and involved, as investigation has only prov
ed it to be, in its windings, as were the la
barynths of old, unlike them it seems to have
no sure clue to an escape. It is related,
xMr. Chairman, that when Alexander the
Great found himself unable to disentangle the
knot which the kingly Gordius tied in the
harness of his chariot as the test of the skill
of him who, lay oracular interpretation, was
to be the future conqueror of the world, he
cut it assunder with his sword, and advanced
on the objects of his grand contemplations.
Let us, like others who have preceded us
here, avoiding the errors of his ambition,
profit by the courage and wisdom of this ex
ample.
Nor am I able to perceive any great weight
in that standing charge of inconsistency with
which we are assailed, for disputing in argu
ment the constitutional authority of Congress
to prohibit slavery, and yet consenting to the
passage of the Missouri compromise line. Is
it incomprehensible that we should feel justi
fied in drawing arguments from well-founded
doubts as to the existence of a power against
an extortionate and oppressive use of it, and,
availing ourselves of the authority of the his
tory of legislation, be at the same time w ill
ing to unite with its advocates in such an ap
plication of it as will subserve at once the
public justice and the demands of a great pub
lic emergency ? Wise and good men it seems,
have on occasions heretofore borne this crit
icism. And now, one word more, sir, as to
the effect of the line, on the supposition that
the denial of the right to pass it should he
well founded. Obviously it would be this,
that south of the lino the act passed here
would take effect in protecting the slavehold
er, because passed in execution of the constitu
tion, wdiile north of it, it could not harm him,
because, being opposed to the Constitution, it
would he simply null and void. Argument
can scarce make this proposition plainer: for
if the Constitution, exproprio vigore, convey
slavery into these territories, the argument is
manifestly but the stronger for the passage of
legislation here, to secure the convenient use
of it there, which no law of this Congress
proposing to abridge a light guarantied by
the constitution can have any validity. Nor
could such a discovery justifiably excite any
other feeling than that of universal regret that
a large portion of the citizens of the country
had not been supplied w ith legal remedies and
social securities commensurate with their fun
damental rights.
It is thus seen that I totally disagree with
certain reasoners who insist that the power
of this Government to protect the institution
of slavery in the territories, involves with it
either by necessary connection or rational an
alogy, the power to prohibit it there. On the
contrary, the power of Government to pro
hibit it, in the premises, so far from being in
its nature the counter part of, or logically
connected w ith, the power to protect it, w ould
be more aptly described as its opposite. The
two may, like other dissimilar powers, coex
ist in the same hands, but can be by no means
dependent on each other.
One other objection to this mode is, that it
would be a harsh use of power on the part of
this Government, to repeal existing laws, if
such there be, in these territories, prohibito
ry of slavery therein, or otherwise to interfere
with the policy in this respect, present or
future, of the inhabitants of them. Is not
this objection rather plausible than substan
tial ? On what principle of public law, or of
public justice, sir, can the Mexican inhabit
ants of these provinces claim to exclude our
institutions and forms of labor I I repeat it,
in no sense of idle triumph or levity —wc have
conquered and purchased them. And what,
after all, is the nature and extent of the pro
posed interference w ith them ? It is, in effect,
that in order to accommodate and serve cer
tain conflicting interests among the proprie
tors of these domains, a particular form ofla
bor be forbidden to enter certain portions of
them, and permitted to enter certain other por
tions of them, until the occasion for the forma
tion of State constitutions shall arrive—that
period when general causes shall have matured
their judgments respectively as to their more
permanent wants —at which time the whole
subject is, by the plan proposed, to pass into
their own hands exclusively. M ould it not
be a stretch of sensibility itself to persevere
in this objection ? And I must insist that the
duty in this particular goes along with the
right. Justly, humanely, as 1 hope w T e shall
act on this, on all occasions, it must still re
main true that the first and highest obligation
we owe is to the great body of the people of
this Confederacy, in whom the true and sub
stantial ownership of these territorial posses
sions lies.
