Chapter 31

But I came here with the single purpose of accomplishing the settlement of one or two important questions. Permit me, once for all, and for the last time, to tell the gentlemen from New Hampshire and Connecticut, that they wholly misunderstand the import of the action of the Legislature of Kentucky, and the views of the "Louisville Journal." I have said, before, that in view of the fact that Congress could not settle our difficulties, the Legislature of Kentucky asked for a National Convention, as our only hope of making an adjustment. After this came the invitation of Virginia, like a bright beam of hope. Virginia invited you all, New York, New Hampshire, and Massachusetts, and the other States, to meet and consult for the public safety. If you did not wish to secure our common safety, you should not have accepted her invitation.

Mr. BOUTWELL:--Then we are to understand that if we do not favor the CRITTENDEN resolutions, we should not have come here at all.

Mr. WICKLIFFE:--I say nothing of the kind. But I insist that you should tell us now, what the conclusion is to which you have arrived. We want to know what you gentlemen, representing the Northern States, intend to do. Give us your votes. We have had enough of discussion, which amounts to nothing. If you will consent to no arrangement, let us know it now. We have a duty to perform toward our own people. We wish to relieve them from suspense, so that they may determine what their future course shall be, in view of the fact that you will do nothing for them.

Mr. COOK:--If Illinois had understood that she was only to come here for the purpose of agreeing to the propositions of Virginia as announced in the resolutions which accompanied her invitation, the Conference may be assured that Illinois would not have appeared here at all. She understood that she was invited to a _Conference_, in which all the States were to meet upon a basis of perfect equality. The very resolutions of the Legislature of Illinois, under which we received our appointments, assert that their adoption is not to be regarded as an assent to the resolutions of Virginia.

We think we are not passing the limits of propriety, when we insist that we should be permitted to state the views and opinions of the people of Illinois, on the questions which this Conference proposes to decide. To state what we will and what we will not concede. There seems to be an unwillingness to give us this permission. If the people are now ready to give their sanction to the propositions contained in the Virginia resolutions, they would send delegates here who would accept these propositions without debate or discussion. They have not yet done so. If they intended to limit our right of private judgment, they have certainly not yet expressed any such intention. They understand, and we have not forgotten, that there is a broad distinction between the guaranty of old rights and the creation of new ones.

We now understand just what the South proposes. The question is plainly and distinctly presented to us, whether we will assent to a constitutional recognition of the right to hold slaves in a portion of the Territories of the United States. It is not a question of prohibition at all. We are required to assert the affirmative right of holding slaves independent of State laws, and under the Constitution.

Gentlemen present us this question, and coolly tell us we want no more discussion, no more arguments, no examination of our respective rights under or outside the Constitution. We wish you to tell us at once whether you will assent to our wishes or not. If you will not, then comes some dark insinuations about going home to their people, and certain consequences are to follow, of the precise nature of which we are not informed.

Gentlemen, when was the sanction of the American people ever secured to an important proposition in such a way as this? If we are not to exercise our judgment, and act according to its dictates, upon every proposal of amendment here presented, then, for one, I care not how soon our deliberations end. Until we better understand our relative positions than we seem to at present, I do not see much use in prolonging the discussion.

Mr. EWING:--Some concession must be expected from both sides, or we cannot agree. As a Northern man, I feel it to be my duty to get these propositions made as acceptable to the North as I can, and then to ensure their submission to the people. Even then, we are not committed to the support of these propositions, though I myself should feel so to some extent. A single question is now presented to us. Shall we accept these propositions when they are perfected as far as they can be, or shall we submit to a dissolution of the Union? I am willing to say that I will yield my personal opinions for the purpose of concession, and I do not think I show myself an inferior man by doing so. In all disputes, the firmest men are the first to yield. Let a man be firm as a rock in battle, but conciliatory in council; especially in such a council as this, where the lives of millions may be concerned. There is a firmness which is but another name for imprudence--for rashness. Take the case of a railroad collision. One engineer may have the right of track; it may be the duty of all others to recognize that right, and not interfere with his exercising it. But, if another gets on to it, he who has the right would not be justified, if, in its exercise, he ran blindly on, and produced a collision, destroying the lives of his passengers, when he could have avoided the collision. So it is here. We may be right--the North may be right; but we should not hazard the existence of the Union by a determination to exercise that right at all events, when, by some slight concessions, we could save the Union. Let us use our judgments--let us act in view of the facts here presented, with that prudence and discrimination which we apply to the ordinary affairs of life, and all will yet be well.