Perhaps the most inveterate objection to
this plan is, that its application would divide
the boundaries of California. And why, sir,
is it, that the reception of California without
terms, into the Union, should be deemed irre
sistable ? Is there an overwhelming necessi
ty upon us to admit her, and without terms ?
It has ever been engreed to by the most zeal
ous defenders of popular sovereignty, that the
supervision, bv thU • revernment, el die boun
COLUMBUS, GEORGIA, THURSDAY MORNING, JULY 11, 1850.
i daries of territorial applicants for membership
in the Confederacy is, in all circumstances,
but the performance of a plain duty. On the
| contrary, to admit California in her present
: circumstances with the modification propos-
I ed, even, is, manifestly, in the exercise of a
discretionary authority to waive great irregu
| laritics in her procedure. Meaning no dis
respect to her, she can only be received on
her present motion, by the generous forbear
’ ance of the Government. And, sir, all the
sources of that just jealousy of large States
which has ever characterized the lesser ones
exist in the vast and various monopolies em
braced in the assumed limits of this youth
ful ami ambitious aspirant. National rea
sons come in to argue for a curtailment of
them—and, seetionally regarded, how easily
may not the non-slaveholding States meet the
policy of the South in this particular. They
would certainly seem to believe that the effect
of the partition proposed by this line would
be to throw a majority of chances for an ad
ditional free State into their hands. To the
South it would, however, extend the benefit
of all those reasons which are common to the
Confederacy, and will, seetionally, confer up
on her an opportunity regarded as justly de
mandable, and a right of value to her, of hav
ing the question of the suitableness to slave
labor of the southern portion of California
more deliberately tested than it has been.
And with all due deference to contrary opin
ions, I cannot think that any arguments
drawn from the simple inconvenience of it to
California, and postponement to the Confed
eracy of those advantages anticipated from
her immediate presence in it, ought to prevail
against the mode of procedure now r suggest
ed to the committee. Indeed, it may be well
argued, that the proposed subjection of the
bold, unprecedented, and hitherto unchecked
movements of California to the controlling
jurisdiction of this Government in the manner
proposed, while it will be free from all just
imputation of harshness, may be not without
a certain salutary effect upon that sense of
respect among the territories and people of
the Union for a necessary public authority,
the importance of w hich but increases with
the extension and variety of the interests and
objects of Government.
I pass now, Mr. Chairman, from the defence
of this measure against certan prevalent, ob
jections, to the presentation of a few of the
leading arguments which have occurred to my
mind in its behalf.
Coining, as it does, from the slaveholding
States, it has a strong claim on the justice of
the non-slaveholding States. Not to enlarge
on a plain point, it is settled by the map that
it lenders the latter not only much the largest
share of the property in dispute, but it assigns
them a share very disproportionate to their
greater numbers as compared with those of
the slaveholding States—that share, too, it
may be added, which includes the most fruit
ful known sources of commerce, wealth, and
population. Indeed, it would seem scarcely
allowable to predicate of cupidity itself, that
it could go in quest of a plan of settlement
fraught with more extensive prospects of sel
fish aggrandizement and gain.
Sir, the proofs of existing, 1 fear, of increas
ing distrust and alienation between the two
classes of States that are now vainly seeking
some common path of progress and peace in
the threatening future, sufficiently admonish
us of the value of some such mode of settle
ment, as, in view of certain prevalent quali
ties of human nature, is the precise one now
in view. In 1820 a similar contest, involving
then, as now, reciprocal jealousies of political
sectional predominance, the same active ani
mosity to slavery and alarms for both the
security es the latter and the duration of the
Union, which now exist, were merged in the
remedy it is now proposed to adopt. We
are acting for the present, sir, on the theory
of a continuance of the Union—a Union so
intricate and involved as to be capable of be
ing perpetuated alone by a cement in which
w hatever may be said of the cohesive power
of the grossei interests, sentiments of brother
hood and attachment must, on known law sos
the human mind, enter as component parts. —
The soldier remembers with affection and
love his associate in arms, by their common
participation in alike the perils and the deliv
erances of the battle-field. If we shall bear
the burdens with which we are again oppress
ed to this, now national neutral ground of thir
ty-six degrees thirty minutes, may it not have
a certain effect for good in our future inter
course to have thus revived in this connection
the memories of 1820? There is a certain
moral appropriateness in the proffered remedy
to present evils
‘The reassertion of this line will, in the na
ture of it, tend to check the progress of that
headlong unrelenting, and, it may be added,
unfeeling spirit of evil which, w hether we de
nominate it by one or another name, is the
source of our present perplexities. It will in
some degree stun Abolitionism, to arrest it at
the precise point to which it had advanced
thirty years ago and force it to feel, if feel it
can,sir, that on full stretch of its present pow
er it is not. able to pass it. And what a tri
umph for honorable minds who are reluctant
ly pushed forward, on the representative
principle, in a line of political conduct here it
were strange it were not as unpleasant for
them to pursue as it is injurious to the pros
perity and harmony of the Union that it be
pursued, to find that they have courage and
strength to escape a responsibility for possible
disasters w hich their ancestors under similar
temptation and pressure, dared not incur. In
the precise degree and for the same reasons
the reaffirmance of this line will have the im
portant effect of restoring, in a good degree,
the wavering confidence of the South in the
justice of this Government and her ultimate
security in the Union. Is it likely that we
shall, by another mode furnish her so satis
factory proof that her relative strength in the
councils and defences of this Government is
not being diminished by the lapse of time ? I
press the inquiry on those who, secure them
selves, may be less capacitated to comprehend
how others can be in danger, who situated to
fear no harm, may regard all fears of others as
groundless, if it be not their sacred duty as it is
their plain interest, to thus dispel, if possible,
the grave apprehensions of one section and
the distractions of the whole country ?
This method has lesser advantages wdiich
should not be overlooked. It has the desira
ble qualities of simplicity and invariability.
It requires little beyond the simple extension
through a few degrees of latitude of one of its
parallels already deeply scored in the history
of the republic—one, the recorded testimony
of which can never be obliterated however hu
man passions mav beat upon it—and which,
if it cannot stay the aggressive tide of Aboli
tionism, can at least measure its progress and
mark its ravages and its responsibilities. A
gain,sir, so far as it is possible to fix contem
plated results by any plan within the compass
of our power, it may be affirmed of this me
thod that it possesses that faculty. Though
an act of legislation in its technical nature it
has, to some extent, the moral attributes and
sanctions ofa contract. Viewed in this complex
relation, it will serve to assure us, as best we
may be assured, that what is designed by it
relative to the condition of coming States will
in due time transpire. It would have strength
to pervade those vague and common-place
sentiments of opposition to, or regret of slave
ry, which really can be hardly said to be pe
culiar to any one, much less to any section,
and would probably be held to in the future
by all except those anomalous few’ w ho, with
ostensible consistency, betake themselves to
the highest and holiest conceivable source of
human obligations, the Bible, to cover the
most startling infidelity to engagements. —
Adopting it, then, may w e not hope that the
States, slave, or non-slaveholding, which may
be evolved from these territories by the lapse
of time, will be received into the Confedera
cy on their application in terms of the Con
stitution, with no considerable opposition.
This compromise is now presented by the
South —the numerically weaker and only en
dangered section. It is the offering of a pa
triotic and enlightened body of men recently
assembled to consider of it and its alternatives
in one of our leading cities, Nashville. It is
shadowed forth, in not to be mistaken terms,
in the pending debates. And I must beg per
mission of the committee here to lay before
them the sense on this point ofa meeting of
the people in a primary assembly in the city
of Columbus, Georgia, a few days ago. A
mong certain resolutions adopted at the meet
ing 1 find the following:
“That in the compromise on the Missouri
line, solemnly made between the North and
the South thirty years ago, the South surren
dered her right to hold slave property north
of 3(5 deg. 30 min.—that she is content to abide
by that line, extended to the Pacific, but will
take no less.”