Mr. KING:--I have not spoken hitherto, and should not now say a word, but for the remark of the gentleman from Kentucky. I come here as one of the representatives of the State of New York. As such I am the equal--the peer of any representative of any other State on this floor. I do not intend to be lectured into or intimidated from doing any thing which my judgment tells me I should not do, or should do.

Speaking for New York, I say that she holds her allegiance to the Constitution and the Government of the United States above and beyond any other political duty or obligation. With this obligation always before them, her representatives have come here to consult with you upon the present condition of the country. I am as old as the gentleman from Kentucky. I recognize no right in him to lecture me on my political duties. I revere the Constitution of my country. I was educated to love it, and my own father helped to make it. I cannot sit still and hear such declarations as have been hourly repeated here for the last few days.

Mr. SEDDON:--Does the gentleman consider this a consolidated Government or a confederation of States?

Mr. KING:--I consider this a confederation of States under the Constitution, and that in all that respects the General Government, every good citizen owes an allegiance to it above and beyond that which he owes to his State or to any other political authority. And that statement comprises nearly all I wish to say. The State of New York at all times, in peace or war, has been loyal to the Constitution; and, although some of her representatives here may undertake to make you think differently, she always will be. Yes! loyal with all her strength and power! And as one of her representatives, I shall yield nothing on her part to threats, menaces, or intimidations. I believe the Constitution as it now stands gives you guarantees enough--all you ought to have.

Mr. GOODRICH:--I ought not to permit this vote to be taken, without a word of reply to the remarks of the gentleman from North Carolina. The impression would certainly be derived from his speech that Governor ANDREW, of Massachusetts, approved of the JOHN BROWN raid. This is not true. There is not a particle of truth in the assertion. There is a gentleman here, who heard Governor ANDREW state publicly when he first heard of that raid, that JOHN BROWN must be crazy. It is true that a meeting was held in Boston to raise funds to support the poverty-stricken family of JOHN BROWN. Governor ANDREW, I believe, presided; and a single paragraph taken from some remarks he made on that occasion, has been scattered broadcast over the country. In order to understand what he did say, both the context and what followed it are indispensable. Those were carefully suppressed. The opinions of Governor ANDREW are well known. They are in sympathy with those of the people of Massachusetts. Neither he nor they approved the JOHN BROWN invasion.

Mr. RANDOLPH:--I call the gentleman to order. He is discussing a subject which is strictly personal, having no connection with the report of the committee, or the amendments offered to that report.

The PRESIDENT:--I think the remarks of the gentleman from Massachusetts are not in order.

Mr. GOODRICH:--Well, I cannot proceed in order. I only desired to correct a misapprehension. I do not quite understand why these misrepresentations should be made, and then objections interposed to their correction.

Mr. HOPPIN:--I rise, Mr. President, to address the Conference with great reluctance. If there is a gentleman within the sound of my voice whose heart is full of anxious solicitude for the safety of the country, he will know how to sympathize with me. I do not represent a State containing four millions of people, but one of the smallest in the Union; and yet little Rhode Island has a heart which beats true to the Union. It so happened that she was one of the last to accept the Constitution; but when she did accept it--when she took upon herself its obligations--she became faithful to it, and she has ever since been true.

I feel that my position is peculiar. I cannot judge of other men as some gentlemen do. The North is full of men who do not concur in my opinions upon the question of slavery. I know they are honest and honorable men. I should do injustice to them and to myself, if I believed them to be either corrupt or enemies of the Union and of good government; and it is just the same in the South as in other sections. Looking around me upon these able and patriotic representatives, who come here with full hearts and tell us of their position--of the feelings of their people--of the anxiety and apprehension which is so deeply felt among them, can I believe that these men are dishonest? that they do not mean what they say? No, sir! Nobody can be so unjust and unfair as that.

I think of these questions which we are discussing earnestly and continually. My heart is torn by conflicting emotions. I wish to perform my duty toward all sections, and I do feel sure that something must be done for our southern friends. They wish to remain in the Union--they do not wish to be driven out; and they tell us in all sincerity that something must be done to satisfy their people, or they cannot keep them in the Union. I know that the questions presented here are very embarrassing to the North, but we must decide them. We must do the best we can, and the North will sustain us; our constituents will approve our action.

Rhode Island wishes to act fairly by all. She does not herself, need any amendments to the Constitution; but if her sisters need them, she will consider their necessities. Her delegation here acts unitedly, and it's members are influenced by the same spirit. We have done all we could to bring ourselves to a rational conclusion; and we feel, my friends, as though this body ought never to separate until we come to an agreement--until we come to some compromise which will be satisfactory to all.