I leave out of view’ other matters embraced
in these resolutions as being not material to
the issue before us. It can scarcely be im
portant to guard the committee against what
w ould be an erroneous reading of the reso
lution cited. The members of this meeting
comprehended belter what was due to them
selves than to send to this committee the ap
parent dictation of arbitrary terms. Hence
it is not said by them that they w ill take noth
ing else than the Missouri compromise line.
‘Fhe language is they “w ill take nothing less.”
The fair construction, as I take it, is, that it
was the sense of that meeting that the South
is not in circumstances to be aide to acquiesce
in a settlement less favorable to her than
would be the Missouri compromise line reap
plied. And now', Mr. Chairman, as reluctant
as I feel to allude in complimentary terms to
the virtues of any constituent of mine, 1 must
take occasion to say that among the names
subscribed to that resolution, are to be found
those of three gentlemen who, in the two
Houses of this Congress have given to the
country an order of talents and a degree of
devotion to the prosperity and harmony of the
Union which have brought them to be know n
and respected throughout the States of it,
while in respect to them all (for it so happens
sir, that I can speak with some confidence on
this point) no equal number of citizens else
where can be found to excel them in a just
comprehension of the duties w’e all owe to a
common government. I have said, sir, that
this compromise is offered now by the weak
er party; shall it be construed to provoke
the resentments of pride ? It is rather to the
more honorable emotions of that sentiment 1
now appeal, confessing that it is with some
mortification that I feel constrained to remind
the force of numbers that it is a high prerog
ative of theirs to be able, justice and modera
tion in view 7, to consult the terms of minori
ties. And I know of no act by w hich this
committee could more usefully to the Union,
not to say more gracefully to themselves, at
test that careful and considerate respect for
both the rights and apprehensions of (lie ex
posed States—so befitting the times —than to
promptly accede to this hitherto tw ice ap
proved and now as ever moderate demand in
behalf of the South. Will we not thus pro
ceed to execute our duty’, so long delayed, to
our dependent provinces and merge the dis
putes which are being so warmly, not to say
harshly, waged over all those measures which
have been hitherto suggested for the same
purpose ? Especially, will those to whom it
is seen to be so favorable—to whose accept
ance it is tendered—and on whose will its
fate depends—incur the responsibility of re
jecting it ?
I have not, Mr. Chairman, overlooked the
fact that this mode of sett lement leaves out of
view the pending contest touching the boun
dary line of the present State of Texas and
New Mexico. 1 propose, for several reasons
to enter now’ a little into the subject. Both
the bill of the Senate—reported by its lately
raised Committee of Thirteen—and that pre
sented to the House by the able and public
spirited chairman of the Committee on For
eign Relations, [Mr. MgCleknand,] provides
for the affirmance to New Mexico, Texas con
senting, of not only her capital and native
settlements, but embrace an additional ces
sion of territory by Texas to this Government,
in consideration ofa certain pecuniary equiv
alent to be paid in the extinguishment ot cer
tain debts of Texas. This proposed cession
of territory is a measure which meets w ith
much opposition from the South. lam not
insensible, sir, of the delicacy ot our relations
to the creditors of Texas, more especially to
that class of them who held pledges of Texas,
at the date of annexation, of the taxes deriva
ble from her customs, which, by her incorpo
ration into the Union, were transferred to us.
And I am free to add that I shall cheerfully
unite with others of the committee in any
proper effort that may be made to provide for
that class of claims. Nay, I will go further,
speaking for myself alone on this point, and
concurringwith what w'as so properly said by j
the honorable member from Tennessee, [Mr. j
Stanton,] in opposition to so extensive a ces
sion by Texas of her territory, add. that it the
genera! character of anv adjustment we may
make shall be of a kind to mete out justice to
the South, I shall feel something akin to sur
prise should she prove uutractable in the matter
of preserving to the ancient and now depend
ent province of New Mexico her capital and
contiguous nati v settlements Indeed, hold-
ing the consent of Texas in view always, and
with the connected object of disembarrassing
the honor and good faith of a nation not only
able to be just, but bound to sedulously guard
its good name—l am tree to sav that should
; the exactions or intolerance ot the non-slave*
! holding States coerce the slaveholding States
! into an extreme tenacity in respect of the
threatened deprivation of New Mexico of her
j capital and contiguous settlements with a
I view to what they may deem paramount con
! siderations of self-security, 1 can but reason
j that a heavier weight of responsibility will
I rest upon those who could have averted it.—
j It would be more acceptable, then, doubtless,
I to the South generally that any payments we
! may feel called on to make the creditors of
I Texas, in view of our interposition between
them and the resources to which they looked
before annexation—now lost to them —rest
on other grounds than the conveyance by her
to us of the large portion of her territory pro
posed to be made. Sir, I take pleasure in an
nouncing that I regard the simple matter of a
few millions of money, be they more or less,
as little, compared v ith the great and absorb
ing issues in hand—public justice—-justice to
others—-justice to ourselves—and the final
pacification, if it be practicable, of all com
plaints. Fanaticism and its guilt and folly
expired, sir, and the once more concentrated
genius and energies of the American people
bent in united hopes on the elaboration of
their stupendous resources, no mere pecunia
ry item in any just settlement we may make
can, by the intnest degree of the nation’s
sensibility to expense, be felt. We can, too,
well trust the security lying in the valuable
and increasing products and to be felt in the
beatings of the warm and American heart, of
Texas, for repayment, in the swelling ratio of
an “hundred-fold,” for any amount which cir
cumstances may render it proper for us to ex
pend in this connection—while the generous
caution, not to say magnanimity of the nation
M ill have been handsomely illustrated by a
suitable general adjustment of all these kind
red topics in which the particular provisions
touching the claims of the ci editors of Texas
and the preservation from final overthrow of
an old and subdued province wdiich the for
tunes of war have placed in our power, shall
be embraced. It will be seen, however, that
I refer guardedly to these delicate topics—
sufficiently distrustful of any suggestions of
mine respecting them—to the committee. I
part from this feature in our public affairs w ith
the confident hope, however, that if we shall
succeed in applying the terms of the Missouri
compromise line to the territories west of the
Rio Grande and disposing of the general sub
jects on hand in other respects suitably, w r e
shall find the adjustment of the now threaten
ing boundary question on terms satisfactory
to all and creditable to the nation itself—not
impracticable.
It is useless, Mr. Chairman, to repeat, that,
in the present posture of the public affairs, the
different sections must bo prepared to make
respective sacrifices. The South, on the pro
posed basis, repeats the waiver of an opinion
which, whether well or ill-founded, concerns
a substantial and highly important claim.—
i Would it not be remarkable that she were not
j sanguine of her right—constitutional and oth
j erwise—to go with her accustomed property
into all parts of the public domain of the Un
ion? She waives this right, on the basis now
proposed, let it be remembered, and at a cost
to her—all things considered—vastly dispro
portionate to any gain that can accrue to oth
ers by her loss of it. It may be possibly in
convenient for, or, in a certain sense repug
nant to, white labor to mingle on the same
theatre with slave labor—on the other hand,
the privilege of expansion is, in its nature, vi
tal perhaps to the existence, certainly to the
prosperity and the security of the South.—
Yet, sir, the opinion has been expressed with
in a few days.past, by w ell-informed members
of this committee, that the Wilmot proviso or
principle of the universal interdiction, by ex
press mandate of this House, of slavery in all
the territories on hand, w ill be enacted the
i present session. The principle of the univer
sal restriction of slaves to the same area in
the bosom of the States holding them, to be
asserted as a rule or postulate of Federal
Councils! I ask that the import and stress of
such a proposition be deliberately w-eighed.