I cannot now, in the short time that remains, go into a minute examination of the various points presented. This has been done by abler men. But I do feel that although the questions may be difficult, there are none of them which, as sensible men, we cannot settle. Don't let us forget our great mission and descend into personal abuse. Do not let us forget our high duties. Let us perform them in a friendly and a Christian spirit. Let us look at the facts as they are. Let us not spend our time in trying to find out who struck the first blow, or who is responsible. Let us all unite together in one great, final effort to save the country and the Union.

As matters now stand, we who represent Rhode Island can see no way more desirable than to vote for and support the report of the committee. And yet we do not insist upon that report. Show us any thing better, and we will go for it. But we will do nothing to widen the breach--we will do all we can to heal it. My friends, I say once more, let us go to work earnestly, and do not let us separate and go to our homes, until we can carry with us the glorious news that we have healed up all dissensions and adopted a plan that will secure the Union and make it perpetual.

Mr. CROWNINSHIELD:--I understand that the proposition of the gentleman from Iowa is to restore the Missouri Compromise. If so, does not his proposition commend itself to the Conference as one that will command the respect and support of the country? I have asked, many others have asked, what is the cause of our present difficulties? The question meets no direct reply--no definite answer. The repeal of the Missouri Compromise is referred to, hinted at, as the principal cause. If an answer were extorted, I think it would be, the repeal of that Compromise.

The history of the Missouri Compromise is so simple that we all understand it. Southern men forced the measure upon the North. The few northern men who voted for it were swept out of their political existence at the election which followed its passage. Which section is responsible for its repeal--the North or the South? You say its repeal was moved by a northern man. Very true! But he was a northern man who had adopted southern principles, and who sought to secure the favor of the South by this act. Southern men supported his proposition and carried it through Congress against the votes and the remonstrances of the North.

The South, then, established and destroyed the Missouri Compromise. The South wishes to have its provisions restored. Why, then, are you not satisfied to have it put into the Constitution, and so make it permanent and perpetual, if the North will consent to it? Are the circumstances of the South so much changed? If it was equitable in 1820, _à fortiori_ it ought to be equitable in 1861. Territory has been acquired since 1820, it is true, but it is all or nearly all, south of the compromise line. Restore the Missouri Compromise and this territory will be devoted to southern institutions. What territory has been acquired since? Will gentlemen reply, "Oregon"? I insist that Oregon was virtually acquired before. It only required the final agreement upon a boundary line.

If there is any proposition in which the North can concur--any that will restore harmony between the North and the South--it is the restoration of the Missouri Compromise. If any other is proposed less favorable or just to the North, I do not believe the people will adopt it.

I am not insensible to the condition of the country. Neither are my colleagues, nor the constituents they represent. But you must not expect us here, in the worst emergency you can imagine, to forget or throw away the rights of our people. If we consent to support this amendment, it is as far as we can go. You ought not to ask us to go farther.

Mr. DENT:--I will only occupy one moment. Maryland has spoken in language which satisfies me. As I understand him, I concur in what my colleague has said.

Now the nut is to be cracked. The majority report proposes to give up three-fourths of our territory to the North absolutely, retaining the little balance for the South. The amendment proposes to pick the kernel out of the balance, and to leave the husks to us. To that we shall agree when we are compelled to; not before.

Mr. JOHNSON, of Missouri:--The Supreme Court has already decided, in terms which are not ambiguous, that Congress has no right, under the Constitution, to prohibit slavery in the Territories. Now, our brethren of the North propose to give us the Missouri Compromise. What do they mean? Do they intend to give us a substantial right--one that we can enforce and rely upon, or do they intend to keep it from us? They are shrewd as well as honorable men. They know that the effect of this amendment will be to leave the territory south of the line, without the slightest acknowledgment or guaranty, just where it is at the present time, so far as slavery is concerned.

The construction placed upon the Missouri Compromise was, that the prohibition of slavery north of the line which it established, implied the right of holding slaves south of the line. At the time of its adoption there was, in respect of this construction, no difference of opinion: Such was the construction of Mr. WEBSTER.

Now you propose to leave it still for Congress to legislate as to the territory south. You secure that north, by a prohibition in the Constitution; you will get that south, by the action of Congress.

The decision in the Dred Scott case may be reversed. It afforded no permanent protection. One of your leaders (Mr. WILMOT) says he will war against it. The gentleman from New York (Mr. SMITH) denies the force of the decision in this respect. Now, gentlemen, all we of the South want, is to have this question settled. You know well that the adoption of this amendment, so far from settling it, leaves it all open; or rather it settles the question North, and leaves it open South. The country is in danger--that all concede. Will you, because you do not agree in opinion with the Supreme Court, refuse to join us in one more effort to save the country?

Mr. CLAY:--I have not unnecessarily occupied a moment of the time of this Conference, and it is not now my intention to occupy the whole ten minutes to which I am entitled. But I do wish to express some of the opinions which I entertain upon the questions immediately under our consideration. "Red Gauntlet" has been cited as an authority in this body, but I think I might cite another of the same class which would be more in point. It is the "Bleak House," by Charles Dickens, in which the circumlocution office is so graphically described. It would be decidedly more appropriate to our present action.

Why have we come together? What brought us here? We have come to devise the means of saving a distracted and bleeding country. What the South asks you to do, is, to recognize the property which her citizens possess; and when they take that property to the Territories, to secure its protection there, or rather to protect it south of the line of 36° 30´. Will you do it? Are you going to do it? If you intend to recognize our property south of this line, write it down so plain that my constituents can understand it--so that they will not be cheated. If you intend to do nothing, let us know it at once. We will then know what to expect, and how to advise our people.

The question of slavery is but an incident to the great questions which are at the bottom of our divisions. Such differences have brought war after war upon Europe. It is, after all, the old question of the balance of power between the different sections and different interests. Who does not remember that in 1832 and 1833 the Tariff brought up the same questions? Why did South Carolina then threaten to nullify? Because nullification then, was one of the effects which the disregard of the rights of a section caused.

The South have always insisted upon terms of equality with the North. To this equality no one can deny she is justly entitled. So long as new States came in _pari passu_, North and South, she was satisfied. When this equilibrium was disturbed, she began to insist upon guarantees. Now, when you propose to put the point of equilibrium out of sight altogether, the South insists upon these guarantees, as not only necessary, but indispensable to her safety. This is right and fair. The North would insist upon the same thing, under like circumstances.

Gentlemen from the North have complained here that we have not stated exactly what would satisfy us. We have told you what we wanted over and over again. We want the CRITTENDEN resolutions. We told you that, when we first came here. We have now been here for nearly four weeks, and the CRITTENDEN amendment has never once been submitted to a vote. Since our difficulties first assumed importance, there has never been a measure of pacification suggested which has met with such a measure of acceptance as the CRITTENDEN resolutions. State after State has sent petitions to Congress asking for their adoption. Almost the entire South, with Virginia, the Mother of States, in the advance, tells you that these resolutions will be an acceptable measure of pacification, and yet you will not give us a vote upon them; you will scarcely consent to consider them. Even the committee, whose report is so unsatisfactory to the North (and a portion of the South also), does not appear to have given them much attention.

Mr. President, in behalf of the South, I think I know what to say. If our differences are to be settled at all, we must have our property in our slaves in the Territories recognized; and when that property is constitutionally recognized, it must be constitutionally protected. Such, I know, are the sentiments of the people of Kentucky.

Mr. ALLEN:--I wish to ask the attention of the Conference for only one moment to the true aspect of the question now before us. We are asked if we will suffer the Union to be destroyed on account of the Territory of New Mexico. Let me ask these gentlemen who it is that proposes to break up and destroy the Union? It is the South--it is _not_ the North. But all that I pass by.

If it were merely a question of who should have the beneficial possession of our present unoccupied territory, we would give that up at once to the South. But it is not a question of possession at all. It is _the_ question which shall control and give direction to the policy of the country--the institutions of Slavery or the institutions of Freedom! You ask for a provision in the Constitution which will place that policy under the control of the institutions of slavery. This we cannot grant you.

We of the North stand where our fathers did, who resisted the Stamp Act; who threw overboard the tea in Boston harbor. We have been taught to resist the smallest beginnings of evil; that this is the true policy. _Obsta principii_ was the motto of our fathers. It is ours. The debates of this Conference, and those of the Convention of 1787, will stand in a strange contrast to each other.

Mr. BALDWIN:--I now offer the minority report of the committee, with the accompanying resolutions as an amendment to--

The PRESIDENT:--The gentleman from Connecticut is not in order.

The vote was then taken by States, upon the amendment offered by Mr. CURTIS, to the substitute proposed by Mr. FRANKLIN, for the first article of the section reported by the General Committee, with the following result:

AYES.--Maine, Vermont, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Iowa, and New York--6.

NOES.--New Hampshire, Rhode Island, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, Tennessee, Kentucky, Missouri, and Ohio--12.

And the amendment was lost.

Mr. CORNING:--I dissent from the vote of New York.

Mr. WILMOT:--I wish to be recorded as voting Aye!

Mr. DODGE:--I dissent; I am against the amendment.