Had it been acted upon from the beginning of
the present Government only, in what a peril
ous if not ruinous strait, would not the more
j central slaveholding States of the Confedera
jcv be this day predicamerited. And, sir, it
; has been said, in justification of the policy
i now threatening us of the universal territorial
! restriction of slavery, that without it the slave
holding States will be tempted to endanger
the peace and character of (he nation with a
view to extending the area of slave labor as an
object . It has been objected, lam aware, by
grave and reflecting statesmen of the North, j
that the free States are now being forcibly
rendered, from time to time, but subsidiary to
the extension of slavery. I bring the argument
with less reluctance into review-, for really, sir
I am conscious that such an opinion is hon
estly entertained, North, by many, and be- ‘
■ cause I am not unconcious that there is a
i certain show of plausibility in it. Will gen- j
j tlcmen who urge this complaint view the sub
ject from another point ot observation ? There j
is more truth and utility, I apprehend, in the i
following presentation of it. That the dread j
of the anti-slavery encroachments of the North
may have, in historical instances, contributed
to set in motion the instincts of self-preseva
tion of the institution and brought them to put
forth their secret energies to escape the !
threatening grasp of a dreaded and lawless
assailant, is too rational to be incredible. I :
know not, no one can know, exactly how that
has been. But it is plain that spasmodic and
involuntary irruptions of the institution on j
contiguous territories must under stress of
threatened confinement be the natural expres
sions of the laws of its self-preservation—the !
only means, indeed, of escape from evils it is j
not in the power ot human courage to delib
eratelv confront. And who, sir, is or is to be !
responsible for this; and what, sir, is the prop- ■
er and practical remedy for the uneasy and
so much complained of movement southward j
and westward of the institution ? Let the j
Government of the Confederacy cease its un- j
natural war upon it and restore confidence in
its security by taking it, to the extent of an v !
power it has over it, under its protection and j
care, as it is, on the plainest principles of du
ty and interest, bound to do. ‘I his done, sir,
and we shall cease to hear of wars gotten up
at the South to propagate slavery. I press
this view on the counsels of northern states
men
But to recur, sir, to *he threatened proviso. 1
I snail not affect to believe that it will pas3
this body, even. Should it do so, however,
ft cannot fail to sink still lower the tone of
southern confidence in the justice and self
control of this Government, and embarrass,
yet more, well-intended efforts to bring the
public dissensions to a favorable solution.—■
Should it, contrary to all hopes, became the
law ol the land, my desire will be to see those
resolutions which have been so unanimously
passed by the • slaveholding States to resist it
put into complete and final execution. Can it
be expected that the slave-holding States of
this Union will submit to such action on the
part of their common government as not onlv
degrades them from an original historical and
a still conventional equality in it, but which
in possible not to say probable contingencies,
will be substantially impracticable from the
very nature of its terms ? Repeal, or immedi
ate resistance, at all hazards, should be the
prompt and distinct reception South, as it
seems to me, of such a measure.
Sir, may we not hope that we shall have
no such unjust and proscriptive procedure as
would be this proviso; and that henceforth it
will be remembered by the nation only wrffh
condemnation tor the dissensions and mischief
the appearance of it lias already produced,
and with a stern coneiousness that it has been
detenninately and lorever banished from the
councils ol the Government ? This point made
sir, and it remains for the justice, the wisdom
not to say a certain timely caution, of numer
ical majorities, to adopt measures of adjust
ment suited to the various exigencies of tho
public affairs. There can be no exclusive
claim, certainly, upon us of any one mode of
reaching desired results. Is there another
than the one under notice, which, while it
will approximate justice and give satisfaction
to half of the States of the Union, will exact
less onerous terms of the residue ? If so, we
ow-e it to each other to adopt it at once. I
can but fear that neither of the alternatives
now in view is likely to prove to be such a
measure.
And here, sir, it may be allowable to re
mark, that to act wisely, we must bear in
thought tor whom we are to act, and on what
we are to act. Respect being had to the ro
bust and high sense of rights we are accus
tomed to regard as a flattering characteristic
ot the people of these States—respect being
had to the voluntary and unconstrained na
ture of their Union, at once its chief value
and greatest ornament, we shall comprehend
how it is that the very worst settlement of this
sectional controversy, capable of being enforc
ed, is that which would be with the greatest re
luctance endured. We should bear in mind
that alienation by a law of the human mind
follows on distrust and the sense of danger
—and that an alienation, final and complete
—is the simple dissolution of the Union. —
And if, in the natural w-orld, the strongest
cord is broken by the parting of the several
fibres of w hich it is composed, and the leaves
are freshly green on the branches of the tree,
the root of which is cut by the fatal w-orin,
we should be the more distrustful of that tes
timony, touching our true relations as confed
erates, which is furnished by the clumsy tests
of occasional prejudiced or superficial obser
vations. Sources of union so strictly intel
lectual and moral in their nature, may be sap
ped and dissolved, we may reason, by covert
and stealtldy causes which the profoundest
philosophy can only detect, but cannot with
accuracy estimate. But our case is consol
able.
NO. 28.
M e hearitsaid that we may ‘part in peace,*
and so we may, sir. But will we, sir, part in
peace? Shall those who have proved them
selves incapable of enjoyment, in union, the
most consumate prosperity and happiness ev
er alotted to a people since the birth of histo
ry, dissevered, endure in harmony and quiet,
a thousand points of hourly and trying con
tact? No, sir; separated, the sword, look
ing to probabilities, will be at once the arbi
ter of justice and the punigher of wrong. And
we have, too, sir, nicely balanced estimates
of our comparative powers of harming each
other in a state of angry separation. Aye,
sir, we are all, North, South, East and West,
sufficiently potent for evil. Beyond a doubt,
we may contrive to greatly damage each oth
er. Let us have the manliness and courage
to not deceive ourselves. If we are, indeed,
i losing our present central point of political
gravity, to swing off* into new orbits of move
ment, without desiring in the slightest degree
to exaggerate the importance of our relations
! to other nations, or to indulge the vain and
j maw kish sentimentality that the cause of free
institutions is to become extinct, as a conse
quence of any suicidal folly of ours,it may be
j affirmed that Christendom will feel the shocks
of our dismemberment and the passing shad
ows of the fragments of the Union fall on the
disk of the political dial in every civilized
country embraced within it.
If the object, then, be to perpetuate the Un
ion in which we have so eminently and so
j happily prospered, it is the familiar dictate of
J common prudence to study its exposed points,
i and in lieu of testing its powers of enduranco
by presuming on the patience of its members,
I to strengthen their cohesion by conforming our
i action, as best we justly may, to their will.
| And if, too, the ideas of the age of human ac
j countability be not all a falacy, sir—if thero
j be anything in memory worth being preserv
ed, or in the prospects of the future which be
longs to hope—if it be desirable to press on
; in tried and prospering ways rather than di
j verge into unknown and perilous paths—if
i unparalleled prosperity be preferable to novel,
j not to say portentous, experiments, feeling, sir,
as 1 hope I do, a proper share of responsibility
! for whatever transpires here, I must say that
there can be no folly more stupendous than wo
j shall have displayed, and, lam tempted to add,
i no guilt greater than w illhave been perpetrated
in our failure to effect a just and satisfactory
determination of the existing issues. And
does it not become those who—not to indulge
1 reproaches—have brought into the Govern
j ment the element which is endangering it and
with whom circumstances have peculiarly
lodged the remedy, to look well to the vast
train of inexplorable consequences and con
nected responsibilities which, in the eventof
the dissolution of the Union, lie in thereveal
ings of the future history of the States w hich
now compose it ? It was well exclaimed, sir,...
bv an able and eloquent member of this com
mittee, [Mr. Toombs, of Georgia,] in discuss
ing the mighty theme of the continuance or
dissolution of this Union, on a previous day of
our sittings. “When the day of retribution
comes, let the aggressor tremble.” But, sir,
I cannot but turn to more encouraging views
of the future fortunes of our Republic. It is
our duty, sir, to hope that the sense of the na
tion will rise above the mists which, for tho
present, obscure its reckonings, and quieting
well-lounded complaints, by removing* the
cause of them, recover its course es prosperi
ty and peace.
‘Did you e-\ #r know any body to b© killed
by lightning V ‘Never by lightning, 1 replied
Pat. man under tone ‘lt's thunder, shnre,
a knocks ‘an to pieces in the cold counthry.’